Associations between Shyness and Victimization with Substance Use Outcomes in the National Comorbidity and Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiological Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of consensus among researchers on the association between shyness and substance use. This may be due to unexamined modifiers of this association, such as childhood victimization. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine if experiencing different types of victimization (emotional, physical, sexual, and poly-victimization) modifies the association between shyness and substance use outcomes in adults. In this study, we performed moderation analyses to investigate whether victimization moderates the association between shyness and substance use/abuse. Data came from the National Comorbidity Survey Baseline (NCS-1; 1990-1992) and the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiological Surveys (CPES; 2001-2003). Substance use outcomes included were binge drinking, tobacco use, other drug use, and DSM-III-R (NCS-1)/DSM-IV (CPES) classifications of alcohol and drug abuse. Results: Results from NCS-1 supported a moderating role of childhood victimization on the relationship between shyness and tobacco use only, specifically for emotional (p = .031) and physical (p < .001) victimization, and poly-victimization (p < .001). Results from CPES showed a moderating role of lifetime sexual abuse for binge drinking (p = .017), other drug use (p = .028), and alcohol abuse (p = .004). For both datasets, the associations between shyness and substance use outcomes were stronger when there were no victimization histories. Conclusion: These findings give insight on the complexity of the interaction between shyness and victimization. Future research could focus on mechanisms, such as cognitive processes, that may contribute to interactions between shyness and victimization history on substance outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".