Adolescent Gambling and Problem Gambling: A New Zealand Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The prevalence of gambling and problem gambling among adolescents in New Zealand has not been adequately investigated. Prospective studies of current underage gambling may be unreliable, because respondents may fear self-incrimination. In this retrospective study, a non-representative sample of 68 first year psychology students, between the ages of 15 and 24 years, completed a questionnaire which asked them to recall their gambling activities before the age of 20 years, and which included the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). In adolescence, the entire sample had gambled for money at least once, and 18% regularly. Participants who played housie (bingo), gambled in casinos, or bought Lotto tickets, had the highest spending rates. 13% of the sample was classified as problem gamblers and 5% probable pathological gamblers in adolescence. Activities associated with pathological gambling included scratch tickets, gaming machines and housie. Regular gambling significantly predicted problem gambling scores. The results were compared with findings from a national sample and adolescent samples overseas. Recent research in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom (Buchta, 1995; Fisher, 1993; Jacobs, 1989, cited in Winters, Stinchfield, & Kim, 1995; Ladouceur, Dube, & Bujold, 1994; Lesieur et al., 1991; Shaffer & Hall, 1996) indicates that prevalence rates for adolescent gambling and for adolescent problem gambling are higher than for adult populations. Estimates of adolescent problem gambling range from one and a half to more than three times as high as for the adult population. The vast majority (85 to 95%) of adolescents have gambled for money at least once. Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling among adolescent males is usually greater than among female adolescents (Buchta, 1995; Jacobs, 1989, cited in Winters et al., 1995; Ladouceur et al., 1994; Winters, Stinchfield, & Fulkerson, 1993a, 1993b). Adolescent males may spend more than adolescent females on lottery tickets (Browne & Brown, 1994; Ladouceur et al., 1994) but not on fruit machines (Fisher, 1993). For some adolescent problem gamblers, gambling is associated with a number of problems. First, research suggests that a direct relationship exists between age of onset of underage gambling and the severity of future gambling problems (Abbott & Volberg, 1996; Bergh, & Kuhlhorn, 1994; Fisher, 1993; Griffiths, 1995a, 1995b; Ladouceur and Mireault, 1988; Stinchfield & Winters, 1994, cited in Winters, et al., 1995). Second, empirical investigations have consistently shown that adolescent pathological gambling is positively related to the use of alcohol, tobacco and addictive substances, to substance abuse, and to criminality including stealing, drug pushing, and prostitution (Arcuri, Lester, & Smith, 1985; Browne & Brown, 1994; Fisher, 1993; Griffiths, 1990, Jacobs, 1987; cited in Radecki, 1994; Ladouceur et al., 1994; Lesieur & Heineman, 1988, cited in Buchta, 1995; Shaffer & Hall, 1996; Winters, et al., 1993b). Other problems include suicide attempts, disruptions to relationships with family and friends, and educational difficulties such as truancy and poor academic performance (Browne & Brown, 1994; Fisher, 1993; Griffiths, 1990; Ladouceur et al., 1994; Shaffer, LaBrie, Scanlan, & Cummings, 1994; Winters et al., 1993b). In the United Kingdom, Fisher (1993) found that 10% of adolescents who played on fruit machines had fallen out with close friends and family as a direct consequence of their gambling. However, the causal relationship between gambling and family problems could be the reverse. Another study found that the majority of adolescent gambling machine players reported that family problems precipitated their addiction (Dickerson, 1984, cited in Bentall, Fisher, Kelly, Bromley, & Hawksworth, 1989). The severity of adolescent gambling problems is associated with gambling regularly and with the amount of money spent (Winters et al. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».