Vol.:(0123456789)
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10899-018-9813-8
1 3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Pee G oup Iden i ica ion asDe e minan o You h Beha io
and heRole o Pe cei ed Social Suppo inP oblem
Gambling
IinaSa olainen1 · AnuSi ola1· Ma kusKaakinen1· A eOksanen1
Published online: 21 No embe 2018
© The Au ho (s) 2018
Abs ac
Gambling oppo uni ies ha e inc eased apidly du ing ecen yea s. P e ious esea ch
shows ha gambling is a popula ac i i y among you h, which may con ibu e o p ob-
lem gambling. This s udy examined how social iden i ica ion wi h online and o line pee
g oups associa es wi h you h p oblem gambling beha io and i pe cei ed social suppo
bu e s his ela ionship. Da a we e ga he ed wi h an online su ey wi h 1212 Ame ican
and 1200 Finnish pa icipan s be ween 15 and 25yea s o age. Measu es included he
Sou h Oaks Gambling Sc een o p oblem gambling, and i ems o pee g oup iden i i-
ca ion and pe cei ed social suppo . I was ound ha you h who iden i y s ongly wi h
o line pee g oups we e less likely o engage in p oblem gambling, while s ong iden i ica-
ion wi h online pee g oups had he opposi e e ec . We also ound ha he associa ions
be ween social iden i ica ion and p oblem gambling beha io we e mode a ed by pe cei ed
social suppo . Online pee g oups may be a de e minan in you h p oblem gambling.
Focusing on o line pee g oups and inc easing social suppo can hold signi ican po en ial
in you h gambling p e en ion.
Keywo ds Social iden i ica ion· Social suppo · P oblem gambling beha io · You h
* Iina Sa olainen
iina.sa [email p o ec ed]
Anu Si ola
[email p o ec ed]
Ma kus Kaakinen
[email p o ec ed]
A e Oksanen
[email p o ec ed]
1 Facul y o Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Tampe e, 33100Tampe e, Finland
16
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
In oduc ion
O e he pas decade, gambling has inc eased i s popula i y as a ec ea ional ac i -
i y (Molina o e al. 2018; O o d 2010), pa icula ly among indi iduals be ween 11 and
25yea s o age, o , you h (Calado e al. 2017; UNESCO 2017). E en hough gambling is
illegal o unde aged you h, new gambling echnologies ha e made di e en o ms o gam-
bling widesp ead and much easie o e en he younges indi iduals o access (Blinn-Pike
e al. 2010; Canale e al. 2016; El on-Ma shall e al. 2016). Abo e all, In e ne gambling
has ans o med he adi ional gambling landscape by o e ing con enien , ins an , and
cons an access o no el gambling o ms (Gainsbu y e al. 2015; G i i hs and Pa ke 2010).
Among a sample o ≥ 18-yea -old college s uden p oblem gamble s, Pe y and Gonzalez-
Ibanez (2015) ound ha nea ly hal (49%) had gambled on he In e ne du ing he mon h
p io o he s udy.The sampleincluded only hose s uden swho hadsco ed mo e han 3
poin s on a combined gambling measu e, consis ing o he Sou h Oaks Gambling Sc een
(SOGS) and money spen on gambling du ing he pas 2 mon hs. Mo e ecen ly, Molina o
e al. (2018) epo ed ha 22.6% o 16-yea -old s uden s had gambled du ing he pas yea ,
16.2% o hem online.
Pas esea ch u he indica es ha he p e alence a e o gambling engagemen is con-
side ably high among you h and p edominan ly ocused on p i a e be ing on skill-based
games (El on-Ma shall e al. 2016; Volbe g e al. 2010). An ex ensi e e iew s udy om
he u n o he decade ound ha , compa ed o 11% o adul s, 28% o you h epo ed ha ing
be on games o skill, such as ca d games, in he pas yea (Volbe g e al. 2010). A mo e
ecen e iew consis ing o 44 s udies on gambling among 11- o 24-yea -olds, concluded
ha up o 12.3% o you h wi hin ha age ange quali y as p oblem gamble s ac oss i e
con inen s (Calado e al. 2017).
Gambling ac i i ies can p o ide indi iduals wi h many subjec i e bene i s, such as
exci emen , en e ainmen , and a pe cei ed sense o acqui ing weal h wi hou much e o
(De e ensky and Gilbeau 2015; Kim e al. 2017). Howe e , bo h ec ea ional and p ob-
lema ic gambling alike a e associa ed wi h se e al psychosocial, physical, and men al
heal h p oblems (F öbe g e al. 2015; Kong e al. 2013). Pas esea ch has ound associa-
ions be ween gambling engagemen and subs ance abuse (Calado e al. 2017; Kessle e al.
2008), inc eased inancial di icul ies (Raisamo e al. 2013), and poo school pe o mance,
as well as damaged social ela ionships (Raisamo e al. 2013; Sple ins e al. 2010). P ob-
lem gambling is a g owing global issue ha may u he mani es in a ange o men al
heal h p oblems, such as dep ession, anxie y, mood di icul ies, and agg ession (Lloyd
e al. 2010; Yip e al. 2011). As hese issues can become inc easingly p e alen when he
onse o gambling occu s p io o adul hood (Kong e al. 2013), new esea ch pe spec i es
a e needed o explain you h gambling beha io and mo i es, as well as o he unde lying
mechanisms.
Social Iden i y asaDe e minan o Beha io
Social ela ionships a e ecognized as a key de e minan o o e all well-being (Baumeis e
and Lea y 1995; Thoi s 2011) and beha io (C uwys e al. 2015; Hol -Luns ad 2010) o
people in gene al, bu especially o young indi iduals in he 15–25 age g oup (Bes e al.
2014a; Dishion and Tipso d 2011; Ta an 2002). One possible linkage be ween social
17
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
ela ionships and subsequen beha io is social iden i ica ion, which is ope a ionalized as
he subjec i e sense o belonging o a ce ain g oup (Buckingham e al. 2013; C uwys e al.
2017; Je en e al. 2014). Social iden i ica ion, as in oduced by Taj el and Tu ne (1979),
e e s o a p ocess in which an indi idual’s iden i y is pa ly de e mined by his o he con-
nec edness o desi ed social g oups. These “in-g oups” p o ide indi iduals wi h a sense o
belonging and pu pose, which ha e been shown o ha e signi ican ou comes in e ms o
pe sonal capi al and guide beha io al choices beyond no ma i e pee in luence (Bes e al.
2014b; F ings and Albe y 2015; Mawson e al. 2015).
Acco ding o he social iden i y heo y (SIT), becoming a membe o an “in-g oup” con-
sis ing o pee s o simila o he s is bene icial o an indi idual (Taj el and Tu ne 1979),
as i enhances sel -es eem, posi i e sel -concep , and con ibu es o decision-making p o-
cesses (Buckingham e al. 2013). Social psychological esea ch has consis en ly ecognized
he impac ha social iden i ies ha e in shaping no only indi iduals’ belie s, bu a ious
beha io s as well, anging om posi i e heal h p omo ion o nega i e heal h-des uc i e
beha io s (Je en e al. 2012, 2014; Oyse man e al. 2007). Once social iden i y wi h a
desi ed g oup is es ablished, he indi idual is mo e mo i a ed o beha e in acco dance
wi h he g oups’ pe cei ed no ms (Tu ne 1991; Ma ino e al. 2016). These social iden i y
e ec s may be e en mo e p onounced among you h who a e s ill cons uc ing hei iden i-
ies (Bech e al. 2017).
Kobus (2003) ound ha adolescen s be ween ages 11 and 20 we e mo e likely o
engage in smoking beha io when hei pee g oup iden i y was salien . Oyse man e al.
(2007) concluded ha , ac oss se en expe imen s, ace- ela ed social iden i ies we e associ-
a ed wi h ei he heal h-p omo ion o unheal hy beha io , depending on he social g oup
wi h which he pa icipan s iden i ied. Cong uen ly, heal h-p omo ing beha io s we e asso-
cia ed wi h belonging o he whi e and middle-class in-g oup iden i y, while unheal hy
beha io s we e associa ed wi h acial mino i y iden i ies. A s udy by Fos e e al. (2014)
on college s uden gambling ound ha gambling beha io was associa ed wi h a s onge
social iden i y wi h o he gambling s uden s, a he han he s uden body in gene al. Social
iden i y was also ound o mode a e he associa ion be ween pe cei ed college no ms and
gambling beha io , as gambling s uden s we e mo e likely o pe cei e i as a no ma i e
beha io among hei pee s (Fos e e al. 2014).
Pee ela ionships ha e a heigh ened impo ance among adolescen s and young adul s,
and mos adolescen s epo ha hey belong o a pee g oup (Chow e al. 2011; Flynn e al.
2017; Ta an 2002). Due o he changing s uc u e o he social wo ld, indi iduals can
now ind meaning ul g oups wi h which o iden i y in bo h o line (Sussman e al. 2007)
and online (Da is 2012; Mikal e al. 2016) en i onmen s. E e since he in oduc ion and
exponen ial g ow h in popula i y o he i s social ne wo king se ices, such as MySpace,
Bebo, and Facebook—and, la e on, Ins ag am, Twi e , and Snapcha —people ha e been
connec ing wi h e e -widening ci cles o o he use s and c ea ing associa ions wi h indi-
iduals a ound he globe (Li ings one 2008; Tsi sika e al. 2014; Young 2011).
Social media is pa icula ly a ac i e o young use s: Abou 90% o young adul s in
he Uni ed S a es use social media pla o ms and mo e han hal o hem isi he si es
daily (Villan i e al. 2017; Lin e al. 2016). Resea ch has ound ha social media se ices
a e used mainly o communica ion wi h iends om he pas and p esen (Da is 2012;
Nei a e al. 2014), sha ing hough s and in e es ing con en (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010),
and o sel -disclosu e and exp ession (Bes e al. 2014a; Li ings one 2008). Resea ch has
also sugges ed ha h ough online ne wo ks, indi iduals can mo e easily come in con ac
wi h like-minded o he s and sha e mu ual ideas and con en (Aiello e al. 2012; Si ola e al.
2018). Despi e he ac ha online and o line social ne wo ks end o o e lap, online social
18
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
ies ha e been iden i ied as an independen sou ce o social connec edness ha a e no
educible o he ones o igina ing om ace- o- ace in e ac ions (Cole e al. 2017). Mo eo-
e , online social g oups a e alued as being equally impo an as hose o line and build-
ing one’s iden i y h ough online enues and g oups seems o be a g owing mode n no m
(Bo ca e al. 2015; Lehdon i a and Räsänen 2011).
Gi en i s inc easing popula i y, you h gambling gene a es a new ype o ques ion in
e ms o social iden i ies and he gambling phenomenon. Pas esea ch has been able o
iden i y se e al indi idual, amilial, and con ex ual ac o s associa ed wi h you h gam-
bling (Buckle e al. 2013; Dussaul e al. 2017), ye li le esea ch has examined whe he
social iden i y unc ions as an implici mechanism educing o inducing he beha io . I
has been sys ema ically epo ed ha you h gambling and p oblem gambling a e associa ed
wi h he male gende (Sple ins e al. 2010), young age, lowe educa ion le el (Gainsbu y
e al. 2015; Hing e al. 2017), amily-induced gambling expe iences (Gup a and De e en-
sky 1997; Volbe g e al. 2010) and ha ing a posi i e a i ude owa d gambling (Dixon e al.
2016). These common ea u es o gamble s and p oblem gamble s migh sugges ha gam-
bling you h a e socially mo i a ed o ei he pa icipa e in he beha io o assimila e wi h a
desi ed pee g oup ia he beha io .
Pe cei ed Social Suppo
As discussed abo e, social iden i ies’ impac on heal h and well-being is conside able.
Equally impo an o heal h and well-being is he suppo de i ed om hese social ela-
ionships (Cohen and Wills 1985; Dussaul e al. 2016). These social mechanisms com-
monly go oge he , especially in psychology and heal h li e a u e, whe e hei impac is
widely documen ed in pa ien and addic ion eco e y ou comes (Buckingham e al. 2013;
Dingle e al. 2015a, b). Fo ins ance, Bes e al. (2014a) ound ha e hinking iden i y p o-
cesses allowed he apeu ic communi y pa ien s o ecognize he social esou ces accessible
o hem while in alcohol and d ug addic ion. In he s udy, he pa ien s explo ed po en-
ial ansi ional iden i ies om “use ” o “ he apeu ic communi y membe .” Th ough his
e hinking p ac ice, he pa ien s we e be e able o gain a sense o belonging and suppo .
These we e la e associa ed wi h imp o ed heal h ou comes, such as li e-sa is ac ion and
abs inence om d inking a ollow-up (Bes e al. 2014a).
In ano he s udy, Wu e al. (2016) ound ha social suppo was signi ican ly associ-
a ed wi h lowe le els o In e ne addic ion among adolescen s. These esul s we e u -
he suppo ed by a me a-analysis showing e idence ha adolescen s and young adul s wi h
low suppo a e a a highe isk o becoming addic ed o In e ne use (Lei e al. 2018). In
e ms o gambling beha io , esea ch sugges s ha lack o pe cei ed social suppo is a
isk ac o in you h gambling. One s udy ound ha you h who we e a - isk o p obable
pa hological gamble s also epo ed ha hey el a lack o social suppo (Ha doon e al.
2004). Simila ly, Pe y and Weiss (2009) concluded ha social suppo ecei ed om am-
ily membe s and iends signi ican ly media ed bo h sho - e m and long- e m gambling
ou comes among pa hological gamble s.
P e ious esea ch on pe cei ed social suppo as a esou ce o eco e y has u he
ound ha young indi iduals es ima e hei o al pe sonal, social, and eco e y capi al o be
lowe han ha o olde indi iduals, sugges ing ha hese esou ces con inue o s eng hen
o e ime and in conjunc ion wi h s onge social iden i ies (Mawson e al. 2015). Gi en
ha social suppo ecei ed om meaning ul g oups can ha e signi ican ou comes in e ms
19
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
o decision making and he consequences ha ollow, you h a e a pa icula ly ulne able
g oup o he e ec s o pe cei ed low social suppo . To his e ec , ea lie esea ch indings
indica e ha s ong social belonging and suppo can bu e you hs agains ha m ul online
expe iences (Kaakinen e al. 2018; Minkkinen e al. 2016). No ably, i was only he o line
social ela ions ha we e ound o ha e a bu e ing e ec , while online social ela ions did
no . In line wi h his inding, o line and online social connec ions ha e been epo ed o
co ela e wi h online isk beha io in in e se ways; while social ies o line a e linked o a
dec eased likelihood o iskbeha io ,online ela ionships seem o ha e a e e se, inc eas-
ing e ec (Kaakinen e al. 2018). Conside ing he ampli ude o ha m ul con en and isky
g oups o which you h a e exposed o online e e y day, in es iga ing young indi iduals’
pe cei ed social suppo capi al is impo an and has ex ensi e implica ions.
Social iden i ies, in a o m o meaning ul g oup membe ships and social suppo , a e
bo h social psychological explana ions as o why social ies a e impo an o human
well-being (Je en e al. 2014). Mo e speci ically, i has been sugges ed ha social iden-
i ies migh con ibu e o well-being by making social suppo mo e accessible o indi-
iduals (Haslam e al. 2005). The e is, howe e , a gap in esea ch li e a u e ha assesses
whe he he posi i e ou comes o social iden i ica ion a e ac ualized when he e is a lack
o pe cei ed social suppo . This would u he guide ou unde s anding o social iden i y
dynamics and well-being.
The Cu en S udy
In he cu en s udy, you h be ween he ages o 15 and 25 a e he popula ion o in e es and
in es iga ion, as hese yea s include dis inc de elopmen al pe iods cha ac e ized by iden-
i y unce ain y and explo a ion (A che 1982; Mawson e al. 2015). Du ing hese imes,
you h expe imen wi h he di e se iden i ies salien o hem ia di e en pe sonal and
social con ex s online and o line. Using social iden i y heo y as a heo e ical amewo k,
his c oss-cul u al s udy seeks o p o ide a supplemen a y explana ion o you h p oblem
gambling.
The aim o his esea ch is o in es iga e and compa e how social iden i ica ion wi h
pee g oups online and o line is associa ed wi h p oblem gambling beha io among Ame -
ican and Finnish you hs. Mo e speci ically, his esea ch seeks o de e mine whe he social
iden i ica ion is ela ed o highe social suppo and i his ela ionship may sa egua d
you h om engaging in p oblem gambling, as heo y indica es. While he bene icial ou -
comes o social iden i ica ion and social suppo a e widely epo ed (Haslam e al. 2005;
Je en e al. 2014), mo e esea ch is needed on whe he social iden i y is ela ed o educed
des uc i e beha io (i.e., p oblem gambling) i pe cei ed social suppo is absen .
The wo coun ies we e chosen because hey a e bo h echnologically ad anced Wes e n
coun ies while cul u ally di e se. Wi hin bo h he Uni ed S a es and Finland, you h engage
in gambling despi e he exis ing gambling laws ha aim o es ic such ac i i y among
unde age indi iduals (i.e., hose unde 18yea s o age in Finland and hose unde 21yea s
o age in se e al s a es o he Uni ed S a es). C oss-cul u al esea ch can p o ide deepe
insigh in unde s anding you h gambling. I is also needed o es ablish whe he hese social
psychological phenomena exis in di e en cul u al con ex s. To ou knowledge, no p e-
ious esea ch has examined whe he social iden i ies o you h s ee p oblem gambling
beha io and i his possible e ec is consis en ac oss de eloped Wes e n coun ies. Con-
sequen ly, his s udy aims o con ibu e o he exis ing body o esea ch by ocusing on

20
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
inspec ing online and o line social iden i ies as pa hways o p oblem gambling beha io
among you h, as well as by u he examining whe he pe cei ed social suppo can mode -
a e his connec ion.
Wi hin bo h samples, we hypo hesized ha s ong iden i ica ion wi h an o line pee
g oup is associa ed wi h lowe engagemen in p oblem gambling beha io (H1), while
s ong iden i ica ion wi h an online pee g oup is associa ed wi h highe engagemen in
p oblem gambling beha io (H2). I was expec ed ha high pe cei ed social suppo is
associa ed wi h less p oblem gambling beha io (H3). I was u he hypo hesized ha pe -
cei ed social suppo mode a es he associa ion be ween social iden i ica ion and p oblem
gambling beha io (H4).
Me hod
Pa icipan s
Pa icipan s we e ec ui ed om a olun ee pool adminis e ed by Su ey Sampling
In e na ional (SSI). The samples consis ed o a o al o 1212 Ame ican pa icipan s aged
15–25 (M = 20.05, SD = 3.19, 50.17% emale) and 1200 Finnish young people aged 15–25
(M = 21.29, SD = 2.85, 50.00% emale). Bo h samples we e demog aphically balanced in
e ms o age, gende , and li ing a ea. The AcademicE hics Commi ee o he Tampe e
Regionapp o ed he esea ch be o e implemen a ion. Pa icipa ion in he s udy was ully
olun a y and all esponden s we e in o med o he aims o he s udy p io o pa icipa ion.
The pa icipan s we e awa e ha hey could wi hd aw om he s udy a any ime. Pa ici-
pa ion in he s udy did no in lic any ha m on he pa icipan s.
Su ey
Da a we e collec ed wi h he YouGamble online su ey conduc ed om Ma ch o Ap il
2017 in Finland and in Janua y 2018 in he Uni ed S a es. Bo h da ase s we e collec ed
wi h LimeSu ey so wa e by using iden ical su ey o ma s. The su eys we e op imized
o bo h compu e s and mobile de ices. The a e age su ey esponse ime was 14min and
49s in he Uni ed S a es and 15min 30s in Finland. The o iginal su ey was in Finnish.
I was ansla ed in o English and back- ansla ed again o ensu e consis ency and accu a e
ma ching o he su ey i ems. Some ques ions we e sligh ly modi ied o be e i he cul-
u al se ing in each coun y. The su eys we e ully anonymous and included measu es o
all a ge a iables, including gambling beha io , pe cei ed social suppo , and iden i ica-
ion wi h a p ima y pee g oup.
Measu es
The Sou h Oaks Gambling Sc een (SOGS) was used o measu e he equency and in ensi y
o p oblem gambling beha io . The SOGS is egula ly used in s udies o sc een o pa ho-
logical gambling beha io (Lesieu and Blume 1987; Salonen e al. 2017). Some o he es
i ems we e sligh ly modi ied o accommoda e o cul u al a ia ions in gambling. The scale
had good in e nal consis ency in bo h he Ame ican (α = .90) and Finnish (α = .89) sam-
ple. The i ems we e summed up o a con inuous scale measu ing he le el o engagemen
in p oblem gambling beha io . Ea lie s udies ha e iden i ied p oblems wi h he SOGS
21
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
cu -o sco es which may lead o biased es ima es o gambling p oblems and high a es o
alse posi i es (Ba e sby e al. 2002; S inch ield 2002). To accoun o his, he SOGS was
used as a con inuous measu e in ou analyses, measu ing he in ensi y o p oblem gambling
beha io , ins ead o ca ego izing esponden s o p oblem gamble s. Using he SOGS meas-
u e as a con inuous a iable also esponds o he me hodological c i icisms aised om
ca ego izing con inuous ou come a iables (Al man 2014). The sugges ed SOGS cu -o
sco es; 0–2 = no p oblem gambling, 3–7 = a - isk gambling, and ≥ 8 = p obablepa hologi-
calgambling, we e used o p o ide desc ip i e s a is ics (Goodie e al. 2013).
Iden i ica ion wi h a p ima y pee g oup consis ing o iends o an online communi y
was assessed wi h a su ey i em ha inqui ed abou he subjec i e sense o belonging o
a p ima y pee g oup. The i em was w i en as: “How s ongly do you eel you belong o
he ollowing?” The g oup- ype op ions p o ided o his inqui y included “a iendship
g oup” and “an online communi y.” Answe s could be p o ided on a scale anging om 1
(no belonging a all) o 10 ( e y s ong belonging).
Pe cei ed social suppo was assessed wi h a su ey i em asking abou he suppo an
indi idual ecei es om close ones. The i em asked: “Do you eel you ecei e suppo
om you close ones when you need i ?” Th ee answe choices we ep o ided o he i em:
1 = Ra ely, 2 = Some imes, 3 = O en. This ques ion was hen u ned in o a dummy a iable
(0 = a ely; 1 = some imes o o en).
S a is ical Analysis
Desc ip i e s a is ics o all con inuous a iables we e calcula ed as means (M) and s and-
a d de ia ions (SD), and as equencies (n) and ela ional p opo ions (%) o ca ego ical
a iables. This in o ma ion is p esen ed in de ail in Table1. In o de o compa e di e ences
Table 1 Desc ip i e s a is ics. Con inuous a iables epo ed as means (M) and s anda d de ia ions (SD),
ca ego ical a iables as equencies (n) and ela ional p opo ions (%)
The Sou h Oaks Gambling Sc een (SOGS) cu -o sco es used we e: no p oblem gambling (0–2), a isk
gambling (3–7) and p obablepa hological gambling (≥ 8)
Va iable Uni ed S a es Finland
M SD Range M SD Range
P oblem gambling 1.27 2.55 0–20 1.59 2.56 0–20
Iden i ica ion w/o line pee s 6.72 2.62 1–10 6.83 2.49 1–10
Iden i ica ion w/online pee s 5.38 2.69 1–10 5.04 2.61 1–10
Age 20.05 3.19 15–25 21.29 2.85 15–25
Ca ego ical a iables Coding n% Coding n%
Gende Male 604 49.83 Male 600 50
Female 608 50.17 Female 600 50
Pe cei ed social suppo Weak 212 17.49 Weak 112 9.33
S ong 1000 82.51 s ong 1088 90.67
SOGS cu -o sco e 0–2 1011 83.42 0–2 946 78.83
3–7 157 12.95 3–7 210 17.50
≥ 8 44 3.63 ≥ 8 44 3.67
22
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
be ween he wo coun ies and s a is ically es he hypo heses, linea eg ession analysis
was conduc ed. Two sepa a e eg ession models we e conduc ed o bo h coun ies o ana-
lyze he di ec e ec s o social iden i ica ion and suppo on p oblem gambling beha io
(see Table2).
In e ac ion analysis was conduc ed wi h eg ession analysis while ea ing pe cei ed
social suppo as a mode a o . This app oach was also applied sepa a ely o bo h coun ies
o allow o be e obse a ion o he ways in which he e ec s a y by a gi en coun y.
These esul s a e epo ed in Table3. We conduc ed he mode a ion analysis by i s es ing
he s a is ical signi icances o bo h in e ac ion e ms in he eg ession models. Secondly,
he slope di e ence analysis sugges ed by Robinson e al. (2013) was used o analyze a di -
e ence in he independen a iables’ eg ession coe icien s o e he alues o he dicho -
omous mode a o a iable. The slope di e ence es is less conse a i e han in e ac ion
e m es ing and, hus, is less p one o Type II e o s ( ailing o ejec a alse null hypo h-
esis). In he in e ac ion analysis, social iden i ica ion a iables we e mean-cen e ed in bo h
samples o a oid mul icollinea i y. Gende and age we e ea ed as con ols in all models.
Table 2 Main e ec s o he model p edic ing p oblem gambling in he Uni ed S a es (N = 1212) and Fin-
land (N = 1200)
S a is ically signi ican esul s (p < .05) bold aced. Gende was ep esen ed as a dummy a iable wi h code
1 se ing as he male e e ence g oup. Pe cei ed social suppo measu ed as a dummy a iable wi h code 1
se ing as he “s ong suppo ” e e ence g oup
Va iable US Finland
B SE p β B SE p β
Iden i ying w/o line pee s −0.07 0.03 0.034 − 0.07 − 0.11 0.03 0.001 − 0.11
Iden i ying w/online pee s 0.17 0.03 0.000 0.17 0.01 0.03 0.868 0.01
Pe cei ed social suppo − 0.71 0.20 0.000 − 0.10 − 0.10 0.26 0.709 − 0.011
Age 0.16 0.02 0.000 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.718 0.01
Gende −0.75 0.15 0.000 −0.14 −1.22 0.15 0.000 −0.24
Table 3 Reg ession esul s o he mode a ion analyses o p oblem gambling in he Uni ed S a es
(N = 1212) and Finland (N = 1200)
S a is ically signi ican esul s (p < .05) bold aced. Gende was ep esen ed as a dummy a iable wi h code
1 se ing as he male e e ence g oup. Pe cei ed social suppo measu ed as a dummy a iable wi h code 1
se ing as he“s ong suppo ” e e ence g oup
Va iable US Finland
B SE p β B SE p β
Iden i ica ion wi h o line pee s 0.05 0.07 0.523 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.408 0.07
Iden i ica ion wi h online pee s 0.17 0.07 0.015 0.17 0.25 0.10 0.011 0.26
Pe cei ed social suppo −0.86 0.22 0.000 − 0.12 2.19 0.56 0.000 0.25
Pe cei ed social suppo × iden i ic w/o line
pee s
−0.15 0.08 0.078 − 0.12 − 0.22 0.10 0.024 − 0.26
Pe cei ed social suppo × iden i ic w/online
pee s
0.00 0.08 0.984 0.00 − 0.27 0.10 0.009 − 0.31
Age 0.15 0.02 0.000 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.794 0.01
Gende − 0.75 0.15 0.000 − 0.14 − 1.18 0.15 0.000 − 0.23
23
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
Resul s
Acco ding o ou models, iden i ica ion wi h a p ima y o line pee g oup had a signi ican
associa ion wi h lowe p oblem gambling beha io (see Table2). This was ue bo h in
he Uni ed S a es (B = − .07, SE = .03, (1211) = − 2.12, p = .034) and in Finland (B = − .11,
SE = .03, (1199) = − 3.34, p = .001). Iden i ying wi h a p ima y online pee g oup was
associa ed wi h highe engagemen in p oblem gambling beha io , bu he e ec was signi -
ican only among U.S. you hs (B = .17, SE = .03, (1211) = 5.68, p < .001). This inding sup-
po s ou hypo hesis ha s ong iden i ica ion wi h online pee s is associa ed wi h highe
gambling beha io . High pe cei ed social suppo was associa ed wi h lowe p oblem
gambling beha io , bu his di ec e ec was also signi ican only among he U.S. sample
(B = − .71 SE = .20, (1211) = − 3.53, p < .001). O ou co a ia es, only gende was associ-
a ed wi h engaging in p oblem gambling beha io in bo h coun ies, as male esponden s
epo ed signi ican ly highe a es o p oblem gambling beha io han emales in he U.S.
(B = − .75, (1211) = − 5.8, p < .001) and in Finland (B = − 1.22, SE = .15, (1199) = − 8.13,
p < .001). Age, in u n, was no associa ed wi h p oblem gambling beha io in Finland
(B = .01, SE = .03, (1199) = .26, p = .718), bu was associa ed wi h i in he Uni ed S a es
(B = .16, SE = .02, (1211) = 6.72, p < .001).
In e ms o ou mode a ion analysis (Table3), i was ound ha high pe cei ed social
suppo signi ican ly mode a ed he associa ion be ween engagemen in p oblem gam-
bling beha io and pee g oup iden i ica ion wi h bo h o line (B = − .22, SE = .10,
(1199) = − 2.27, p = .024) and online (B = − .27, SE = .10, (1199) = − 2.61, p = .009) pee s
among Finnish you hs. Wi h he U.S. sample, he in e ac ion e m be ween high pe cei ed
social suppo , social iden i ica ion, and p oblem gambling beha io was no signi ican in
ei he o line (B = − .15, SE = .08, (1211) = − 1.76, p = .078) o online (B = .00, SE = .08,
(1211) = − .02, p = .984) pee g oups. Acco ding o he slope di e ence es , he slope o
social iden i ica ion wi h an o line pee g oup di e ed signi ican ly be ween hose who
epo pe cei ed social suppo and hose who do no (F(1,1204) = 16.50, p < .001). In case
o online iden i ica ion, such a di e ence did no exis (F(1,1204) = 0.00, p = .964). No a-
bly, iden i ica ion wi h o line pee g oups was only associa ed wi h dec eased p oblem
gambling beha io i esponden s also epo ed a leas some deg ee o social suppo .
Discussion
This s udy examined he e ec s o pee g oup iden i ica ion on p oblem gambling beha io
among Ame ican and Finnish you h. Ou da a sugges ed ha bo h U.S. and Finnish you h
iden i y wi h pee s online and o line and engage in gambling ac i i ies o a simila deg ee.
Ou mul i a ia e esul s, in u n, ound a ying bu signi ican ela ionships be ween he
examined a iables wi hin bo h samples. Social iden i ica ion wi h an o line pee g oup
was associa ed wi h lowe le els o p oblem gambling beha io among bo h U.S. and Finn-
ish you hs. In he Uni ed S a es, iden i ica ion wi h an online pee g oup was associa ed
wi h highe le els o p oblem gambling beha io . Also, among U.S. you hs, social suppo
was associa ed wi h lowe le els o p oblem gambling beha io .
In bo h he U.S. and Finnish samples, pe cei ed social suppo mode a ed he asso-
cia ion be ween p oblem gambling beha io and social iden i ica ion o line, as he nega-
i e associa ion exis ed only i esponden s also epo ed pe cei ed social suppo . In he
30
Jou nal o Gambling S udies (2019) 35:15–30
1 3
Salonen, A. H., Rosens öm, T., Edg en, R., Volbe g, R., Alho, H., & Cas én, S. (2017). Dimensions o he
Sou h Oaks Gambling Sc een in Finland: A c oss-sec ional popula ion s udy. Scandina ian Jou nal o
Psychology, 58, 228–237. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1111/sjop.12357 .
Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., & Lewis, R. F. (2015). F equen use o social ne wo king si es is associa ed wi h
poo psychological unc ioning among child en and adolescen s. Cybe psychology, Beha io , and
Social Ne wo king, 18, 380–385. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1089/cybe .2015.0055.
Sa olainen, I., Kaakinen, M., Si ola, A., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Addic i e beha io s and psychological dis-
ess among adolescen s and eme ging adul s: A media ing ole o pee -g oup iden i ica ion. Addic i e
Beha io s Repo s. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ab ep .2018.03.002.
Si ola, A., Kaakinen, M., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Excessi e gambling and online gambling communi ies.
Jou nal o Gambling S udies, 34(4), 1313–1325. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1007/s1089 9-018-9772-0.
Sple ins, K., Mi eskanda i, S., Clay on, K., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). P e alence o adolescen p oblem
gambling, ela ed ha ms and help-seeking beha iou s among an Aus alian popula ion. Jou nal o
Gambling S udies, 26, 189–204. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1007/s1089 9-009-9169-1.
S inch ield, R. (2002). Reliabili y, alidi y, and classi ica ion accu acy o he Sou h Oaks Gambling Sc een
(SOGS). Addic i e Beha io s, 27, 1–19. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1016/S0306 -4603(00)00158 -1.
Sussman, S., Pokh el, P., Ashmo e, R. D., & B own, B. B. (2007). Adolescen pee g oup iden i ica ion
and cha ac e is ics: A e iew o he li e a u e. Addic i e Beha io s, 32(8), 1602–1627. h ps ://doi.
o g/10.1016/j.addbe h.2006.11.018.
Taj el, H., & Tu ne , J. C. (1979). An in eg a i e heo y o in e g oup con lic . In W. G. Aus in & S. Wo chel
(Eds.), The Social Psychology o In e g oup Rela ions (pp. 33–47). Mon e ey, CA: B ooks Cole.
Ta an , M. (2002). Adolescen pee g oups and social iden i y. Social De elopmen , 11, 110–123. h ps ://
doi.o g/10.1111/1467-9507.00189 .
Thoi s, P. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ies and suppo o physical and men al heal h. Jou nal o
Heal h and Social Beha io , 52, 145–161.
Tsi sika, A. K., Tza ela, E. C., Janikian, M., Óla sson, K., Io dache, A., Schoenmake s, T. M., e al. (2014).
Online social ne wo king in adolescence: Pa e ns o use in six Eu opean coun ies and links wi h psy-
chosocial unc ioning. Jou nal o Adolescen Heal h, 55, 141–147.
Tu ne , J. C. (1991). Social in luence. Paci ic G o e, CA: Open Uni e si y P ess.
Uni ed Na ions Educa ional, Scien i ic and Cul u al O ganiza ion. (2017). Abou You h. Re ie ed om
h p://www.unesc o.o g/new/en/socia l-and-human -scien ces/ heme s/you h /abou -you h /.
Villan i, A. C., Johnson, A. L., Ilakku an, V., Jacobs, M. A., G aham, A. L., & Ra h, J. M. (2017). Social
media use and access o digi al echnology in US young adul s in 2016. Jou nal o Medical In e ne
Resea ch. h ps ://doi.o g/10.2196/jmi .7303.
Volbe g, R. A., Gup a, R., G i i hs, M. D., Olason, D. T., & Del abb o, P. (2010). An in e na ional pe spec-
i e on you h gambling p e alence s udies. In e na ional Jou nal o Adolescen Medicine and Heal h,
22, 3–38.
Wes be g, K., Be e land, M. B., & Thomas, S. L. (2017). The unin ended no maliza ion o gambling: Fam-
ily iden i y in luences on he adop ion o ha m ul consump ion p ac ices. Jou nal o Mac oma ke ing,
37, 426–443. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1177/02761 46717 72097 9.
Wu, X. S., Zhang, Z. H., Zhao, F., Wang, W. J., Li, Y. F., Bi, L., e al. (2016). P e alence o In e ne addic-
ion and i s associa ion wi h social suppo and o he ela ed ac o s among adolescen s in China. Jou -
nal o Adolescence, 52, 103–111. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1016/j.adole scenc e.2016.07.012.
Yip, S. W., Whi e, M. A., G ilo, C. M., & Po enza, M. N. (2011). An explo a o y s udy o clinical measu es
associa ed wi h subsynd omal pa hological gambling in pa ien s wi h binge ea ing diso de . Jou nal o
Gambling S udies, 27, 257–270. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1007/s1089 9-010-9207-z.
Young, K. (2011). Social ies, social ne wo ks and he Facebook expe ience. In e na ional Jou nal o
Eme ging Technologies and Socie y, 9, 20.
Yücel, M., Whi le, S., Yousse , G. J., Kashyap, H., Simmons, J. G., Schwa z, O., e al. (2015). The in lu-
ence o sex, empe amen , isk- aking and men al heal h on he eme gence o gambling: A longi udinal
s udy o young people. In e na ional Gambling S udies, 15, 108–123. h ps ://doi.o g/10.1080/14459
795.2014.10003 56.
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and
ins i u ional a ilia ions.