Problematic social media use and alcohol expectancies in early adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol expectancies are beliefs regarding positive (e.g., tension reduction) or negative (e.g., loss of motor coordination) effects of alcohol. Based on Social Learning Theory, social media can influence alcohol expectancies in adolescents. In particular, problematic social media use - which can reflect elements of addiction, including mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse - could be linked to alcohol expectancies. We aimed to determine the associations between problematic social media use and alcohol expectancies in a national (U.S.) cohort of 10-14-year-old early adolescents. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (N = 9,008) at the Year 2 assessment (2018-2020). Unadjusted and adjusted linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the associations between problematic social media use and alcohol expectancies (positive and negative), adjusting for race/ethnicity, sex, household income, parent education, sexual orientation, parental marital status, and study site. Furthermore, we computed marginal predicted probabilities to aid in interpreting findings. RESULTS: The sample was 48.7% female and racially and ethnically diverse (43.0% non-White), with a mean age of 12.02 ± 0.66 years old. In models adjusted for confounders including both time spent on social media and problematic social media use, time spent on social media was not associated with positive or negative alcohol expectancies, but higher problematic social media use score was associated with higher positive (B = 0.045, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.020-0.069) and negative (B = 0.072, 95% CI 0.043-0.101) alcohol expectancies scores. CONCLUSION: Problematic social media use was associated with both positive and negative alcohol expectancies in a demographically diverse national sample of early adolescents in the U.S. Given the small effect sizes of the current study, future studies should further examine these relationships prospectively, as well as the mechanisms linking problematic social media use to alcohol expectancies and alcohol consumption. Because alcohol expectancies are modifiable and linked with alcohol initiation, they could be a target for future prevention efforts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".