Revisiting the role of financial motives in disordered gambling: A meta-analytic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Money is central to psychological definitions of gambling, but contemporary accounts of disordered gambling are ambiguous regarding the role of financial motives for gambling. The aims of the current research were to obtain meta-analytic weighted effect sizes for zero-order associations of financial motives against disordered gambling and gambling frequency, as well as partial associations after controlling for other motives (e.g. coping). Design: A meta-analysis of the available literature through October 2019 was undertaken. Studies were identified from multiple sources (e.g., database search, consulting other researchers). PRISMA standards were followed when screening identified records and extracting relevant data. The data analytic plan was pre-registered. Setting: Cross-sectional studies that involved student, community, and clinical samples ofpeople who gamble. Participants: Forty-one studies were included with 32,997 participants from different countries. Measurements: Validated self-report measures of financial motives for gambling alongside measures of either problem gambling and/or gambling frequency. Findings: Financial motives for gambling were positively associated with both disordered gambling, r = .34, [.30, .38], p =1.04e-61, and gambling frequency, r = .29, [.20, .37], p = 1.70e-13, with moderate effect sizes. The partial associations after controlling for overlapping variance with other gambling motives were also positive (disordered gambling: β = .18, [.14, .23], p = 2.53e-15; gambling frequency: β = .16, [.08, .24], p = 9.45e-5), with small-to-moderate effect sizes. The effect sizes were heterogenous and the extent of heterogeneity was high. Moderator analyses of the zero-order association involving gambling frequency indicated that effect sizes were larger for studies that used the Gambling Motives Questionnaire-Financial relative to studies that developed their own gambling motives measure. No further moderators were statistically significant. Conclusions: Financial motives are reliably and positively associated with both disordered gambling and gambling involvement and should be incorporated into etiological models of gambling disorder.
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 | 0.020 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".