ArticleThe American journal on addictions2025
Identifying salient social, environmental, and situational contexts of college drinking: Impacts across drinking outcomes.
Article in The American journal on addictions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying salient social, environmental, and situational contexts of college drinking: Impacts across drinking outcomes.The American journal on addictions · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDrinking context, such as where, why, and under what social conditions drinking occurs, is consistently associated with daily variability in alcohol use. However, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) requires very brief measurement, not allowing for as many contextual assessments as researchers may like. The current investigation examined common contextual predictors and their associations with different alcohol outcomes.
methodsA sample of N = 528 college drinkers completed three surveys about their most recent drinking episode. This included contextual predictors (location, social context, who was present, alcohol offers, and drinking motives), as well as typical drinking outcomes (number of drinks, estimated blood alcohol concentration, perceived level of drunkenness) and high-risk drinking outcomes (binge drinking, blacking out, passing out). The current study used a traditional longitudinal design, allowing for inclusion of longer assessments of drinking than EMA can accommodate.
resultsThe strongest predictors were consistent across outcome types, including with whom participants were drinking, number of people present, and alcohol offers. Despite consistent significant prediction of outcomes, drinking location accounted for little variance in alcohol outcomes. Social and enhancement motives had stronger links to outcomes in this sample of general college drinkers than conformity or coping drinking motives. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsAlthough numerous options are available for assessing drinking context, some predictors are more impactful than others. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Findings may help researchers using traditional daily diary or EMA designs focus on the context-specific predictors with the most impact on their outcomes of interest in their limited number of assessment items.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.