Everybody Is…Drinking! Interpretation Bias in Problematic Drinkers With and Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability

Neomi van DuijvenbodeBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence[email protected]

Robert DiddenBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Trajectum, Zwolle, the Netherlands

Hubert P. L. M. KorziliusInstitute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Rutger C. M. E. EngelsBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of the Positive, Negative, and Neutral Scenarios Used (Woud et al., Citation2012) and Possible Answers Given by Participants.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 2. Participant Characteristics per Group (N = 230): Light Drinkers With (Below) Average IQ (n = 57), Problematic Drinkers With (Below) Average IQ (n = 55), Light Drinkers With Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability (MBID; n = 50), and Problematic Drinkers with MBID (n = 68).

Download CSV Display Table

Table 3. Descriptives and Two-Way Between-Groups ANOVA Results per Participant Group (N = 230): Light Drinkers Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability IQ (n = 57), Problematic Drinkers Without MBID (n = 55), Light Drinkers With MBID (n = 50), and Problematic Drinkers With MBID (n = 68).

Download CSV Display Table

Everybody Is…Drinking! Interpretation Bias in Problematic Drinkers With and Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability

Table 1. Examples of the Positive, Negative, and Neutral Scenarios Used (Woud et al., Citation2012) and Possible Answers Given by Participants.

Table 2. Participant Characteristics per Group (N = 230): Light Drinkers With (Below) Average IQ (n = 57), Problematic Drinkers With (Below) Average IQ (n = 55), Light Drinkers With Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability (MBID; n = 50), and Problematic Drinkers with MBID (n = 68).

Table 3. Descriptives and Two-Way Between-Groups ANOVA Results per Participant Group (N = 230): Light Drinkers Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability IQ (n = 57), Problematic Drinkers Without MBID (n = 55), Light Drinkers With MBID (n = 50), and Problematic Drinkers With MBID (n = 68).

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature

Everybody Is…Drinking! Interpretation Bias in Problematic Drinkers With and Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of the Positive, Negative, and Neutral Scenarios Used (Woud et al., Citation2012) and Possible Answers Given by Participants.

Table 2. Participant Characteristics per Group (N = 230): Light Drinkers With (Below) Average IQ (n = 57), Problematic Drinkers With (Below) Average IQ (n = 55), Light Drinkers With Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability (MBID; n = 50), and Problematic Drinkers with MBID (n = 68).

Table 3. Descriptives and Two-Way Between-Groups ANOVA Results per Participant Group (N = 230): Light Drinkers Without Mild to Borderline Intellectual Disability IQ (n = 57), Problematic Drinkers Without MBID (n = 55), Light Drinkers With MBID (n = 50), and Problematic Drinkers With MBID (n = 68).

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date