Planned and unplanned drinking to get drunk: A registered report examining willingness, drinking motives, and protective behavioral strategies using ecological momentary assessment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined alcohol use and consequences across five categories of same-day drinking intentions and willingness and tested whether same-day motives and protective strategies predicted differences in outcomes across categories of intentions and willingness. METHOD: In a 14-week ecological momentary assessment design, undergraduate student participants (N = 196) reported drinking intentions and behaviors over 13 surveys weekly (four morning surveys [Thursday through Sunday]; three midday, early, and late evening surveys [Thursday through Saturday]). On average, participants were 20.61 years old (SD = 1.50; range 17-25), 63% identified as female (n = 124), 29% as male (n = 57), and 8% identified as neither male nor female (n = 15; i.e., nonbinary; transgender; genderqueer; agender). Participants reported numbers of drinks consumed on the evening (past 2 hr) and morning (previous day) surveys. Multilevel generalized linear models tested effects of drinking intentions/willingness categories, motives, protective strategies, and interactions between key variables on alcohol use and consequences in several models. RESULTS: Rates and quantities of drinking were highest on planned drinking days, and especially high when students planned to get drunk. When enhancement and social motives were elevated, students were more likely to drink and consumed more drinks even on unplanned drinking days, and especially when socializing with others. Effects of coping motives were weaker and sparse. Harm reduction protective strategies were associated with more positive and negative consequences with little variation across planned and unplanned drinking days. CONCLUSION: Jointly considering drinking intentions and willingness narrows the intention-behavior gap in student drinking and suggests potential areas of focus for messaging around responsible drinking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".