Drinking Motives Predict Subjective Effects of Alcohol and Alcohol Wanting and Liking During Laboratory Alcohol Administration: A Mediated Pathway Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motivational models of alcohol use suggest that individual differences in sensitivity to the acute subjective effects of alcohol play an important role in motivational pathways to alcohol use. However, few studies have examined the link between drinking motives and subjective responses to alcohol. This study investigated the associations of coping and enhancement drinking motives with subjective stimulant and sedative effects during a laboratory alcohol administration session. We also examined whether stimulation and sedation following alcohol administration mediated the relationships between drinking motives and postalcohol ratings of alcohol wanting and liking. METHODS: Heavy episodic drinkers (n = 147, ages 19 to 25) at 2 sites participated in an intravenous alcohol administration session in which blood alcohol concentration was raised to a target of 80 mg% over 20 minutes. Participants completed measures of stimulation and sedation at baseline and 20 minutes and also rated alcohol liking and wanting at 20 minutes. Drinking motives and alcohol use were assessed during a previous laboratory visit. RESULTS: A path analysis controlling for baseline stimulation and sedation showed that enhancement motives were positively associated with postalcohol stimulation and negatively associated with postalcohol sedation. In contrast, coping motives were positively associated with postalcohol sedation. In turn, postalcohol stimulation, but not sedation, was associated with alcohol wanting and liking. Further, indirect pathways from enhancement motives to postalcohol wanting and liking mediated through postalcohol stimulation were statistically significant. Coping motives, on the other hand, were directly associated with increased postalcohol wanting and liking. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that drinking motives are linked with individual differences in sensitivity to the effects of alcohol, which may serve as a mechanism underlying alcohol reinforcement and the motivation to consume more alcohol during a drinking episode.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".