Similarity in Romantic Couples’ Drinking Motivations and Drinking Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Research suggests that enhancement, conformity, social, coping-with-anxiety, and coping-with-depression drinking motives are linked to specific drinking outcomes in a theoretically expected manner. Social learning theory suggests that people who spend more time together emulate each other's behavior to acquire reinforcing outcomes. The present study sought to integrate drinking motives theory and social learning theory to investigate similarity in drinking behaviors and drinking motives in romantic couples. We hypothesized that couples would be more similar than chance in their drinking behaviors and motives. We also hypothesized that demographics reflecting time around and interactions with romantic partners (e.g., days spent drinking together) would positively correlate with similarity in drinking behaviors and motivations. Methods The present study tested hypotheses in 203 romantic couples. Participants completed a Timeline Follow-Back measure and the Modified Drinking Motives Questionnaire—Revised to track their alcohol use and drinking motives. Similarity profiles were calculated using McCrae's ( J Pers Assess. 2008;90:105–109) coefficient of profile agreement, r pa . Results Couples were more similar in their drinking behavioral and motivational profiles than could be explained by chance. Days spent drinking together and days with face-to-face contact predicted increased similarity in drinking behavior profiles, but not similarity in drinking motives profiles. Conclusions Results are partially consistent with social learning theory and suggest that social influences within couples could be important intervention targets to prevent escalations in drinking.
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) | 0.000 | 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".