An investigation of the link between gambling motives and social context of gambling in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the relationship between gambling motives and gambling in various social contexts using both retrospective and real-time assessment of gambling social context. Ninety-five young adults (79 males, 16 females; aged 19-24 years) who reported gambling at least 4 times in the past month participated. Scores on the Gambling Motives Questionnaire (GMQ; Stewart & Zack, 2008) were used as a measure of gambling motives (Enhancement, Social, Coping). Data on the social context of gambling (alone, with family, with friends, with strangers) were derived retrospectively from the Gambling Timeline Follow-Back (G-TLFB; Weinstock, Whelan, & Meyers, 2004) as well as in real time using experience sampling (ES) methods (Conner Christensen, Feldman Barrett, Bliss-Moreau, Lebo, & Kaschub, 2003). For both the G-TLFB and ES data, we conducted a series of multivariate regression analyses with the block of gambling motives predicting gambling behaviour in each social context. Across the two assessment methods, coping gambling motives positively predicted gambling alone, whereas social gambling motives negatively predicted gambling alone and positively predicted gambling with friends. These findings suggest that individuals who gamble for particular motives are more likely to do so in specific social contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".