A daily diary investigation of self-regulation in gambling.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Limit-setting strategies have the potential to assist in reducing problem gambling, but there is little research on self-imposed gambling limits and factors that restrain self-regulation once gambling has been initiated. Using daily diary approach, we investigated individual difference and proximal factors associated with gambling limit violations. METHOD: Participants were 103 individuals who gambled regularly and had set a goal to limit their gambling. Participants completed a baseline measure of trait self-control and questions about gambling and limit violations over 21 days. We examined factors associated with setting and maintaining limits across episodes of gambling as well as within-person factors associated with limit violations, including the moderating role of trait self-control. RESULTS: We found that episodes of gambling where limits were set and violated were associated with riskier gambling and more negative emotional responses. In addition, gambling limits were more likely to be violated on days when temptations to violate limits were high and by people with low trait self-control, whereas urges to gamble were associated with a reduced likelihood of limit violations. Trait self-control moderated the relationship between daily stress/tension and limit violations. Low stress/tension was associated with greater limit violations for those with lower trait self-control, but the likelihood of violating limits increased on high stress days for those with higher trait self-control. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals may benefit from greater awareness of temptations to violate gambling limits and the impact of daily stressors, particularly for those with high trait self-control who are most successful when stress/tension is low. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".