Social Influences on Binge Drinking in Emerging Adults: Which Social Network Members Matter Most?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Binge drinking peaks in emerging adulthood and is associated with a myriad of negative consequences. Research indicates that social network members have a significant influence on binge drinking. In particular, theory suggests that drinking habits of romantic partners and peers have a stronger influence on emerging-adult binge drinking than do drinking habits of siblings and parents. We investigated the relative influences of siblings, parents, romantic partners, and peers on emerging adults’ binge drinking using a multisource design and a robust measure of binge drinking. We hypothesized peer and romantic partner binge drinking would more strongly predict emerging-adult (egos) binge drinking than would parent and sibling binge drinking. Methods We recruited 321 participants (egos) aged 17–25 years, alongside 882 members of their social network (alters). Egos and alters completed self-report measures of binge drinking (frequency, quantity, and self-perception). Results Structural equation modeling revealed that the direct positive effect from romantic partner binge drinking to ego binge drinking was significant. In contrast, the direct effects from peer, parent, and sibling binge drinking to ego binge drinking were nonsignificant. Conclusion In emerging adulthood, romantic partners appear to have the strongest association with ego binge 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".