Does Avoidant Coping Influence Young Adults' Smoking?: A Ten-Year Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Young adults who avoid their emotions may be at risk for starting smoking or not quitting smoking. This study investigated whether a preliminary measure of avoidant coping longitudinally predicts young adults' smoking escalation and cessation. METHODS: In a sample of the 3,305 participants, originally from Washington State, a preliminary measure of self-reported avoidant coping at age 18 was used to predict both smoking escalation and cessation at ages 20 and 28 with both probability and logistic regression models (10-year retention: 98.5%). RESULTS: Individuals who scored high on avoidant coping at 18 were 2.52 (p = .001) times more likely to acquire smoking by 20. However, there was no evidence that avoidant coping at age 18 predicted smoking escalation at 28 or cessation for 20- and 28-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: An avoidant coping style may have a short-term effect on young adults' smoking acquisition. Future research using a precise and well-validated measure of avoidant coping is now needed to test this possibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".