Studer Joseph, Baggio Stéphanie, Mohler-Kuo Meichun, Simon Olivier, Daeppen Jean-Bernard, Gmel Gerhard
Alcohol Treatment Centre, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, Av. Beaumont 21 Bis, Pavillon 2, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Life Course and Social Inequality Research Centre, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Gambl Stud. 2016 Jun;32(2):421-40. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9547-9.
The study aimed to identify different patterns of gambling activities (PGAs) and to investigate how PGAs differed in gambling problems, substance use outcomes, personality traits and coping strategies. A representative sample of 4989 young Swiss males completed a questionnaire assessing seven distinct gambling activities, gambling problems, substance use outcomes, personality traits and coping strategies. PGAs were identified using latent class analysis (LCA). Differences between PGAs in gambling and substance use outcomes, personality traits and coping strategies were tested. LCA identified six different PGAs. With regard to gambling and substance use outcomes, the three most problematic PGAs were extensive gamblers, followed by private gamblers, and electronic lottery and casino gamblers, respectively. By contrast, the three least detrimental PGAs were rare or non-gamblers, lottery only gamblers and casino gamblers. With regard to personality traits, compared with rare or non-gamblers, private and casino gamblers reported higher levels of sensation seeking. Electronic lottery and casino gamblers, private gamblers and extensive gamblers had higher levels of aggression-hostility. Extensive and casino gamblers reported higher levels of sociability, whereas casino gamblers reported lower levels of anxiety-neuroticism. Extensive gamblers used more maladaptive and less adaptive coping strategies than other groups. Results suggest that gambling is not a homogeneous activity since different types of gamblers exist according to the PGA they are engaged in. Extensive gamblers, electronic and casino gamblers and private gamblers may have the most problematic PGAs. Personality traits and coping skills may predispose individuals to PGAs associated with more or less negative outcomes.
该研究旨在识别不同模式的赌博活动（PGAs），并调查PGAs在赌博问题、物质使用结果、人格特质和应对策略方面的差异。4989名瑞士年轻男性的代表性样本完成了一份问卷，该问卷评估了七种不同的赌博活动、赌博问题、物质使用结果、人格特质和应对策略。使用潜在类别分析（LCA）来识别PGAs。测试了PGAs在赌博和物质使用结果、人格特质和应对策略方面的差异。LCA识别出六种不同的PGAs。在赌博和物质使用结果方面，问题最大的三种PGAs分别是广泛赌徒，其次是私人赌徒，以及电子彩票和赌场赌徒。相比之下，危害最小的三种PGAs是极少或不赌博者、仅参与彩票赌博者和赌场赌徒。在人格特质方面，与极少或不赌博者相比，私人和赌场赌徒报告的寻求刺激水平更高。电子彩票和赌场赌徒、私人赌徒和广泛赌徒的攻击性敌意水平更高。广泛赌徒和赌场赌徒报告的社交性更高，而赌场赌徒报告的焦虑-神经质水平更低。广泛赌徒比其他群体使用更多适应不良和更少适应性的应对策略。结果表明，赌博不是一种同质活动，因为根据他们所参与的PGAs存在不同类型的赌徒。广泛赌徒、电子和赌场赌徒以及私人赌徒可能具有问题最大的PGAs。人格特质和应对技能可能使个体易患与或多或少负面结果相关的PGAs。
