Peer Group Identification as Determinant of Youth Behavior and the Role of Perceived Social Support in Problem Gambling

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.