Cited by 71Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

A Multivariate Evaluation of 25 Proximal and Distal Risk-Factors for Gambling-Related Harm

Open access
Browne, Matthew, Hing, Nerilee, Rockloff, Matthew, Russell, Alex M. T., Greer, Nancy, Nicoll, Fiona, Smith, Garry·2019·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Individual differences in the risk of developing gambling-related harm play an important role in theoretical models and practical interventions. The present study attempted comprehensive measurement and evaluation of 25 known risk factors for gambling-related harm in order to determine which factors provided large and unique explanatory power. We surveyed 1650 regular gamblers from an online panel, screening in 1174 (466 male) who passed all checks of attention and response consistency. We evaluated each risk factor based on bivariate correlations with harms, then made separate multivariate evaluations of proximal (e.g., gambling motivations) and distal (e.g., religiosity) risk factors. Almost all bivariate correlations were significant, but most distal factors were not significant in multivariate models. Trait impulsivity was the most important risk factor by a large margin. Excessive consumption, less use of safe gambling practices, and more fallacies were key proximal risks of harm. Many well-known correlates of gambling harm (e.g., youth, lower educational attainment) do not show a direct role in the development of gambling harm when controlling for other factors. The results support theoretical models that emphasise early conditioning and biological vulnerability (manifested through impulsivity). Since maladaptive cognitive and behavioural schemas appear to be more important than motivations (e.g., escape, excitement, ego), interventions may benefit by targeting these proximal drivers of harm.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jcm8040509

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Not all social media users become addicted, and there are a variety of reasons why particular individuals are vulnerable to becoming addicted to various behaviors, including genetics, environmental factors, and individual vulnerabilities.

    “Not all social media users, of course, become addicted, and there are a variety of reasons why particular individuals are vulnerable to becoming addicted to various behaviors, including genetics, environmental factors, and individual vulnerabilities (Browne et al., 2019; Kim & Hodgins, 2018).”

    From Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction (2021) · cites this paper as Browne et al., 2019

    The Introduction (§§1.2–1.3; page unavailable) describes environmental, biological, and individual risk factors that help explain why some people develop gambling problems and others do not. It does not specifically establish a genetic contribution or address social-media addiction or addiction across various behaviors. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Williams R.J. West B.L. Simpson R.I. Prevention of Problem Gambling: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence and Identified Best Practices Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre Guelph, ON, Canada 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Browne, M., Hing, N., Rockloff, M., Russell, A. M. T., Greer, N., Nicoll, F., & Smith, G.
Affiliations
  • Central Queensland University (AU)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Browne, Matthew
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-04-13
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
509
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2936368383
Cited by
71
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
FWCI
9.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Acquire (CQUniversity) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Alberta Gambling Research Institute, University of Alberta (NA)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
gambling harm, gambling risk factors, trait impulsivity, proximal risk factors, gambling motivation, excessive gambling, logical fallacies, religiosity, educational attainment, biological vulnerability, gambling interventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review