MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406306382 · doi:10.1037/adb0001034

Effects of alcohol consumption on gambling warning message recall and recognition.

2025· article· en· W4406306382 on OpenAlexaff
Tori L. Horn, Abby McPhail, Adrianna J. Valencia, Rory A. Pfund, James P. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsGreo
FundersTennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
KeywordsPsychologyRecallAlcohol consumptionAlcohol abuseConsumption (sociology)Clinical psychologyRecognition memoryPsychiatryAlcoholDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of acute alcohol consumption on the recall and recognition of warning messages. METHOD: = 82) were randomly assigned to a condition where they consumed alcoholic beverages (target blood alcohol concentrations of 0.06%-0.08%) or a condition where they consumed juice. Participants in both conditions then gambled on preprogrammed slot machines in a casino-themed room with four pop-up warning messages appearing twice each. After the gambling session, participants in both conditions completed a filler task followed by free recall and recognition assessments. RESULTS: Most participants (81%) recalled the gist, or the general idea, of the warning messages. However, participants in the alcohol condition underestimated the total number of messages they viewed to a significantly greater extent than those in the juice condition. Participants in the alcohol condition were also significantly less accurate in recognizing messages than participants in the juice condition. Participants in the juice condition were significantly more likely to recall the self-appraisal message than participants in the alcohol condition. There were no other significant differences in the recall of specific messages between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who are moderately intoxicated are just as likely as nonintoxicated individuals to understand the general idea of warning messages but may have greater difficulty recalling specific details within those messages. Those who are intoxicated may have difficulties engaging in self-appraisal, indicating that messages that are focused on the financial consequences of gambling may be more impactful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207