The protective role of religiosity against problem gambling: findings from a five-year prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has examined the potential protective influence of religiosity against problem gambling; a common addictive behavior, and one with a host of associated negative health and social outcomes. The aims of this study were to examine (1) the potential longitudinal association between religiosity and problem gambling among adults and (2) the potential moderating role of gender on this association. Data were from five waves of the Quinte Longitudinal Study (QLS), between 2006 and 2010. Participants were Canadian adults from Belleville, Ontario, Canada ( n = 4121). A multiple group (based on gender) latent growth curve analysis was conducted to examine the overall trajectory of problem gambling severity. Two models were tested; the first examined the influence of past-year religious service attendance, and the second examined an overall measure of personal religiosity on the trajectory of problem gambling. The Problem and Pathological Gambling Measure (PPGM) was used as a continuous measure. The Rohrbaugh-Jessor Religiosity Scale (RJRS) was used to assess past-year frequency of religious service attendance and personal religiosity. Religious affiliation (Protestant, Catholic, Atheist/Agnostic, Other, Prefer not to say) was also included in the models. At baseline, higher frequency of past-year religious service attendance (males: β= −0.54, females: β= −0.68, p < 0.001 for both) and greater overall personal religiosity (males: β= −0.17, females: β= −0.13, p < 0.001 for both) were associated with lower PPGM scores. The moderating effect of gender indicated that the influence of past-year religious service attendance was greater among females (χ 2 diff (44) = 336.8, p < 0.001 ); however, the effect of overall religiosity was greater among males (χ 2 diff (36) = 213.4, p < 0.001 ). Findings were mixed with respect to religious affiliation. No measures of religiosity or religious affiliation were associated with the overall decline in problem gambling severity. These findings suggest that religiosity may act as a static protective factor against problem gambling severity but may play a less significant role in predicting change in problem gambling severity over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".