An Investigation of The Link Between

This article was downloaded by: [81.193.146.
58]
On: 26 September 2014, At: 11:36
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Gambling Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigs20
An investigation of the link between

gambling motives and social context of
gambling in young adults
a b a
Chelsea K. Quinlan , Abby L. Goldstein & Sherry H. Stewart
a
Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
b
Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Published online: 29 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Chelsea K. Quinlan, Abby L. Goldstein & Sherry H. Stewart (2014) An
investigation of the link between gambling motives and social context of gambling in young adults,
International Gambling Studies, 14:1, 115-131, DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2013.855252
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2013.855252
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Gambling Studies, 2014
Vol. 14, No. 1, 115131, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2013.855252
An investigation of the link between gambling motives and social

context of gambling in young adults
Chelsea K. Quinlana*, Abby L. Goldsteinb and Sherry H. Stewarta
a
Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; bDepartment of Applied
Psychology and Human Development, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
(Received 13 May 2013; accepted 15 September 2013)
The current study examined the relationship between gambling motives and gambling
in various social contexts using both retrospective and real-time assessment of
gambling social context. Ninety-five young adults (79 males, 16 females; aged 19 24
Downloaded by [81.193.146.58] at 11:36 26 September 2014
years) who reported gambling at least 4 times in the past month participated. Scores on
the Gambling Motives Questionnaire (GMQ; Stewart & Zack, 2008) were used as a
measure of gambling motives (Enhancement, Social, Coping). Data on the social
context of gambling (alone, with family, with friends, with strangers) were derived
retrospectively from the Gambling Timeline Follow-Back (G-TLFB; Weinstock,
Whelan, & Meyers, 2004) as well as in real time using experience sampling (ES)
methods (Conner Christensen, Feldman Barrett, Bliss-Moreau, Lebo, & Kaschub,
2003). For both the G-TLFB and ES data, we conducted a series of multivariate
regression analyses with the block of gambling motives predicting gambling behaviour
in each social context. Across the two assessment methods, coping gambling motives
positively predicted gambling alone, whereas social gambling motives negatively
predicted gambling alone and positively predicted gambling with friends. These
findings suggest that individuals who gamble for particular motives are more likely to
do so in specific social contexts.
Keywords: addiction; gambling; social behaviour; young adults; motivation
Motivational models have been used to explain addictive behaviours for several decades
(Cooper, 1994; Cooper, Russell, Skinner, & Windle, 1992; Cox & Klinger, 1988). In 1992,
Cooper and colleagues proposed a motivational model of alcohol use to account for
individual differences in reasons for drinking and also to help predict individuals alcohol
use patterns and drinking problems. Motives are conceptualized as proximal predictors of
drinking and are based on the assumption that individuals drink to obtain a valued
outcome. Cooper et al.s (1992) motivational model emphasized the reinforcing value of
social outcomes (social motives) and emotion regulation outcomes, including both
negative affect reduction (coping motives) and positive affect enhancement (enhancement
motives). Although there is some overlap between the three drinking motives, each motive
has been shown to predict unique patterns of alcohol use. For instance, both enhancement
and coping motives have been found to be associated with heavy drinking and alcohol
problems; however, only coping motives were directly associated with heavy drinking and
alcohol problems after accounting for alcohol consumption (Cooper, 1994; Cooper, Frone,
Russell, & Mudar, 1995).
Similar motives have emerged in the gambling literature, indicating that gambling also
serves both social and mood regulation functions. Results from several studies indicate
*Corresponding author. Email: chelsea.quinlan@dal.ca
q 2013 Taylor & Francis

116 C.K. Quinlan et al.
that gambling serves as a coping strategy to alleviate negative affective states (Nower,
Derevensky, & Gupta, 2004; Scannell, Quirk, Smith, Maddern, & Dickerson, 2000;
Wood, Gupta, Derevensky, & Griffiths, 2004) and to enhance positive affective states
via increases in subjective excitement or physiological arousal (Baudinet &
Blaszczynski, 2013; Sharpe, 2002). For example, Wood and Griffiths (2007) examined
gambling as a coping strategy in problem gamblers and found that many problem
gamblers reported gambling to escape and that this was achieved through mood
modification (e.g. changes in arousal). Other gamblers reported gambling to fill a void
created by boredom or lack of social interaction or to avoid problems such as financial
problems. In addition, the profile of social motives as lower-risk motives for drinking
(i.e. associated with alcohol use, but not problems) seems to parallel the distinction
made between social and problem gambling in the gambling literature (Huang, Jacobs,
Dervensky, Gupta, & Paskus, 2007). The emergence of these three motives is also
consistent with the Pathways Model of problem and pathological gambling
(Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002) in which early gambling behaviour is associated with
social contexts, whereas more problematic forms of gambling are linked with both
positive mood enhancement (i.e. excitement or arousal) and negative affect alleviation
(i.e. to cope with symptoms of depression and anxiety). Stewart and Zack (2008)
recognized these key parallels between drinking motives and gambling motives and
extended the motivational model of alcohol use to the gambling literature using the
Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ; Cooper et al., 1992) as a model for the
development of the Gambling Motives Questionnaire (GMQ).
Stewart and Zack (2008) used principal components analysis and identified three
subscales for the GMQ: Enhancement, Social and Coping, each of which represents a
distinct motive for why individuals engage in gambling behaviour; all three subscales
demonstrated good internal consistency. Thus, both the DMQ and GMQ are very
similar in structure such that they both consist of the same three motivational
subscales. Also, in addition to the similar structure of the DMQ and the GMQ,
recent studies have supported other key parallels across the gambling and drinking
motives literatures (e.g. Cooper et al., 1992; Stewart & Zack, 2008; Stewart, Zack,
Collins, Klein, & Fragopoulos, 2008). For instance, in both the gambling and
drinking literatures, enhancement and coping motives predict gambling and drinking
problems, which suggest an association between internal emotion-regulation motives
and problem gambling/drinking, rather than recreational gambling/drinking
(Cooper et al., 1992; Stewart & Zack, 2008). Also, Stewart and Zack (2008) found
that, similar to the relation observed between enhancement drinking motives on the
DMQ and heavy drinking (Cooper et al., 1992), enhancement gambling motives
were the most consistent predictor of gambling involvement. Interestingly, in a separate
study, Stewart et al. (2008) found a high correspondence between coping
gambling motives and coping drinking motives such that coping gamblers also scored
higher on the coping subscale of the DMQ than other gambler groups; similarly, there
was a high correspondence between enhancement gambling and enhancement drinking
motives. These relationships suggest a strong, consistent pattern in motives across
addictive behaviours (e.g. gambling, drinking; see also Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, &
Engels, 2005).
One finding in the drinking literature that has not been investigated in the gambling
literature is that specific drinking motives predict drinking in particular social contexts in
adults (Cooper et al., 1992). Specifically, enhancement drinking motives positively predict
drinking with same-sex friends whereas social drinking motives positively predict
International Gambling Studies 117
drinking in social contexts more broadly (i.e. with same-sex friends, mixed-sex friends,
and with a partner; Cooper et al., 1992). Furthermore, social drinking motives negatively
predict drinking alone. In contrast, coping drinking motives positively predict drinking
alone or with a partner, but are not predictive of drinking with friends (same sex or mixed
sex; Cooper et al., 1992). This pattern of results has also been replicated in an adolescent
sample (Cooper, 1994).
It is important to extend the work of Cooper (1994; Cooper et al., 1992) because it
appears as though the combination of motives and social contexts can act as markers of
risk. For example, in Coopers work (Cooper, 1994; Cooper et al., 1992), individuals
with stronger coping motives drank alone more often than in other social contexts. Given
the established riskiness of solitary drinking (Bourgault & Demers, 1997; Demers &
Bourgault, 1996) and solitary gambling (Bernard, Dickens, & Shapiro, 2012), it is
important to be aware of the relationship between motives and social context when
examining addictive behaviours such as alcohol use and gambling. Given that the
relationship between motives and social context has not been studied in the gambling
literature, and that gambling motives and gambling social contexts may both be markers
for risky gambling behaviour (e.g. both coping gambling motives and gambling alone are
associated with greater risk), the purpose of the current study was to extend the work of
Cooper (1994; Cooper et al., 1992) in the alcohol research area to examine the
relationship between gambling motives and gambling in various social contexts. Young
adults represent a population at an elevated risk for the development of gambling
problems (Wiebe, Mun, & Kauffman, 2006). To date, however, little is known about the
factors that contribute to young adult gambling, including the specific link between
gambling motives and the social contexts in which young adults gamble. Thus our study
focused on a sample consisting of young adults, aged 19 24.1 Consistent with findings
from the drinking motives literature (Cooper, 1994; Cooper et al., 1992), we predicted
that participants with stronger coping gambling motives would gamble alone more often
and gamble in any type of social context (with family, friends or strangers) less often
compared to those with weaker coping gambling motives, whereas participants with
stronger enhancement or social motives would gamble in a social context more often
compared to those with weaker enhancement or social gambling motives. Additionally,
we hypothesized that social and enhancement gambling motives would be associated
with distinct types of social contexts for gambling. Since individuals with stronger social
motives use gambling as a means of socializing, their gambling should occur more
frequently when they are with family or friends compared to those who were not
motivated by social gambling. In contrast, individuals with strong enhancement motives
gamble for excitement and tend to be drawn to heavy or high-stakes gambling activities
(e.g. casino blackjack) that occur in social contexts where the players do not necessarily
know one another (Cooper, 1994); thus, the gambling of enhancement motivated
gamblers should more often occur when they are with strangers compared to those with
weaker enhancement gambling motives. In sum, we hypothesized that gamblers with
strong enhancement motives for gambling would gamble more often with strangers than
those with weaker enhancement gambling motives, whereas gamblers with strong social
gambling motives would gamble more often with individuals with whom they typically
socialize i.e. family and friends than those with weaker social gambling motives.
Furthermore, to assess the stability of these findings across distinct modes of assessment,
we examined these relationships when the social context of gambling was assessed
retrospectively in a timeline follow-back assessment (Sobell & Sobell, 1992, 1996;
Weinstock, Whelan, & Meyers, 2004) and when it was assessed prospectively in real
time using experience sampling (ES) methods (Conner Christensen, Feldman Barrett,
Bliss-Moreau, Lebo, & Kaschub, 2003).
Method
Participants
Participants were 95 young adult gamblers (79 males, 16 females) who were recruited
from the Toronto and Halifax metropolitan areas and participated in a 30-day ES study
(Goldstein, Stewart, Hoaken, & Flett, in press). Only those participants who had complete
data on the social context variables were included in the current study. Participants
were recruited through advertisements placed in newspapers and posted on the Internet
(e.g. Craigslist, Kijiji). All participants were between the ages of 19 and 24 years
(M 21.85; SD 1.58) and were screened for eligibility via telephone. To ensure
adequate sampling of gambling behaviour throughout the 30-day ES period, recruitment
was limited to those who reported gambling at least 4 times in the past 30 days.2 Due to
ethical concerns associated with reinforcing gambling among individuals who were
attempting or had attempted to reduce or stop their gambling, participants were excluded if
they had been treated for a gambling problem. In addition, participants were excluded if
they currently had a serious chronic mental illness, and/or if they were unwilling or unable
to commit to the 30 days of ES data collection.
Measures
Initial baseline measures
A trained research assistant administered a series of questionnaires and an interview at
baseline. Although a battery of measures was used in the larger study (see Goldstein et al.,
in press, for a list of all measures), only the measures of interest to the present study are
described below.
Demographics questionnaire (Winters, Bengston, Dorr, & Stinchfield, 1998). The

demographics questionnaire included information on participants age and gender. These
demographic variables were included in the current study so that they could be
incorporated as covariates in the multivariate regression analyses (MRAs). They were also
used to describe the sample.
90-day Gambling Timeline Follow-Back Questionnaire (G-TLFB; Weinstock et al., 2004).

This measure consists of a retrospective calendar designed to assess a variety of aspects
of gambling for each episode of gambling in the past 90 days (i.e. type of gambling,
amount of time spent gambling, amount of money intended to spend on gambling,
amount of money risked, net amount of money won/lost and number of standard drinks
consumed). We added a social context dimension to the G-TLFB wherein, for each
gambling episode, participants indicated who they were with at the time of gambling
(i.e. alone, with family, with friends, with strangers). The G-TLFB was administered in
an interview format. As per the suggestions of Sobell and Sobell (1992, 1996), to aid
memory recall, participants were presented with a 90-day calendar and the interviewer
probed participants for special events (e.g. birthdays, holidays, paydays) in order to help
them accurately recall their gambling episodes; recall began with the most recent
gambling episode and progressed backwards over time. Weinstock et al. (2004) found
that the original 90-day G-TLFB scales demonstrated good to excellent validity
coefficients with the SOGS (Lesieur & Blume, 1987; ranging from r 0.86 to 0.98), as
well as good test-retest reliability over a 2-week retest interval, with stable coefficients
for the various gambling dimensions ranging from r 0.74 to 0.96. Weinstock et al.
(2004) also found moderate to strong correlations between the G-TLFB questionnaire
and daily self-monitoring measures, which suggests good convergent validity (ranging
from r 0.58 to 0.87) for the G-TLFB questionnaire. Finally, it is important to note
that several studies have used the 90-day G-TLFB questionnaire successfully (Cronce &
Corbin, 2010; Ledgerwood & Petry, 2010; Rash, Weinstock, & Petry, 2011; Stewart,
Yi, & Stewart, in press).
Gambling Motives Questionnaire (GMQ; Stewart & Zack, 2008). The GMQ is a
questionnaire that consists of three subscales, each with five items, which are designed to
assess the relative frequency (1 almost never/never to 4 almost always/always) with
which participants gamble for each of three gambling motives: Enhancement, Social and
Coping. Individuals who gamble for enhancement motives tend to gamble to gain internal
positive reinforcement; their reasons for gambling include strong endorsement of
statements such as Because its exciting and Because it makes you feel good. Similarly,
individuals who gamble for social motives tend to gamble to gain positive reinforcement,
but they gamble for external, rather than internal, reasons; examples of social gambling
motives include As a way to celebrate and Because it makes a social gathering more
enjoyable. Finally, individuals who gamble for coping motives tend to gamble to reduce
negative emotions (i.e. for internal, negative reinforcement motives); their reasons for
gambling include To forget your worries and Because it helps when you are feeling
nervous or depressed. The GMQ has robust psychometric properties (Stewart & Zack,
2008). The measure has good structural validity and all three scales have good internal
consistency (alphas . 0.80). Also, analyses found that there was good construct and
concurrent validity.
Experience Sampling (ES) assessments

The experience sampling assessments were administered via a personal data assistant
(PDA) device. Participants were alerted three times per day and asked to report on their
mood and their gambling behaviour (if they had gambled since the last alarm). Further
discussion of the ES assessments is available in Goldstein et al. (in press); only those ES
measures relevant to the present study are described here.
Gambling questionnaire items. Using forced-choice options on a PDA, these items

paralleled those include in the G-TLFB. Participants selected their gambling activities
from a list of 20 items (e.g. played poker in a casino, bet on games with family/friends) and
indicated the amount of time they spent gambling (in minutes); the amount of money they
had intended to gamble (in dollars); the amount of money they actually spent gambling
(in dollars); the amount of money they won/lost (in dollars); and how many standard
drinks (if any) they consumed while gambling. Also, of critical importance to the present
study, we included a social context item, where participants were asked to indicate from a
list of four items (alone, with family, with friends, with strangers) who they were with
during each gambling episode. Participants could select as many of these options that
applied. For example, if they were with both friends and family members, they could select
both options.
Procedure
Telephone screening
Participants were screened for eligibility via telephone. Ineligible participants were told
that they were not eligible for the study and were thanked for their time, whereas eligible
participants were invited to come into the laboratory for an initial assessment and PDA
training. These sessions were scheduled within seven days of the telephone screening.
Initial assessment and PDA training

Eligible participants came into the laboratory and were given a detailed description of the
study procedure. Once participants provided consent, they completed the baseline
measures and were trained on the use of the PDA, which consisted of instruction in the
self-monitoring of gambling behaviour, including gambling social context, as well as a
demonstration of what would happen each time they were alerted by the PDA. To ensure
that participants understood how to use the PDA, they were asked to complete a sample
gambling assessment in the presence of the research assistant. After training, participants
received their PDA, an initial $25.00 compensation, and were asked to contact the lab if
they had any questions or problems.
Experience sampling assessment

For 30 days, participants were paged 3 times per day to complete the real-time gambling
behaviour and social context assessments. The pages occurred randomly in each of three
time slots: Morning (10:00 am to 11:30 am), afternoon (3:00 pm to 4:30 pm), and evening
(8:00 pm to 9:30 pm).
Each time participants were paged, they were asked Have you gambled since the last
time we paged you? If they responded Yes, they were asked to complete a variety of
items including the gambling questionnaire items described above. If participants were
gambling at the time that they were paged, they were asked to complete the gambling
assessment the next time they were paged; this was designed to reduce the likelihood of
reactivity (i.e. the alteration of ongoing behaviour because it is being monitored).
Participants completed a weekly check-in with the research assistant, who contacted
them by phone or email. In addition, if no responses were received for 24 hours, the
research assistant contacted the participant to ensure the PDA was working and there were
no problems with the pages. To encourage compliance and motivation during the 30 days
of ES, participants were compensated with a weekly $15.00 gift certificate to Amazon.ca.
Debriefing
After the 30-day ES assessments, participants were required to come into the laboratory
for an in-person debriefing session after which they returned the PDA and received their
final $25.00 compensation. Also, participants who completed more than 80% of their daily
experience sampling assessments were given an additional $25.00 bonus.
Results
Data preparation
As a way to control for the total number of gambling occasions, the proportion of times
that each participant gambled in each of the four social contexts was calculated and
served as the dependent measure of gambling social context. This was accomplished by
dividing the number of times that each participant gambled in each of the four social
contexts by the total number of gambling occasions. For example, to calculate the
proportion of times that a participant gambled alone, the number of times he/she gambled
alone was divided by the total number of occasions he/she gambled overall. The same
calculation was performed for the other three categories of social context (i.e. Family,
Friends, and Strangers). These proportion calculations were performed for both the
G-TLFB data as well as the ES data and were used in all analyses reported below. The
means and standard deviations for all study variables (demographic variables, GMQ
variables, G-TLFB social context variables, and ES social context variables) as well as
their intercorrelations are presented in Table 1.

Consistent with prior work (Stewart & Zack, 2008), students reported gambling
more frequently for positive reinforcement motives (Enhancement and Social) than for
negative reinforcement (Coping) motives (see Table 1). With respect to social contexts
for gambling, on both the retrospective and real-time assessments, the most common
social context for gambling was gambling alone, followed closely by gambling with
friends. Both gambling with family and gambling with strangers were relatively rare
(approximately 10% of gambling episodes or less each). With respect to agreement
between the retrospective and real-time assessments of gambling social context, the
correlations between corresponding gambling contexts were statistically significant
( p , 0.05) and large in magnitude (r . 0.50) for gambling alone and gambling with
family, suggesting that individuals who report gambling alone and with family on the
G-TLFB tend to also gamble alone and with family, respectively, on real-time
assessments; statistically significant ( p , 0.05) and moderate in magnitude (r . 0.30)
for gambling with friends such that participants who report gambling with friends on the
G-TLFB also tend to gamble with friends on real-time assessments; and marginally
significant ( p , 0.10) and small in magnitude (r . 0.10) for gambling with strangers,
suggesting a mild tendency for those who reported gambling with strangers on the
G-TLFB to also gamble with strangers on real-time assessments. Thus, overall, there
is a fairly high consistency between the retrospective and real-time assessment of
gambling social context, particularly for the Alone, Family and Friends social context
categories.
G-TLFB analyses
Four MRAs were conducted to assess the degree to which gambling motives
independently predicted the social context in which gambling behaviours occurred
according to retrospective reports on the G-TLFB (see Table 2). One of the four categories
of social context (Alone, Family, Friends and Strangers) served as the dependent variable
in each MRA. For each MRA, age and gender were entered on the first step (to control for
basic demographic variables), and the three gambling motives (Enhancement, Social and
Coping) were entered as a block on the second step. For all analyses, since this was the first
study to examine the possible relations of gambling motives with social gambling context,
we chose a liberal alpha of p , 0.05 for defining statistical significance.
122
Table 1. Bivariate correlations, means and standard deviations for demographic variables, gambling motives and social context variables for the Gambling
Timeline Follow-Back (G-TLFB) and Experience Sampling (ES) measures.
C.K. Quinlan et al.
Demographic variables Gambling motives G-TLFB: Social context Variables ES: Social context Variables
Age Gender Enhancement Social Coping Alone Family Friends Strangers Alone Family Friends Strangers
Age (in years)
Gender 2 0.150
Enhancement 2 0.042 0.018
Social 0.130 0.001 0.168
Coping 2 0.010 2 0.223** 0.253** 0.160
G-TLFB: Alone 2 0.153 0.047 0.050 2 0.366*** 0.183t
G-TLFB: Family 2 0.057 2 0.277*** 0.089 0.066 2 0.117 2 0.354***
G-TLFB: Friends 0.170t 2 0.022 2 0.166 0.406*** 2 0.160 2 0.917*** 0.166
G-TLFB: Strangers 0.005 0.124 0.248** 2 0.035 0.036 2 0.226** 2 0.048 2 0.089
ES: Alone 2 0.061 0.026 2 0.054 2 0.322*** 0.128 0.621*** 2 0.311*** 2 0.536*** 2 0.191t
ES: Family 0.234** 2 0.264*** 0.201** 0.151 2 0.032 2 0.131 0.540*** 0.029 2 0.050 20.099
ES: Friends 0.112 2 0.066 0.001 0.251** 2 0.075 2 0.363 0.146 0.407*** 2 0.149 20.261*** 0.243**
ES: Strangers 0.033 0.033 0.160 0.150 2 0.133 2 0.007 2 0.047 2 0.040 0.194t 20.132 0.105 0.174t
M 21.853 1 16; 2 79 13.379 10.758 8.316 0.490 0.067 0.437 0.041 0.401 0.088 0.353 0.107
SD 1.578 3.180 3.251 3.040 0.341 0.118 0.316 0.112 0.353 0.200 0.324 0.211
Note: Gender coded as 1 female and 2 male, t p , 0.10, ** p , 0.05, *** p , 0.01.
Table 2. Results of the four multiple regression analyses predicting social context for the Gambling Timeline Follow-Back (G-TLFB) and Experience Sampling
(ES) measures.
G-TLFB questionnaire ES
Alone Family Friends Strangers Alone Family Friends Strangers
Model 1
Age 2 0.150 2 0.100 0.171 0.024 2 0.059 0.199* 0.105 0.068
Gender 0.025 2 0.292** 0.004 0.128 0.017 2 0.234* 2 0.050 0.231*
F(2,92) 1.137 4.359* 1.373 0.746 0.186 5.585** 0.701 2.579t
R 2 Value 0.024 0.087* 0.029 0.016 0.004 0.108** 0.015 0.053t
Model 2
Age 2 0.083 2 0.119 0.094 0.047 2 0.005 0.186t 0.063 0.050
Gender 0.091 2 0.352** 2 0.049 0.129 0.073 2 0.278** 2 0.087 0.195t
Enhancement 0.049 0.137 2 0.189* 0.259* 2 0.051 0.238* 2 0.006 0.169
Social 2 0.404** 0.098 0.457** 20.086 2 0.346** 0.114 0.265** 0.136
Coping 0.254** 2 0.247* 2 0.195* 0.014 0.212* 2 0.170 2 0.135 2 0.133
F(5,89) 4.839** 3.186* 6.412** 1.630 2.980* 4.102** 1.749 2.135t
R 2 Value 0.214** 0.152* 0.265** 0.084 0.143* 0.187** 0.089 0.107t
D R2 0.190** 0.065t 0.236** 0.068t 0.139** 0.079* 0.074t 0.054
Note: Gender coded as 1 female and 2 male,t p , 0.10 *p , 0.05 ** p , 0.01.
International Gambling Studies
123
Gambling alone
As illustrated in Table 2, for the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives to
the equation resulted in a significant increment in R 2, DR 2 0.190, F(3, 89) 7.155,
p , 0.001, indicating that gambling motives add significant incremental variance to the
prediction of gambling alone over-and-above basic demographics. The final model was
significant and motives and demographics together accounted for 21.4% of the variability
in gambling alone. Examination of the Beta values in the final model indicates that social
gambling motives negatively predict gambling alone (b 2 0.404, p , 0.001) such that
participants with stronger social gambling motives are less likely to gamble alone than
those with weaker social gambling motives. In contrast, coping gambling motives
positively predict gambling alone (b 0.254, p 0.013) indicating that individuals with
stronger coping gambling motives tend to gamble alone more so than individuals with
weaker coping gambling motives.
Gambling with family

For the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives to the equation resulted in
a marginal increment in R 2, DR 2 0.065, F(3, 89) 2.282, p 0.085, and the final
model was significant, F(5, 89) 3.186, p 0.011, with gambling motives and
demographics combined accounting for 15.2% of the variability in gambling with
family. The Beta values indicate that coping gambling motives negatively predict
gambling with family (b 2 0.247, p 0.021) indicating that participants with stronger
coping gambling motives gamble with family less than those with weaker gambling
motives. The beta values also showed that gender negatively predicts gambling with
family (b 2 0.352, p 0.001) such that females gamble more often with family than
males.
Gambling with friends

For the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives resulted in a significant
increment in R 2, DR 2 0.236, F(3, 89) 9.517, p , 0.001, and the final model was
significant, F(5, 89) 6.412, p , 0.001, with motives and demographics together
accounting for 26.5% of the variance in gambling with friends. Examination of the
Beta values indicates that both social (b 0.457, p , 0.001) and enhancement
gambling motives (b 2 0.189, p , 0.05) predict gambling with friends such that
individuals with stronger social or weaker enhancement gambling motives tend to
gamble with family more so than individuals with weak social or strong enhancement
gambling motives. In contrast, coping gambling motives negatively predict gambling
with friends (b 2 0.195, p , 0.05) indicating that participants with strong coping
gambling motives tend to gamble with friends less than those with weak coping gambling
motives.
Gambling with strangers

For the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives to the equation provided
a marginal, but nonsignificant change in R 2, DR 2 0.068, F(3, 89) 2.199, p 0.094.
In addition, as the final model was not significant, we did not examine individual
predictors.
ES analyses
As with the Initial G-TLFB Analyses, four MRAs were conducted to assess the degree to
which gambling motives independently predicted the social context in which gambling
behaviours occurred as reported prospectively using ES methods (see Table 2). One of the
four categories of social context (Alone, Family, Friends and Strangers) served as the
dependent variable in each MRA. Again, as with the initial G-TLFB Analyses, for each
MRA, age and sex were entered on the first step (to control for basic demographic
variables), and the three gambling motives (Enhancement, Social and Coping) were
entered as a block on the second step. Once again, we chose a liberal alpha of p , 0.05 for
defining statistical significance.
Gambling alone
For the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives to the equation resulted in a
significant increment in R 2, DR 2 0.095, F(3, 89) 4.827, p 0.004, and the final
model was significant, F(5, 89) 2.980, p 0.016, with motives and demographics
together accounting for 14.3% of the variability in gambling alone. As in the G-TLFB
data, examination of the Beta values in the final model indicates that social gambling
motives negatively predict gambling alone (b 2 0.346, p 0.001), which suggests that
participants with stronger social gambling motives gamble alone less than do those with
weaker social gambling motives. And, again similar to the G-TLFB data, coping gambling
motives positively predict gambling alone (b 0.212, p 0.047) indicating that
individuals with stronger coping gambling motives tend to gamble more alone than do
individuals with weaker coping motives.
Gambling with family

For the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives to the equation resulted in a
significant increment in R 2, DR 2 0.079, F(3, 89) 2.884, p 0.040 and the final
model was significant, F(5, 89) 4.102, p 0.002, with gambling motives and
demographics combined accounting for 18.7% of the variance in gambling with family.
Examination of the Beta values reveals that enhancement gambling motives (b 0.238,
p 0.020) positively predict gambling with family such that individuals with stronger
enhancement gambling motives tend to gamble with family more so than individuals with
weaker enhancement gambling motives. Also, as with the G-TLFB results, the Beta values
indicate that gender negatively predicts gambling with family (b 2 0.352, p 0.001)
suggesting that females are more likely to gamble with family than males.
Gambling with friends. For the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives
to the equation resulted in a marginal, but non-significant increment in R 2, DR 2 0.074,
F(3, 89) 2.427, p 0.071. In addition, because the final model was not significant,
F(5, 89) 1.749, p 0.132, individual predictors were not examined.
Gambling with strangers

For the second step, the addition of the three gambling motives did not provide a
significant change in R 2, DR 2 0.054, F(3, 89) 1.794, p 0.154, indicating that
gambling motives as a block did not add incremental variance to the prediction of
gambling with strangers over-and-above basic demographics. In addition, the final model
was nonsignificant, R 2 0.107, F(5, 89) 2.135, p 0.068.
Discussion
The goal of the present study was to investigate the relationship between gambling
motives and gambling in various social contexts, both when social context was assessed
retrospectively via a timeline follow-back assessment (Sobell & Sobell, 1992, 1996) and
when it was assessed in real time via ES methods (Conner Christensen et al., 2003).
Based on the findings of Cooper (1994) and Cooper et al. (1992) in the drinking motives
area, we predicted that stronger coping gambling motives would be positively associated
with gambling alone and negatively associated with gambling with other people in a social
setting, whereas stronger enhancement or social motives would be positively associated
with gambling in a social setting. More specifically, we predicted that individuals with
stronger coping gambling motives would gamble more often alone and less often with
close others (i.e. family, friends) than those with weaker coping gambling motives.
Moreover, we predicted that participants with stronger enhancement gambling motives
would gamble more frequently with strangers compared to those who were not motivated
by enhancement gambling, and participants with stronger social gambling motives would
gamble more frequently with family and friends than those who were not motivated
by social gambling. We expected these relations to emerge using both retrospective and
real-time assessment of gambling social context.
Generally, our predictions were supported, particularly regarding the relationship
between coping and social gambling motives, and social contexts for gambling.
Specifically, the MRAs revealed that coping motives positively predicted gambling alone
on both the retrospective and real-time measures, and negatively predicted gambling
with family and friends on the retrospective measure. This suggests that participants with
stronger coping motives were more likely to gamble alone and less likely to gamble with
close others (i.e. friends and family) relative to participants with weaker coping gambling
motives. In contrast, social motives negatively predicted gambling alone on both the
retrospective and real-time measures, and positively predicted gambling with friends
(but not family or strangers) on the retrospective measure. Thus, in contrast to individuals
with stronger coping motives, individuals with stronger social gambling motives were
more likely to gamble with friends and less likely to gamble by themselves than
individuals with weaker social gambling motives. These findings are generally consistent
with those of Cooper (1994) and Cooper et al. (1992) who found that coping drinking
motives positively predicted drinking alone, whereas social drinking motives positively
predicted drinking in a social setting. Our findings diverge from Cooper (1994) and
Cooper et al. (1992) in that enhancement gambling motives were negatively associated
with gambling with friends when assessed retrospectively and positively associated
with gambling with family when assessed in real time. In the drinking motives
literature, enhancement drinking motives are positively associated with drinking with
friends specifically, same-sex friends but not mixed-sex friends. Unfortunately, we did
not ask participants to differentiate between gambling with same-sex versus mixed-sexed
friends, which may explain the differences in findings. Alternatively, this may represent a
difference in the social contextual correlates of enhancement motives in the case of
alcohol versus gambling behaviour.
While the findings from the retrospective and real-time data were generally quite
consistent, there were some differences across the two assessments. First, in the analyses
of retrospectively reported social context data, coping gambling motives were associated
with less gambling with family and friends. These relationships were not significant in the
analyses of the real-time collected data (although they were in the same direction).
Second, in the real-time analyses, enhancement gambling motives were a significant
predictor of gambling with family such that individuals with strong enhancement
gambling motives tended to gamble less with family than individuals with weaker
enhancement gambling motives; this relationship was not significant in the retrospective
analyses. Third, enhancement gambling motives were a significant predictor of gambling
with friends (i.e. individuals with stronger enhancement gambling motives were less likely
to gamble with friends) in the analyses of retrospectively reported social context data.
These discrepancies between the retrospective and real-time social context data are
relatively minor compared to the consistencies. Also, given that these discrepancies
largely emerged in social context categories that were infrequently endorsed (i.e. family),
they may simply be a result of insufficient power associated with a small sample size
and/or fewer observations for that particular social context category. Thus, despite the
above discrepancies, across the retrospective and real-time measures, three consistent and
statistically significant findings emerged: (1) A positive relationship between coping
motives and gambling alone such that individuals with strong coping gambling motives
tended to gamble alone more frequently than individuals with weaker coping gambling
motives; (2) A positive relationship between social motives and gambling with friends
such that individuals with strong social gambling motives tended to gamble with friends
more often than individuals with weaker social gambling motives; and (3) A negative
relationship between social motives and gambling alone such that individuals with strong
social gambling motives tended to gamble by themselves less often than individuals with
weaker social gambling motives.
These findings suggest that the link between gambling social contexts and gambling
motives is more consistent for coping and social motivated gamblers compared to
enhancement motivated gamblers. For young adults who gamble to alleviate negative
affect, gambling is a solitary activity, whereas those who gamble to enhance social
situations are gambling more often with friends and less often by themselves. For
enhancement motivated gamblers, no single social context emerges as salient across
modes of assessment. Perhaps the gambling reasons and/or the types of gambling activities
associated with enhancement motivated gamblers tend to be more varied than those
associated with coping and social motivated gamblers, and thus these enhancement
motivated gamblers tend to gamble in a variety of social contexts. With the exception of
the enhancement gambling motive category, our findings provide further evidence to
suggest that gambling motives are important markers of gambling subtypes. In particular,
the current findings map well onto the Pathways Model of problem and pathological
gambling (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002). For example, the coping motivated gambler in
the current study most closely parallels the emotionally vulnerable gambler who is
motivated to gamble to alleviate negative affect due to a history of anxiety and/or
depression, coupled with poor coping and problem-solving abilities. Our findings suggest
that these vulnerabilities also contribute to solitary gambling, which may reflect increased
isolation and social withdrawal. This cycle of negative affect, gambling and increased
social withdrawal may continue, resulting in increased gambling and gambling problems.
Although socially motivated gambling may or may not be associated with problem
gambling, to the extent that it is, socially motivated gamblers can be conceptualized as
similar to the behaviourally conditioned gambler, who becomes increasingly involved
with gambling, but limits their gambling to social contexts and focuses primarily on
gambling with friends (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002). However, because the focus of the
current study was on gambling in social contexts, and not problem gambling, further
research is needed to determine whether social gambling motives are associated with
gambling problems and behaviourally conditioned gambling, as outlined in the Pathways
Model of problem and pathological gambling (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002). For the
enhancement motivated gambler, the social context may be less important; this gambler
may gamble with family or with strangers, but there may be less connection between the
social context and the functional role that gambling serves. Some of these enhancement
motivated gamblers may be similar to the antisocial impulsivist problem gambler
described by Blaszczynski and Nower (2002). To better understand how social contexts
factor into theories of gambling, further research is needed to better clarify the relationship
between motives and social contexts in samples of adults with both problem and
pathological gambling as well as non-problem and pathological gambling.
The current findings provide important evidence for specific relationships between
gambling motives and gambling in particular social contexts in a population of young

adult gamblers. This has implications for gambling interventions, given that social
influences may contribute to gambling and gambling problems. For example, treatment
approaches for individuals who gamble for coping reasons should focus on skills for
resisting gambling in solitary contexts, as these are high-risk situations for coping
motivated gamblers. In contrast, socially motivated and enhancement motivated gamblers
would benefit from a focus on refusal skills to prepare them to cope with situations where
they may be encouraged and/or pressured by friends or family, respectively.
Limitations and future directions

There are some limitations to the present study that should be mentioned. First, the
retrospective and real-time measures did not use the same time frame: the retrospective
data measured the 90 days prior to the initial assessment, whereas the real-time data
measured the 30 days following the initial assessment. A longer time frame is typically
better at capturing usual behaviour; however, a 90-day real-time study using ES is low in
feasibility. Second, the study sample consisted of predominantly young adult males
(79 males versus 16 females), which likely biased the findings towards a young adult male
population and thus limits the generalizability of our findings to the wider population.
Future research with a sample consisting of a more equivalent gender ratio and expanded to
include middle-aged and older adults would be a valuable addition to the literature and
would enable exploration of possible gender (e.g. same-sex versus mixed-sex friends) and
age differences. However, it is important to note that our gender ratio is representative of
regular gamblers, given the greater prevalence of regular gambling among young adult
males (Wiebe et al., 2006). Furthermore, while it would be valuable for a future study to use
a more equivalent gender ratio, it would be equally valuable to investigate whether our
findings generalize from a young adult population to an older adult population. Third, in
addition to a predominantly male sample, our study only included a total of 95 participants,
which may be viewed as a relatively small sample size. The current study is drawn from a
larger ES study, where smaller sample sizes are typical, but for the current analyses this
may have resulted in some loss of power. However, one of the strengths of the current study
is the replication of findings across two methods of assessment (retrospective and real
time), especially with regard to coping and social motivated gamblers. A fourth noteworthy
limitation of the current study is that our R 2 values represented relatively small effect sizes
(less than 0.30). In addition to gambling motives, it is possible that other factors, such as
preference for type of gambling (e.g. Internet versus casino) and personality traits
(e.g. introvert versus extrovert) may have contributed to gambling in particular social
contexts. This exploration of other individual difference variables that may account for
additional variability in gambling social context would be a useful avenue for future
research. A final limitation of the present study is that it relied on self-report measures; a
future study should investigate this research experimentally. Although some research has
found that individuals are more likely to gamble when they are aware of the presence of
other individuals (e.g. Cole, Barrett, & Griffiths, 2010; Martinez, Le Floch, & Gaffie, 2005;
Rockloff & Dyer, 2007), this work did not separate gamblers based on motives. It would be
valuable to replicate and extend our findings by placing gamblers with varying gambling
motives in various social contexts in a laboratory setting and measuring gambling
behaviour in each social context. This would allow researchers to examine whether or not
there is a direct association between social context and gambling behaviour, and whether
this is moderated by gambling motives (Enhancement, Social, Coping).
In conclusion, despite the limitations mentioned above, the current study represents an
important contribution to the literature because it is the first study to demonstrate a
relationship between gambling motives and gambling behaviour in specific social
contexts. Our findings are similar to those from the drinking motives literature in that
individuals with stronger coping motives are more likely to gamble in contexts where they
are alone and less likely to gamble in contexts with close others such as family and friends,
whereas individuals with stronger social motives are less likely to gamble alone and more
likely to gamble in a social setting with friends; our findings with regard to the
enhancement motivated gamblers were less clear. Nevertheless, critically, the associations
for coping and social motivated gamblers extended across both retrospective and real-time
analyses. Thus, the ecological validity of our study is quite strong, enhancing the
contribution of our findings to the gambling literature.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Natalie Vilhena-Churchill, Immaculate Antony, Breanne Faulkner and
Pamela Collins for their work on the project. In addition, we would like to thank Drs Peter Hoaken
and Gordon Flett for their contributions to the larger study that formed the basis for this work.
Funding
Funding for this project was provided by a Research Award from the Ontario Problem Gambling
Research Centre. The principal investigator is Dr Abby L. Goldstein and co-investigators include
Sherry H. Stewart, Dr Peter Hoaken, and Dr Gordon Flett.
Notes
1. Because this was a preliminary study and it has the potential to be very applicable to treating
problem gamblers, we thought that it was important to examine an at-risk population. We intend
to extend this research to the wider population of adults in the future.
2. This excluded lottery ticket gambling because it does not result in the same schedule of
reinforcement as other forms of gambling; Blaszczynski and Nower (2002).
Notes on contributors
Chelsea K. Quinlan is a graduate student in the PhD in Clinical Psychology program at Dalhousie
University. Chelseas dissertation research examines the effect of mnemonic strategies, such as
reading aloud and singing, on memory performance and the underlying mechanisms that contribute
to these memory benefits. Chelsea is also broadly interested in the treatment of addictive behaviours
in adolescents.
Abby L. Goldstein is an Assistant Professor of Counseling Psychology at the Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. Dr Goldstein received her PhD in Clinical
Psychology from York University in Toronto, Canada. Dr Goldsteins research examines various
aspects of addictive behaviours in adolescence and emerging adulthood, including motivational
models of alcohol use and gambling, concurrent disorders among adolescents and emerging adults,
and the relationship between childhood maltreatment and substance use.
Sherry H. Stewart is a Professor of Psychology at Dalhousie University. Dr Stewart received her
PhD in Clinical Psychology from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Dr Stewarts research is
focused on psychological factors (e.g. motives, personality, implicit cognitions) contributing to
alcohol abuse, pathological gambling, and the comorbidity of mental health and addictive disorders.
She has published several clinical trials of novel approaches for the treatment and prevention of
addictive disorders and co-occurring mental health problems.
References
Baudinet, J., & Blaszczynski, A. (2013). Arousal and gambling mode preference: A review of the
literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 343 358.
Bernard, B. J., Dickens, D. R., & Shapiro, P. D. (2012). Gambling alone? A study of solitary and
social gambling in America. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 11, 1 14.
Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling.
Addiction, 97, 487 499.
Bourgault, C., & Demers, A. (1997). Solitary drinking: A risk factor for alcohol-related problems?
Addiction, 92, 303 312.
Cole, T., Barrett, D. J. K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). Social facilitation in online and offline
gambling: A pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 8, 1 8.
Conner Christensen, T., Feldman Barrett, L., Bliss-Moreau, E., Lebo, K., & Kaschub, C. (2003).
A practical guide to experience-sampling procedures. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 53 78.
Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation
of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6, 117 128.
Cooper, M. L., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regulate positive and
negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 990 1005.
Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., & Windle, M. (1992). Development and validation of a
three-dimensional measure of drinking motives. Psychological Assessment, 4, 123 132.
Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 97, 168 180.
Cronce, J. M., & Corbin, W. R. (2010). Effects of alcohol and initial gambling outcomes on
within-session gambling behavior. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18,
145 157.
Demers, A., & Bourgault, C. (1996). Changing society, changing drinking: Solitary drinking as a
non-pathological behaviour. Addiction, 91, 1505 1516.
Goldstein, A. L., Stewart, S. H., Hoaken, P. N. S., & Flett, G. (in press). Mood, motives, and
gambling in young adults: An examination of within- and between-person variations using
experience sampling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours.
Huang, J. H., Jacobs, D. F., Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., & Paskus, T. S. (2007). Gambling and
health risk behaviors among U.S. college student-athletes: Findings from a national study.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 390 397.
Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., & Engels, R. (2005). Why do young people drink? A review of
drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 841 861.
Ledgerwood, D. M., & Petry, N. M. (2010). Subtyping pathological gamblers based on impulsivity,
depression, and anxiety. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 680 688.
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument
for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144,
1184 1188.
Martinez, F., Le Floch, V., & Gaffie, B. (2005). Perception of control and risk taking in a gambling
game: What the other guy wins matters. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 18,
129 151.
Nower, L., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2004). The relationship of impulsivity, sensation seeking,
coping, and substance use in youth gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 49 55.
Rash, C. J., Weinstock, J., & Petry, N. M. (2011). Drinking patterns of pathological gamblers before,
during, and after gambling treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 664 674.
Rockloff, M. J., & Dyer, V. (2007). An experiment on the social facilitation of gambling behavior.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(1), 1 12.
Scannell, E. D., Quirk, M. M., Smith, K., Maddern, R., & Dickerson, M. (2000). Females coping
styles of control over poker machine gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 417 432.
Sharpe, L. (2002). A reformulated cognitive behavioral model of problem gambling. Clinical
Psychology Review, 22(1), 1 25.
Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1992). Timeline followback: A technique for assessing self-reported
alcohol consumption. In R. Z. Litten & L. A. Allen (Eds.), Measuring alcohol consumption:
Psychosocial and biochemical methods. Totowa, NJ: The Humana Press.
Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (1996). Timeline followback users guide: A calendar method for
assessing alcohol and drug use. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.

Stewart, S. H., & Zack, M. (2008). Development and psychometric evaluation of a three-dimensional
gambling motives questionnaire. Addiction, 103, 1110 1117.
Stewart, S. H., Zack, M., Collins, P., Klein, R. M., & Fragopoulos, F. (2008). Subtyping pathological
gamblers on the basis of affective motivations for gambling: Relations to gambling problems,
drinking problems, and affective motivations for drinking. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
22, 257 268.
Stewart, M. J., Yi, S., & Stewart, S. H. (in press). Effects of gambling-related cues on the activation
of implicit and explicit gambling outcome expectancies in regular gamblers. Journal of
Gambling Studies.
Weinstock, J., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (2004). Behavioral assessment of gambling: An
application of the timeline followback method. Psychological Assessment, 16, 72 80.
Wiebe, J., Mun, P., & Kauffman, N. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Ontario 2005.
Toronto: Responsible Gambling Council of Ontario.
Winters, K. C., Bengston, P., Door, D., & Stinchfield, R. (1998). Prevalence and risk factors of
problem gambling among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 12, 127 135.
Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an
escape-based coping strategy. Psychology Psychotherapy: Theory, Research Practice, 80,
107 125.
Wood, R. T. A., Gupta, R., Derevensky, J. L., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004). Video game playing and
gambling in adolescents: Common risk factors. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance
Abuse, 14, 77 100.

An Investigation of The Link Between

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation of The Link Between

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [81.193.146.

International Gambling Studies

An investigation of the link between

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2013.855252

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

An investigation of the link between gambling motives and social

*Corresponding author. Email: chelsea.quinlan@dal.ca

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

Demographics questionnaire (Winters, Bengston, Dorr, & Stinchfield, 1998). The

90-day Gambling Timeline Follow-Back Questionnaire (G-TLFB; Weinstock et al., 2004).

Experience Sampling (ES) assessments

Gambling questionnaire items. Using forced-choice options on a PDA, these items

Initial assessment and PDA training

Experience sampling assessment

their intercorrelations are presented in Table 1.

Gambling with family

Gambling with friends

Gambling with strangers

Gambling with family

Gambling with strangers

gambling motives and gambling in particular social contexts in a population of young

Limitations and future directions

assessing alcohol and drug use. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.

You might also like