Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with gambling problems gamble despite resolutions to stop. These choices may be more likely in contexts that allow for them to be justified (e.g. after a productive day at work), termed the licensing effect. Using a daily diary design over 21 days (nparticipants = 156, nreports = 2,516), we recruited gamblers trying to reduce their gambling and assessed their daily justification opportunities (e.g. feelings of effort and achievement), gambling involvement (e.g. gambling episodes), and aspects of self-control (i.e. craving, conflict, craving suppression) and affect (positive and negative). We tested the degree to which justification opportunities, self-control, and affect predicted a prospective gambling episode, and the reverse temporal effect. Gambling occurred on 33% of the reported days. Prior-day justification opportunities were associated with higher odds of gambling. Prior-day craving suppression showed a similar effect. Prior-day gambling was associated with stronger cravings, weaker craving suppression, and poorer well-being (lower positive affect, higher negative affect). In our between-person analyses, days gambled and problem gambling severity were positively associated with negative affect; but, in our lagged analysis, prior-day negative affect was associated with lower odds of gambling. Our findings indicate that justification opportunities may precede gambling episodes, and therefore the licensing effect may contribute to why people sometimes gamble despite resolutions to stop.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".