Betting to deal: coping motives mediate the relationship between urgency and Problem gambling severity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Elevated impulsivity traits, particularly negative and positive urgency, have been identified as robust predictors of problem gambling. However, the mechanisms that link urgency to problem gambling remain unknown. The present research examined whether self-reported gambling motives (social, coping, enhancement, financial) mediated the association between urgency and problem gambling severity.Methods: The sample consisted of 564 community gamblers (52.1% female; M age =36.10, SD = 11.25) including 156 (27.7%) who were classified as moderate risk gamblers and 141 (25%) as problem gamblers.Results: The mediation analyzes revealed that both negative and positive urgency were associated with problem gambling severity. Coping was the only motive that mediated these associations. The pattern of results remained the same when the analyzes were restricted to problem gamblers and when controlling for days gambled and money spent in the past 30 days.Conclusions: The desire to alleviate strong emotional states (negative or positive) maybe an important determinant of problem gambling. Furthermore, results indicate that treatment initiatives for problem gambling may benefit from including training for clients in alternative and more adaptive coping strategies for the effective management of intense affective states.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it