Cross‐cultural comparisons of drinking motives in 10 countries: Data from the DRINC project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: This study tested the measurement invariance of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised Short Form (DMQ-R-SF) in undergraduates across 10 countries. We expected the four-factor structure to hold across countries, and for social motives to emerge as the most commonly endorsed motive, followed by enhancement, coping and conformity motives. We also compared individualistic and collectivistic countries to examine potential differences in the endorsement of drinking motives when countries were divided according to this broad cultural value. DESIGN AND METHODS: A sample of 8478 undergraduate drinkers from collectivistic (Portugal, Mexico, Brazil, Spain; n = 1567) and individualistic (Switzerland, Hungary, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, and the USA; n = 6911) countries completed the DMQ-R-SF. Countries were classified as individualistic or collectivistic based on world-wide norms. RESULTS: Using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, the 4-factor model of the DMQ-R-SF showed configural and metric invariance across all 10 countries. As predicted, the rank order of undergraduates' drinking motive endorsement was identical across countries (social > enhancement > coping > conformity), although a mixed model analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction where undergraduates from individualistic countries more strongly endorsed social and enhancement motives relative to undergraduates from collectivistic countries. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There was broad cross-cultural consistency in the factor structure and mean patterns of drinking motives. Undergraduate students appear to drink mainly for positive reinforcement (i.e. for social and enhancement reasons), although this tendency is particularly pronounced among those from more individualistic countries. [Mackinnon SP, Couture M-E, Cooper ML, Kuntsche E, O'Connor RM, Stewart SH, and the DRINC Team. Cross-cultural comparisons of drinking motives in 10 countries: Data from the DRINC project.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".