Risky Family Environment, Rumination, Drinking to Cope, and Problematic Alcohol Use: A Cross-National Examination Among College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study examined the relationships between risky family environments (conflictual, controlling, or aggressive parent–child [or other family members] relations), ruminative thinking, drinking to cope (DTC), and negative alcohol-related consequences among college students across seven countries (U.S., Argentina, Canada, Uruguay, Spain, South Africa, and England). Specifically, this study aimed to examine whether a risky family environment is a risk factor for problematic alcohol use via rumination and DTC motives among college students using a cross-national approach. Method: Participants (n = 4016; 72.7% female) were college students who consumed alcohol in the past 30 t and completed measures of risky family environment and negative alcohol-related consequences. A saturated path model (risky family environment→ruminative thinking facets→DTC→negative alcohol-related consequences) was used to test the proposed model, controlling for alcohol use quantity. Multi-group models assessed invariance of these relationships across gender and country groupings. Results: A significant double indirect effect was found such that greater risky family environment was associated with greater ruminative thinking (i.e., problem-focused thoughts), which in turn was associated with more DTC, which in turn was associated more negative alcohol-related consequences. Model results were invariant across gender and country groupings. Conclusions: Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing risky family dynamics and problem-focused thought patterns in interventions to reduce problematic alcohol use among college students. Future research is needed to establish causal relationships and explore additional factors influencing these patterns globally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".