Development and validation of the Protective Gambling Beliefs Scale (PGBS)

ABSTRACT

This article aimed to develop and validate a measure of protective beliefs – distinct from the absence of erroneous beliefs – that may be associated with resistance to gambling problems. Study 1 was designed to determine the reliability and content validity of a preliminary set of protective belief items. Participants (N = 1479, 813 males) also completed the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Most items were associated with reduced risk of problems; however, items relating to an awareness of gambling harm, and preparedness to lose money were positively correlated with gambling problems and were therefore not demonstrably protective. Study 2 sought to reduce scale size and assess the scale’s ability to predict risk of gambling problems. Participants (N = 1168, 625 males) completed belief items, the PGSI, and measures of gambling consumption and cognitive distortions. Results showed that endorsement of protective beliefs was negatively correlated with PGSI, gambling consumption and cognitive distortions, and predicted PGSI above that of cognitive distortions. Findings suggest that the Protective Gambling Beliefs Scale (PGBS) offers a unique tool for understanding resistance to the development of gambling problems. Future research should focus on exploring whether protective beliefs can diminish the likelihood of the onset of problem gambling.

KEYWORDS:

• Gambling
• beliefs
• risks
• cognition
• problem gambling

Acknowledgement

Part of this research was supported under the Commonwealth Government’s Research Training Program/Research Training Scheme. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Australian Government and Central Queensland University. This research was also conducted in collaboration with and funded by internal funding from the Centre for Gambling Education and Research at Southern Cross University. We thank Prof. Nerilee Hing and Dr Alex Russell for their assistance with this project. Funding agencies have had no involvement in the research design, methodology, conduct, analysis or write-up of this manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

Competing interests

No competing interests are declared for all authors.

Constraints on publishing

There are no constraints on publishing this manuscript.

Supplementary material

Supplementary data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Central Queensland University [Internal]; Australian Government Department of Education and Training [Research Training Scheme]; Southern Cross University [Internal].

Notes on contributors

Tess Armstrong

Tess Armstrong received her Bachelor of Psychology (honours) in 2013. Since graduation she has been a research officer for the Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory and is currently undertaking a PhD with Central Queensland University exploring the relationship between cognitive styles and gambling beliefs of gamblers.

Matthew Rockloff

Matthew Rockloff received his PhD in social psychology from Florida Atlantic University in 1999. He is a professor of psychology in the School of Human, Medical, and Applied Sciences and the head of the Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory at Central Queensland University.

Matthew Browne

Matthew Browne is a senior researcher at Central Queensland University’s Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory. He is a quantitative social scientist and mathematical psychologist who has been working the field of gambling research since 2012.

Alexander Blaszczynski

Alexander Blaszczynski is a clinical psychologist, co-director of the University of Sydney’s Gambling Research Unit and the director of the Gambling Treatment Unit. He has a long history in treatment and clinical research, particularly researching behavioural interventions, and has extensive publications in the area of gambling and impulse control.