The role of peer influences on the normalisation of sports wagering: a qualitative study of Australian men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sports wagering has been identified as a gambling product which may pose particular risks for young men, because of the aggressive marketing tactics used to promote these products, and the alignment with culturally valued sporting activities. However, there is very limited information about the socio-cultural processes that may contribute to the normalisation of sports wagering for this population. Using semi-structured interviews with 50 Australian young men who gambled on sport, we explored the way in which peer group behaviours influenced attitudes towards, and the consumption of, gambling products. Four thematic clusters emerged from the interviews. First, young men perceived that sports wagering was a ‘normal’ and socially accepted activity, and a natural ‘add on’ to sports. Second, there were clear indicators that sports wagering was becoming embedded within existing peer based sporting rituals, with the emergence of gambling clubs, and online forums. The third finding related to the shaping of gambling/sport discussions, which created a sense of identity and a point of conversation for peers. Finally, some participants spoke of the social pressure to gamble to ‘fit in’ with their friends. This study suggests that sports wagering poses a new health threat for young men, with sports wagering quickly being normalised as an embedded activity in young male sports fans' peer groups. There are clear lessons from the Australian experience for other countries, relating to the ways in which industry marketing tactics may combine with culturally valued activities such as sport, to influence risky gambling behaviours.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".