Intra‐ and Interindividual Variability in the Behavioral, Affective, and Perceptual Effects of Alcohol Consumption in a Social Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the influence of interindividual differences in alcohol use on the intraindividual associations of drinking occurrence with interpersonal behaviors, affect, and perceptions of others during naturally occurring social interactions. METHODS: = 20.7 years, SD = 2.18) recorded their behaviors, affect, and perceptions in social interactions soon after an interpersonal event occurred. Interpersonal behaviors and perceptions were assessed in terms of dominance-submissiveness and agreeableness-quarrelsomeness. Participants also reported the number of alcoholic drinks consumed within 3 hours of each interaction. We considered the intraindividual associations of (i) having a drinking episode and (ii) the number of drinks during an episode with behaviors, affect, and perceptions and examined interindividual differences in drinking frequency and intensity during social interactions as potential moderators of these associations. RESULTS: Social drinking frequency and intensity moderated the associations between drinking episode and behaviors, affect, and perceptions in social interactions. During a drinking episode, more frequent social drinkers perceived others as more dominant than less frequent social drinkers. During a drinking episode in which more alcohol was consumed than usual, more frequent social drinkers also reported behaving more dominantly and experiencing less pleasant affect. CONCLUSIONS: As more frequent social drinkers had different interpersonal responses to drinking than less frequent social drinkers, including when they had consumed larger amounts of alcohol than usual, our results suggest a differential susceptibility to the effects of alcohol during naturally occurring social interactions among drinkers with varying drinking frequency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".