| Title |
Testing the Emotional Vulnerability Pathway to Problem Gambling in Culturally Diverse University Students
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10899-018-9753-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandra Hum, Sherilene M. Carr |
| Abstract |
Loneliness and adapting to an unfamiliar environment can increase emotional vulnerability in culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) university students. According to Blaszczynski and Nower's pathways model of problem and pathological gambling, this emotional vulnerability could increase the risk of problem gambling. The current study examined whether loneliness was associated with problem gambling risk in CALD students relative to their Australian peers. Additionally, differences in coping strategies were examined to determine their buffering effect on the relationship. A total of 463 female and 165 male university students (aged 18-38) from Australian (38%), mixed Australian and CALD (23%) and CALD (28%) backgrounds responded to an online survey of problem gambling behaviour, loneliness, and coping strategies. The results supported the hypothesis that loneliness would be related to problem gambling in CALD students. There was no evidence of a moderating effect of coping strategies. Future research could test whether the introduction of programs designed to alleviate loneliness in culturally diverse university students reduces their risk of developing problem gambling. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 40% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#769
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,290
of 454,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#22
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.