Coping and Conformity Motives Mediate the Joint Effects of the Behavioral Inhibition and Approach Systems on Alcohol Problems in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gray’s original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) posits that an oversensitive behavioral inhibition system (BIS) may increase risk for negative-reinforcement-motivated drinking, given its role in anxiety. However, existing data provides mixed support for the BIS-alcohol use association. The inconsistent evidence is not surprising, as the revised RST predicts that the behavioral approach system (BAS) should moderate the effect of the BIS on alcohol use. A strong BAS is thought to bring attention to the negatively reinforcing effects of alcohol, leading to problem drinking among those with a strong BIS. While emerging results support this interaction, we still have much to learn about the mechanisms underlying this effect on alcohol use. Accordingly, we examined motives for alcohol use as mediators of the joint associations of the BIS and the BAS on drinking behaviors. Specifically, our central hypothesis was that individuals with a strong BIS and a strong BAS would endorse increased negative reinforcement motives for drinking (coping and conformity motives), which in turn would predict heavy drinking and alcohol problems. Method: Participants (N=346; 195 women) completed study measures as part of the baseline assessment for a larger study. Results: Overall, results partially supported the hypotheses. Mediated moderation analyses showed that the indirect effect of the BIS on alcohol problems, through coping and conformity motives, was strongest at high levels of the BAS. This effect was not supported for alcohol use. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that clinical interventions should target coping and conformity reasons for drinking among anxious, reward responsive, young adults.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".