Mattering, substance use, and addictive behaviors: review, analysis, and implications for treatment and prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current article, we examine mattering to others as a relational resource and discuss how feelings of not mattering are uniquely implicated in addiction and substance use. We describe the mattering construct and how it is conceptualized, and we comprehensively review existing evidence based primarily on research with adolescents that links feelings of not mattering with addictive tendencies in general, and specific tendencies (e.g., excessive drinking and drug use and excessive social media use). A central premise of this article is the need to take race and ethnicity into account when considering the potential link between feelings of not mattering and substance use among young people with minority status and various ethnicities who may be especially prone to feeling marginalized and insignificant as a result of adverse experiences reflecting being ostracized and not socially accepted. Potential models of drinking and addictive tendencies that can easily incorporate the mattering construct are also outlined to underscore the conceptual relevance of feelings of not mattering to others. Mattering is also considered in terms of how internalization (i.e., not mattering to oneself) potentiates impulsive and risky behavior. Our article concludes with discussion of the implications for treatment and prevention in addiction and substance use and directions for future research that should further illuminate the role of feelings of not mattering to others and not mattering to oneself.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".