Claudio Barbaranelli, Valerio Ghezzi, Roberta Fida, Michele Vecchione
Abstract
Since its introduction in 1977, self-efficacy has proven to be a fundamental predictor of positive adjustment and achievement in many domains. In problem gambling studies, self-efficacy has been defined mainly as an individual's ability to avoid gambling in risky situations. The interest in this construct developed mainly with regard to treatment approaches, where abstinence from gambling is required. Very little is known, however, regarding self-efficacy as a protective factor for problem gambling. This study aims to fill this gap, proposing a new self-efficacy scale which measures not only the ability to restrain oneself from gambling but also the ability to self-regulate one's gambling behavior. Two studies were conducted in which the data from two Italian prevalence surveys on problem gambling were considered. A total of about 6,000 participants were involved. In the first study, the psychometric characteristics of this new self-efficacy scale were investigated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The results indicated the presence of two different factors: self-efficacy in self-regulating gambling behavior and self-efficacy in avoiding risky gambling behavior. The second study confirmed the replicability of the two-factor solution and displayed high correlations among these two self-efficacy dimensions and different measures of gambling activities as well as other psychological variables related to gambling (gambling beliefs, gambling motivation, risk propensity, and impulsiveness). The results of logistic regression analyses showed the particular importance of self-regulating gaming behavior in explaining problem gambling as measured by Problem Gambling Severity Index and South Oaks Gambling Screen, thus proving the role of self-efficacy as a pivotal protective factor for problem gambling.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,720,444
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,720
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,273
of 318,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 632 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 318,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 632 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
