Financially focused self-concept and disordered gambling are bidirectionally related over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Prior research has shown a moderately positive association between financially focused self-concept and disordered gambling. Because most prior research was cross-sectional, it is unclear whether financially focused self-concept contributes to the onset and maintenance of disordered gambling whether a financially focused self-concept is a consequence of disordered gambling, or both. Thus, we addressed this gap in knowledge by examining the temporal association between financially focused self-concept and disordered gambling symptoms.Method Two longitudinal studies were conducted, involving participants who gamble. Study 1 included 308 university students and Study 2 included 2,008 community members. They completed the Financially Focused Self-Concept Scale (FFS) and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) at two separate measurement occasions, spaced approximately 6–7 months apart.Results Preliminary analyses confirmed that the FFS and PGSI each had strict or at least partial temporal measurement invariance in both studies. As expected, in Studies 1 and 2, participants with higher (relative to lower) initial financial focus had more disordered gambling symptoms 6-7 months later. Conversely, in Studies 1 and 2, participants with more (relative to less) severe initial disordered gambling symptoms increased their financial focus 6-7 months later. The magnitude of the effects was moderate in size.Conclusions Findings suggest that the temporal relation between financially focused self-concept and disordered gambling is bidirectional. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for prevention and treatment interventions as well as for the FFS and PGSI psychometric literatures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".