Longitudinal Associations between Sensation Seeking and Its Components and Alcohol Use in Young SWISS Men—Are There Bidirectional Associations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between alcohol use and sensation seeking is well known. Less is known about whether longitudinal changes in alcohol use are associated with changes in sensation seeking and in which direction influence might flow. 5125 men aged 20.0 years old at baseline and 25.4 years old at follow-up responded to the Brief Sensation Seeking Questionnaire, which measures four subscales of experience seeking, boredom susceptibility, thrill- and adventure-seeking, and disinhibition. Alcohol use was measured using volume (drinks per week) and binge drinking (about 60 g or more per occasion). Associations were calculated using cross-lagged panel models and two-wave latent change score models. Correlations between the latent change scores for alcohol use and the sensation-seeking subscales were all positive, being largest for disinhibition (r > 0.3) and much smaller (r ~ 0.1) for the others. Disinhibition was the dominant effect over the entire sensation-seeking scale. Cross-lagged paths were (except for thrill- and adventure-seeking) bidirectional and mostly higher from alcohol use to sensation seeking (e.g., pathvolume-disinhibition = 0.136, and pathdisinhibition-volume = 0.072). Again, effects were highest for disinhibition. Given the bidirectional links between sensation seeking and alcohol use, preventive efforts aiming to achieve stable positive changes in alcohol use and personality should target both simultaneously and focus on disinhibition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".