All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. After carefully reviewing the changes, I can confirm that all reviewers' comments and suggestions have been appropriately addressed.
Based on this assessment, I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript is now ready for publication. Congratulations.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for submitting the revised version of the manuscript and for the work done so far. After a careful review, we have identified the need for improvements in the overall English syntax, grammar, and the correction of typographical errors.
We kindly ask that you address these comments and revise the manuscript accordingly. We look forward to receiving the updated version with these enhancements.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or need further clarification.
The manuscript has improved significantly after the revision.
It is sufficient.
It has now improved.
None
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Binge Drinking Among Adolescents: The Role of Stress, Problematic Internet Use, and Emotional Regulation." After a comprehensive review process, I would like to acknowledge the meticulous and careful work done by the reviewers in evaluating your study.
The reviewers have provided valuable feedback to help improve the quality and clarity of your manuscript. In particular, I strongly encourage you to pay close attention to the suggestions made by Reviewer #1 regarding the use of hypotheses. Specifically, it is crucial to present a well-developed theoretical and conceptual framework that adequately supports the hypotheses you have put forward. This will greatly enhance the overall rigor and coherence of your study.
Please take the time to carefully revise your manuscript in light of the reviewers' comments, ensuring that these critical aspects are addressed.
Thank you for your continued efforts, and we look forward to receiving your revised submission.
The reviewed article meets the formal criteria for the structure of an empirical article, language, professional style, and citation standard. The tables and pictures (they are duplicated in my version) are clear and understandable. I recommend modifying the titles of the objects, which from my point of view are not entirely accurate (e.g. Table 2 states that it shows correlation coefficients, but the data in the table are not called correlation coefficients, it would be more appropriate to say "regression coefficients", or just state that these are the results of the Logistic regression analysis.) From a formal point of view, it is necessary to unify the formatting of for the p-value (p < .05, somewhere it occurs with a space, somewhere not, e.g. Table 1 line 6, but also elsewhere). Next, unify the format of decimal places to one or 2 across the entire article (eg line. 150-152).
In terms of the content concept of the conceptual framework, I have two comment: 1. In the text, I miss the framework of the Adolescence period, its age definition, characteristics, specification that conditions risky behavior. In the absence of this specification, the part from line 65 seems irrelevant. I recommend supplementing the absent framework and connecting "Peer influences" more with other constructs.
2. In my opinion, the text lacks a mention of the legality of using (buying) alcohol by adolescents in the country of the investigated population, and there is a lack of reflection on how the (il)legality of drinking can be related to the observed constructs of binge drinking, stress, etc.
Further in the text, there are several paragraphs, and connections that are not quite clear:
- line 111: "Nonetheless, the precise mechanisms underlying these relationships remain poorly understood." Here it is not clear what relations are meant.
- line 115: Park's (2014) research on physical activity in association with PIU seems unrelated to the topic of the article.
- line 122: the sentence "Given..." - it is not clear whether this is a conclusion from the previous starting points, or the thought of the previous quoted author. As for the deduction of the authors of this article, it is bold and inappropriate in this passage of the article.
- line 139: "...by enhancing these emotional skills (Muñoz-Navarro et al., 2022)" - it is not clear which emotional skills are meant.
When formulating hypotheses, it would be appropriate to state specific knowledge or specific logical reasoning (supported by knowledge) based on which mediate model of relations is deduced (formulated). I recommend mentioning (or reminding) a specific study where the effect of stress on PIU was proven (longitudinally or experimentally), that is, empirical knowledge that stress precedes PIU. Because, it is also possible to consider that already developed PIU can be a predictor of perceived stress, and thus the whole mediation model would be invalid.
In the article, not research questions, but hypotheses are formulated. However, I suppose that the nature of the data and the conceptual framework would justify exploratory (using research questions) rather than verification research (with hypotheses).
When formulating hypotheses, it would be appropriate to state specific knowledge or specific logical reasoning (supported by knowledge) based on which mediate model of relations is deduced (formulated). I recommend mentioning (or reminding) a specific study where the effect of stress on PIU was proven (longitudinally or experimentally), that is, empirical knowledge that stress precedes PIU. Because, it is also possible to consider that already developed PIU can be a predictor of perceived stress, and thus the whole mediation model would be invalid.
The authors used a non-experimental quantitative cross-sectional research design. For data collection, the questionnaire method was used for a sufficiently large group. The article provides relevant information about the research process and the objectivity of the methods used. I rate the translation of the text about the analyzes and the statistical interpretation of the results as weaker. I will break down my comments in points:
- In the description of the participants, the authors should add the type of selection and reflect whether it is a representative selection or justify why it is not. It is also necessary to justify why the sample was not balanced in terms of gender, as long as women showed a higher proportion.
- The research works with the PIU construct, but the measured variable here is Problematic mobile phone use. Authors should clarify in the article why they confuse these terms (in the Introduction or in the Method). Based on this, I also recommend considering correcting the title of the article.
- The operationalization of Binge Drinking lacks specification of the range of values of this variable (its type - nominal, ordinal, scale?). From the description, it seems that it is a scale, but I have doubts about it in the logistic analysis.
- in the analysis it is written (line 218): "while gender-based differences in the variables were also examined, " - but these were not the subject of the research and I did not find such results in the tables.
- Furthermore, in the analyses, it is necessary to specify (specify) the methods: correlation (parametric, non-parametric?), logistic regression analysis (binary, ordinal...?, Step-wise or Enter method?) and path analysis and justify their use. I have a doubt about the correct use of logistic regression analysis, but I can't judge it precisely because the (statistical) type of the dependent variable is not clear.
At the beginning of this section, I will review the statistical interpretations of the results:
- the text lacks a comment on the acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses. Mediation analysis (SEM) would require a more rigorous interpretation and a clearer formulation based on which values and relationships we accept or reject the hypothesis of a mediation relationship.
- the results of the regression analysis lack a more accurate interpretation of the strength of the effects. I note that two variables of Emotional Regulation were entered into the regression model in two versions, which I don't think is lucky and could have skewed the results.
The substantive interpretation and psychological evaluation of the results in the context of the knowledge framework is at a standard level. Some ideas would need to be reconsidered, clarified or reformulated:
- line 261 - I recommend clarifying the formulated difference ("these results differ).
- lines 272-273 - here the authors slipped into a statistical interpretation, while the formulation "...increasing the probability of binge drinking by 1.13 times" is very vague and appears as if Binge drinking is a binary variable (but this is not made clear in the entire methodology section).
- a statement at the end of the paragraph, lines 290-291 - This interpretation contradicts the interpretation at the beginning of the discussion (l.259): "Results indicated a direct association between stress and episodes of binge drinking. However, the impact of stress on binge drinking was minimal".- interpretations in the discussion need to be harmonized or specified (they are linked to other types of analysis).
- the last sentence of the Discussion (r. 328, 329) is not comprehensible and I recommend reformulating it.
The reviewed article presents standard research. Despite the number of commented shortcomings, the authors bring relevant knowledge, which should be interpreted with more caution, as far as mediation chains are concerned. I have two recommendations: one is directed toward changing hypotheses about mediating relationships into research questions. The second to a more thorough description of the analysis and interpretation of the results. It is necessary to specify the operationalization of Binge drinking and to justify the use of the measurement of Problematic Mobile Phone use instead of PIU.
The authors provided sufficient references to the relevant literature. However, there are inaccurate expressions throughout the manuscript. Basic reporting, such as statistical procedures and results, is missing. I suggest the authors read a publication manual and go through English editing specifically for academic writing. Specific comments are provided below.
Line 23: The authors overgeneralize by stating, "...adolescents are engaged in insensitive technology use." Not all adolescents engage in a problematic manner.
Line 26: The aim of the present study remains at a superficial level. It should be more specific.
Line 32: This claim may not be valid as "inadequate coping" is not measured in the study.
Line 45: "56.6 of students" are not "most adolescents," as stated in Line 20.
Line 48: The quantity of alcohol consumption is reported vaguely. It may be stated more specifically in standard drinks.
Line 57-59: The sentence weakly connects with this study, which does not measure relevant constructs at neurological levels.
Line 65-66: Similar to above, social pressures are not directly related to this study.
Line 69-76: Non-problematic drinking pattern has a weak connection to this study. The authors may use references on binge drinking instead.
Line 100: The noun and the verb are the same words: "Report...reported". The author may use different words.
Line 109: The phrase "...from the 00s and the early 10s" is unclear. I can guess the intended meaning, but the authors may use more explicit words.
Line 119-122: The sentence may not be valid. I can find plenty of studies on the effect of stress on alcohol consumption among adolescents.
Line 259-260: Two sentences appear contradictory to each other. The authors may clarify whether a direct association was found or not.
Line 267-269: Due to the inappropriate procedure of the mediation, the authors may not be able to assert this interpretation.
Line 309-311: The authors may not be able to claim this role of inappropriate coping strategies, as they were not measured in the study.
Line 321: The word "interaction" may suggest moderation. The authors may use a different word.
Line 685: "1,22" may be a typo.
Line 699: The word "correlations" may be inaccurate since the authors report regression analysis results.
Line 711-721: The indirect effects are missing. Additionally, what those numbers indicate is unclear.
The authors collected a sufficient number of participants to increase statistical power. However, the conceptualization of the study's purpose appears inadequately planned. The literature gap and rationale for the hypotheses were not discussed. Consequently, the hypotheses lack connection with the existing literature. Specific comments are provided below.
Line 142-145: How the authors conceptualized the mediation model is unclear. The authors should carefully assess whether requirements are met to carry out mediation analysis properly. From the cross-sectional design and the measurement of the constructs in the manuscript, I am skeptical about the validity of the findings from the mediation analysis.
The authors have provided interpretations of the findings, their implications, and the study's limitations. Meanwhile, interpretations derived from the mediation may not be valid, as the mediation analysis may not have been appropriately conducted. Specific comments are provided below.
Line 216-223: How mediation analysis was carried out is not reported. Figure 1 suggests it was parallel mediation, but such analysis is not discussed in the manuscript.
Line 237-241: What statistic "X^2" refers to is unclear. I guess it is a chi-square value, but the symbol is incorrect. A significant value does not indicate model fit if this is a chi-square value. This statistical process is not mentioned in the Method section. Furthermore, this sentence is lengthy and may be divided into a few sentences.
Line 241-242: The method does not describe the accuracy, sensitivity, and precision. I could not assess what they indicate.
Line 246-251: The indirect effects are not reported. Consequently, the reported results of mediation may not be valid.
Additionally, the construct validity of the PIU measure appears weak. The questionnaire the authors use in the study is limited to mobile phone use, which may be part of but not all aspects of internet use.
Line 171-179: How "emotional and communication use" is problematic is unclear.
Line 174: The item example does not appear to measure PIU but regular experiences of mobile phone use.
Line 191: The authors state, "Problematic alcohol use," which is a broader term for binge drinking. The authors may use "bring drinking" to be more specific.
Line 196-197: From the item example, how participants attempted to calculate their drinking quantity objectively is unclear. Is there an instruction that allows participants to convert their alcohol consumption to standard drinks?
This study investigates possible risk factors of binge drinking among adolescents. The strength of this study is the sample size and thorough discussion of the previous literature. Despite the claims, including the mediation of PIU for the association between perceived stress and binge drinking, the current manuscript has shortcomings that may prevent it from being published in this journal. The revision will likely be substantial and beyond this peer review. The authors may resort to appropriate guides such as the following.
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, (2020). American Psychological Association, 428.
Kline, R. B. (2015). The Mediation Myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349
This study examines the relationship between stress, problematic internet use, emotional regulation and binge drinking in 876 Spanish adolescents. The results suggest that problematic Internet use mediates the association between stress and binge drinking, suggesting that stress may lead to problematic Internet use, which then leads to an increase in binge drinking. Furthermore, stress was negatively correlated with emotional regulation, suggesting that poor emotional regulation may increase the risk of problematic internet use and binge drinking. These findings highlight the need for comprehensive stress management, emotional regulation, and substance use interventions to address these interrelated issues in adolescents. With minor revisions, it would be suitable for publication in PeerJ.
This cross-sectional study enrolled 876 Spanish high school adolescents (63.57% female, mean age 16.86 years) to examine the relationships between stress, problematic Internet use, emotional regulation, and binge drinking. Participants completed an online survey that collected sociodemographic data, stress perception, emotional regulation, and alcohol and Internet use. Problematic alcohol consumption was measured using adapted items from the ESTUDES 2023. Data analysis revealed that problematic Internet use mediated the relationship between stress and binge drinking, highlighting the indirect effect of stress on binge drinking through increased Internet use. Additionally, stress was negatively correlated with emotional regulation, suggesting that stress may play a role in exacerbating problem behaviours.
The validity of the results in this manuscript appears to be robust given the study's large sample size of 876 adolescents and the use of validated measures of alcohol consumption and Internet use. The cross-sectional design effectively identifies associations between stress, problematic Internet use, emotional regulation, and binge drinking. However, while the mediation model provides insightful relationships, the cross-sectional nature limits causal inference. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the temporal sequence of these relationships and establish causality. The results are valuable for understanding the complex interactions between stress, emotional regulation, and substance use in adolescents.
The study addresses a crucial issue in adolescent health and focuses on the interplay between stress, emotional regulation, problematic internet use and binge drinking. Given the increasing prevalence of these problems among adolescents, understanding these relationships may provide valuable insights for the development of effective interventions. Particularly noteworthy is the emphasis on emotional regulation as a protective factor and the mediating role of problematic Internet use in the relationship between stress and binge drinking. The cross-sectional design is suitable for examining relationships between variables but limits the ability to infer causality. The sample size of 876 adolescents and the use of an online survey are commendable and provide a robust data set for analysis. However, more detailed information about the specific measures and the reliability and validity of the adapted questions would increase the credibility of the study. Additionally, it would be helpful to include a brief description of the data analysis methods used to evaluate mediation.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.