Self-Perceptions of Dispositional Luck: Relationship to DSM Gambling Symptoms, Subjective Enjoyment of Gambling and Treatment Readiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we examined whether having a gambling disorder is related to: (a) the personality trait of perceived personal luck and (b) subjective enjoyment associated with placing bets. We also examined whether the presence or absence of disordered gambling and wagering enjoyment are related to probability of treatment entry. In 2001, we surveyed 82 young adults at the University of Windsor who gambled, but were not in treatment. They completed measures assessing symptoms of pathological gambling (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994), dispositional luck (Steenbergh, Meyers, May, and Whelan, 2002), enjoyment of gambling (Ben-Tovim, Esterman, Tolchard, and Battersby, 2001), and attitudes toward treatment (adapted from Fisher and Turner, 1970). Results showed elevated perceptions of personal luck, enjoyment of gambling, and more negative attitudes toward seeking treatment among those who exhibited sub-clinical levels of disordered gambling (n = 41) compared to recreational gamblers (n = 41). Other results showed that, after controlling for the effects of personal luck, the strength of the positive relationship between level of disordered gambling and subjective pleasure of wagering was diminished. Removing the effects of personal luck also weakened the positive association between having a gambling problem and having a negative attitude toward seeking treatment. In light of these results, we suggest cognitive interventions that seek to prevent and treat problematic wagering in early stage gamblers might be efficacious to the extent to which they can modify these young people's belief that they are charmed by high levels of dispositional luck.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".