The direct effect of drinking to cope on alcohol problems is not mediated by alcohol consumption: Invariance across gender and countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drinking to cope with negative affect confers a direct risk of alcohol problems independently of greater alcohol consumption (i.e., confers susceptibility to the alcohol harm paradox). However, it remains unclear whether this risk is common across gender and countries. The current study applied path analysis to two cross-sectional samples of 18–25-year-old undergraduate hazardous drinking students recruited from the UK (Study 1; N = 873) and internationally (Study 2; N = 4064 recruited in Argentina, Canada, South Africa, Spain, Uruguay, USA, and England). The Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ) measured drinking to cope with negative affect and drinking to enhance positive affect (i.e., enhancement motives). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) measured alcohol consumption and problems. In both studies, drinking to cope with negative affect had a direct effect on alcohol problems (S1: β = 0.259, SE = 0.031, p <.001; S2: β = 0.255, SE = 0.017, p <.001), and only a negligible proportion of this effect was mediated by alcohol consumption (S1: 2.58 %, p =.550; S2: 0.79 %, p=.538). By contrast, drinking to enhance positive affect had a smaller direct effect on alcohol problems (S1: β = 0.000, SE = 0.033, p =.989; S2: β = 0.044, SE = 0.017, p =.009), and a substantial proportion of this effect was mediated by greater alcohol consumption (S1: 99.76 %, p <.001; S2: 60.36 %, p <.001). Crucially, in both studies, the direct effect of drinking to cope on alcohol problems was invariant across gender and countries. These findings suggest that individuals who endorse drinking to cope with negative affect are uniquely susceptible to the alcohol harm paradox, that is, greater alcohol problems which cannot be explained by greater alcohol consumption, and this susceptibility is common across gender and countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".