Is It More Feeling or Thinking? The Influence of Affective and Cognitive Attitude on Adolescents’ Intention to Engage in Binge Drinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has revealed that interventions aiming to reduce adolescent binge drinking commonly focus on cognitive attitudes, but are insufficiently effective in changing binge-drinking intentions. The focus on these cognitive attitudes might be the reason for this insufficient success. That is, other work has revealed that affective attitudes have a stronger influence on binge-drinking intention than cognitive attitudes. However, this relation has so far only been found among traditional college students and pre-vocational school students, therewith neglecting another important population at risk, namely vocational community college students. This study examines whether affective attitudes are also significantly stronger influencers of binge-drinking intentions among vocational community college students. Using a sample of 298 vocational community college students (Mage = 17.63), the current study shows that affective attitudes were more strongly related to vocational community college students’ intention to engage in binge drinking than cognitive attitudes. This finding indicates that the effectiveness of interventions targeting adolescent binge drinking can be improved by incorporating content elements concerning affective attitudes.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".