The mediating effect of depression between superstitious beliefs and problem gambling: a cross-cultural study of Chinese and Caucasians residing in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to address the mediational role of depression in the association between superstitions and problem gambling and to test whether this mediating process is significantly different between Chinese and Caucasian Americans. Eight items assessing superstitious beliefs, the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory-II, and the 20-item South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) were completed by 115 Chinese gamblers and 187 Caucasian gamblers residing in the United States, and the responses between tests and between groups compared. Path analysis results showed that superstitious beliefs had a significant effect on both Chinese and Caucasian gamblers' SOGS scores (i.e., problem gambling symptoms). In both groups, depression played a significant mediating role between the superstitious beliefs variable and the problem gambling variable. Future clinical research might use the findings of this study to develop specific prevention and treatment approaches focusing on a gambler's cognitive bias and negative mood.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".