ArticleJournal of gambling studies2024
Sports Gambling Intention Comparison Between Males and Females in the United States.
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting and Understanding Mobile Sports Gambling with the Reasoned Action Approach.Journal of gambling studies · 2026Article
- Predicting Sports Betting Intentions Among Adolescents: Gender-Specific Pathways in the Reasoned Action Approach.Journal of gambling studies · 2026Article
- Influence of sponsorship on betting intentions: from linear to deep learning models.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
- Between the Lines: Legal Consciousness and Consumer Perceptions of Online Sports Betting.Journal of gambling studies · 2025Article
- Bet More - But Only with Me: Role of Celebrity Endorsers in Sports Betting Advertising.Journal of gambling studies · 2025Article
- A Cross-Sectional Survey to Measure Attitude, Self-Reported Practice, Levels, Typology, and Determinants of Lifetime Gambling Behaviors Among Undergraduate Students in Higher Training Institutions, Tanzania.Journal of gambling studies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The focus of this research is to understand the sports gambling intentions of Gen Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) that can potentially lead to problematic gambling behavior. Rooted in the theory of planned behavior, the study delves into the roles of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control in shaping these intentions. A cross-sectional study of 513 Gen Z's in the United States was conducted. The partial least square structural equation modeling was used to analyze the relationship and compare the differences between males and females with multigroup analysis. The results indicate that attitude and perceived behavior control have a significant impact on this intention, while subjective norms do not exert substantial influence. Notably, gender differences are observed, with males showing a stronger association with perceived behavior control and females with attitude. The model effectively accounts for significant variations in sports gambling intention, highlighting a higher inclination among females as compared to males. This study provides a new perspective for analyzing disparities in sports gambling intention between genders and delves into the underlying motivations that can potentially contribute to the development of problematic gambling disorders. Given the significant societal impact and the adverse effects that gambling disorders have on those affected, it is imperative to conduct research aimed at understanding the reasons behind Gen Z's engagement in gambling. The findings can then be harnessed to inform the development of preventive programs aimed at curbing problematic gambling behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37884853What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.