Impulsivity, working memory, and impaired control over alcohol: A latent variable analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impaired control over alcohol is an important risk factor for heavy drinking among young adults and may mediate, in part, the association between personality risk and alcohol problems. Research suggests that trait impulsivity is associated with impaired control over alcohol; however, few studies of this association have included a range of impulsivity facets. The purpose of this study was to examine specific pathways from higher order impulsivity factors to alcohol problems mediated via impaired control over alcohol. We also examined the moderating role of working memory in these associations. Young heavy drinkers (N = 300) completed 2 multidimensional impulsivity measures along with self-report measures of impaired control over alcohol, alcohol use, and alcohol problems. Working memory was assessed using a computerized digit span task. Results showed that the impulsivity facets loaded onto 2 higher order factors that were labeled Response and Reflection Impulsivity. Response impulsivity predicted unique variance in self-reported impaired control and alcohol problems, whereas reflection impulsivity predicted unique variance in heavy drinking frequency only. Further, significant indirect associations were observed from response and reflection impulsivity to alcohol problems mediated via impaired control and heavy drinking frequency, respectively. Working memory and sensation seeking were not uniquely associated with the alcohol variables, and no support was found for the moderating role of working memory. The results help to clarify associations among impulsivity, impaired control, and alcohol problems, suggesting that impaired control may play a specific role in the pathway to alcohol problems from response impulsivity but not from reflection impulsivity. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".