Next Article in Journal
The 35th Anniversary of the Discovery of EPR Effect: A New Wave of Nanomedicines for Tumor-Targeted Drug Delivery—Personal Remarks and Future Prospects
Next Article in Special Issue
Forgetting Unwanted Memories: Active Forgetting and Implications for the Development of Psychological Disorders
Previous Article in Journal
Predictive Biomarkers of COVID-19 Severity in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients with Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genetic Variants Allegedly Linked to Antisocial Behaviour Are Equally Distributed Across Different Populations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/jpm11030228
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Link between Attachment and Gambling in Adolescence: A Multiple Mediation Analysis with Developmental Perspective, Theory of Mind (Friend) and Adaptive Response

by
Grazia Terrone
1,*,
Alessio Gori
2,
Eleonora Topino
3,
Alessandro Musetti
4,
Alessia Scarinci
5,
Camilla Guccione
3 and
Vincenzo Caretti
3
1
Department of History, Cultural Heritage, Education and Society, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Human Sciences, University of Florence, 50100 Florence, Italy
3
Department of Human Sciences, Lumsa University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
4
Department of Humanities, Social Sciences and Cultural Industries, University of Parma, 43121 Parma, Italy
5
Department of Education Sciences, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari, 70121 Bari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(3), 228; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11030228
Submission received: 28 January 2021 / Revised: 12 March 2021 / Accepted: 13 March 2021 / Published: 22 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Predicting Psychopathological Onset: Early Signs of Neuropsychiatric Diseases)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction: Several studies have supported the evidence that attachment styles are a central factor in adolescent gambling problems. On this theoretical basis, the aim of the present study is to analyze a hypothesized mediation model exploring both the direct and indirect effects of insecure attachment on gambling disorder by investigating the role of the developmental perspective, theory of mind (friend) and adaptive response in that relationship. Method: The sample consists of 178 adolescents who underwent the Measures: South Oaks Gambling Screen—Revised for Adolescents and Friends and Family Interview. Result: The mediation analysis was conducted following Hayes’ (2018) procedure, using Model 6. The results showed a significant association between insecure attachment and gambling disorder (β = 0.669; p < 0.001). The findings also highlighted a significant chained mediation model in which insecure attachment negatively influenced the developmental perspective (β = −0.742; p < 0.001), which affected the theory of mind toward one’s own best friend (β = 0.352; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The results highlighted a significant role of insecure attachment in predicting the symptomatic expression of gambling among adolescents, specifically impacting the development perspective, theory of mind toward one’s best friend and adaptive response to stress, which were linked to each other by a sequential influence. Therefore, our results showed that a poor developmental self-vision predicted a dysfunctional theory of mind toward the best friend. This could hinder the formation of positive peer relationships, which are crucial for the development of one’s identity.

1. Introduction

Research has shown that gambling is a popular conduct among adolescents, with high rates of problematic and pathological gambling [1]; they can indulge in classic and popular types of gambling, but authors have highlighted a steady increase in novel forms of gambling via the Internet [2,3,4], with greater local availability and accessibility [5]. Adolescent gambling may lead to negative consequences such as problematic relationships, delinquent and aggressive behavior [6], depression symptoms [7], increased risk of attempted suicide, increased risk of comorbidity with other forms of addiction [8] and general health problems [9,10,11,12].
Several studies have supported the evidence that attachment styles could play a key role in adolescent gambling problems [13,14,15,16]. Indeed, a growing body of research analyzed the relationship between adolescent gambling and attachment styles and found a higher incidence of insecure relationships with caregiver in gamblers and also links between alexithymia, attachment, and gambling disorder [17,18,19]. More specifically, insecure attachment hinders the development of adequate regulation skills and this predisposes one to emotional maladjustment [20]; therefore, addictive behaviors can be seen as an attachment disorder [15,21,22] and as an attempt at self-medication [23,24,25]. Indeed, previous research showed that gambling behaviours may act as external regulators of internal emotional states [17,26,27,28] and insecure attachment could be a vulnerability factor for its onset [29,30].
According to this framework, the aim of this present study was to investigate the impact of insecure attachment on gambling disorders in adolescence and to analyze the mediating role of several related variables. Indeed, the internal working models modeled in early childhood will influence aspects that are still being defined in this delicate and important life stage, such as the temporal perspective [31], the quality of relationships with peers [32] and the ability to provide adaptive responses to distress [33].
During adolescence, one acquires a greater awareness of his or her identity, taking up and creating his or her own memories of the past. At the same time, greater importance is put on the future, including the realization of one’s aspirations and projects [34,35,36]. This developmental self-vision, which is linked to one’s entire past, present and future axes, is extremely influenced by relationships with one’s caregivers. For example, if caregivers were not available for or responsive to the child’s needs, the child will perceive himself or herself as unworthy of being loved, and this negative vision will structure the child’s expectations of the future [37,38,39]. On the contrary, when parents represent a secure base [40], the adolescent will be able to lean on it, which will help the adolescent to imagine his or her present, past and future in much more optimistic and hopeful terms, favoring better psychological adaptation and a better ability to have trusting and supportive peer relationships [41,42].
In particular, adolescence is the period of differentiation from one’s caregivers in favor of peer relationships [43,44,45], although caregivers remain an important internal and external reference point [46] through the indirect influence that they have on one’s beliefs about appropriate social behaviors and relationship models based on attachment experiences [47]. In this regard [48], argued that when social information is likely to cause psychological pain, insecure individuals will be more likely than confident ones to exclude or defensively suppress this information from further processing, because insecure individuals are less likely to have had experiences with an attachment figure in which their painful emotions were understood and elaborated. This will also influence the level of “theory of the mind”, defined as the ability to interpret others’ behaviors within a mentalistic structure in order to understand how oneself and others think, feel, perceive, imagine, react, attribute, infer and so on [49].
Finally, in addition to relationships, attachment also influences coping strategies aimed at dealing with stressful situations [50,51]. Taken together, recent research suggests that successful coping has important implications for the severity of gambling among young people.
The results also revealed that heavier players used more maladaptive forms of coping than others, whether oriented toward emotions or distraction [52,53]. This evidence fits well within [54,55], which suggests that pathological gamblers exhibit various psychological vulnerabilities that leave them ill-equipped, compared to others, to cope with stress. In this context, gambling, akin to other addictive behaviors, is aimed at negotiating negative or stressful experiences when the subject is lacking the resources to find more adequate answers [56].
On these theoretical bases, the present study aims to analyze a hypothesized mediation model exploring both the direct and indirect effects of insecure attachment on gambling disorder by investigating the roles of the developmental perspective, theory of mind (friend) and adaptive responses in that relationship.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and Procedure

The sample consisted of 178 adolescents (42.1% male and 57.9% female), with a mean age of 17.51 years (SD = 0.818), ranging from 16 to 22. The participants were recruited from several secondary schools in Rome. The interview and questionnaire were administered in person in a one-to-one setting by one of the researchers.
Informed consent was obtained from both adolescents and their parents prior to participation in the study. The subjects did not receive any form of payment for participating and were free to leave the study at any time.

2.2. Measures

South Oaks Gambling Screen—Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA).
The South Oaks Gambling Screen—Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA; [57]) is a self-report questionnaire used to assess gambling behaviors and gambling-related problems in adolescents. It is made up of 12 dichotomously scored items and other unscored ones investigating the frequency of participation in different gambling activities, the largest amount of money gambled in a day, and parental involvement in problematic gambling.
The SOGS-RA scale identifies three categories: nonproblem gambler (score of 0 or 1), at-risk gambler (score of 2 or 3) and problem gambler (score of 4 or more). For the present study, the Italian version [58] was used. The SOGS demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.84.

2.3. Friends and Family Interview (FFI)

The Friends and Family Interview (FFI; [59,60]) is a semistructured interview designed to assess the attachment representations of adolescents, focusing on oneself, peers (one’s best friend), siblings and parents. It lasts around 45 min and consists of 27 questions about the adolescents and their most significant relationships, with scores ranging from 1 (“no evidence”) to 4 (“marked evidence”) and including half-points.
The FFI coding system comprises both attachment classifications (secure-autonomous, insecure-dismissing, insecure-preoccupied and insecure-disorganized) and dimensional scores across numerous domains: (1) Firstly, the coherence of answers is evaluated based on the entire interview, based on their truth (based on the presence of convincing evidence), economy (based on the amount of given information), relation (based on the relevance of the examples provided) and manner (based on the maintenance of age-appropriate levels of attention, politeness and interest). (2) Another domain concerns reflective functioning (RF), which includes one’s developmental perspective (the ability to relate one’s own present views, feeling and thoughts with past and future attitudes), theory of mind (the ability to assume others’ mental perspectives), diversity of feelings (the ability to discuss negative and positive affections that could be linked to oneself and significant relationships) and internal working models (the availability of a secure base from the subjects’ mothers and fathers, emerging from their narrative). (3) An evaluation of the child’s self-esteem is also given, comprising social competence, school competence and self-regard. (4) Peer relations are explored, in terms of both frequency of contact and quality of one’s best friendship. (5) Sibling relations are investigated in terms of warmth, hostility and rivalry. (6) The FFI captures affective regulation strategies, in terms of both defensive response (idealization, role reversal, anger and derogation) and adaptive response to distress. (7) Finally, the differentiation of parental representation is examined by observing the participant’s ability to compare and contrast the quality of one’s relationships with each caregiver. For the present study, the Italian version by [61] was used.

2.4. Data Analysis

All of the data analyses were performed with the SPSS statistical software (IBM-SPSS version 25.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) for Windows. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Pearson’s r correlations were used to investigate the associations between the variables. Then, the SPSS macroprogram PROCESS 3.4 [62] was used to verify the hypnotized multiple-mediation model. Bootstrapping with 5000 samples and a 95% confidence interval was performed to test the significance of the indirect effect.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for both the sample and the measures.
The association patterns between the SOGS scores, FFI attachment classifications and other FFI domains are presented in Table 2.
The mediation analysis was conducted following [62] procedure, using Model 6 (see Figure 1).
The results showed a significant association between insecure attachment and gambling disorder (β = 0.669, p < 0.001) when estimating path c in Figure 1. The findings also highlighted a significant chained mediation model in which insecure attachment negatively influenced the developmental perspective (path a1 in Figure 1; β = −0.742, p < 0.001), which affected the theory of mind toward one’s own best friend (path a4 in Figure 1; β = 0.352, p < 0.001), which in turn predicted the adaptive response to distress (path b3 in Figure 1; β = 0.215, p < 0.05), which ultimately impacted gambling disease levels (path b5 in Figure 1; β = −0.219, p < 0.05). However, this finding did not suffer any direct effects from the first two mediators (path b2 in Figure 1 with β = 0.048, p = 0.592 and path b4 in Figure 1 with β = 0.052, p = 0.590, respectively). Insecure attachment also negatively and significantly predicted the theory of mind toward one’s best friend (path a2 in Figure 1; β = −0.841, p < 0.001) and adaptive response (path a3 in Figure 1; β = −0.806, p < 0.001), although its direct effect on gambling disorder was not significant (path c’ in Figure 1; β = 0.443, p = 0.055), indicating a complete mediation after controlling the mediators (R2= 0.115, F4,148= 4.825, p= 0.001) (see Table 3).
The bootstrapping procedure confirmed the statistical stability of this chained mediation model and the significance of its indirect effect (boot LLCI = 0.001, boot ULCI = 0.063; see Table 4).

4. Discussion

Pathological gambling is a multifaceted phenomenon with numerous underlying factors in its development and maintenance [29,63]. On the other hand, adolescence is an extremely vulnerable phase [64], during which subjects are more inclined to be involved in risky behaviors [65]. Therefore, the early onset of this disorder can have a potentially devastating effect on the individual’s development, which is strongly associated with a more serious and chronic course of the disease as well as with various comorbidities [66,67]. On this basis, we investigated the impacts of insecure attachment on gambling disorder in adolescence and also analyzed the mediating roles of developmental perspective, theory of mind (friend) and adaptive response to distress.
Consistent with field research [17,18,19], the results highlighted a significant role of insecure attachment in predicting the symptomatic expression of gambling in adolescents. However, our data also showed that this association was achieved through an indirect path, by influencing some core aspects in the adolescent’s adjustment: insecure attachment negatively impacted the development perspective, theory of mind toward one’s best friend and adaptive response to stress, which were linked to each other by a sequential influence. This is in line with evidence considering secure attachment as the starting point for the construction of a functional time perspective, a theory of mind and emotional regulation that will allow for adequate and adaptive self-development [68,69,70,71]. By contrast, chronically negative early relationships with caregivers are a risk factor for opposite effects, which could lead to psychopathology [50,72,73,74].
Moreover, the domination of several time categories may be responsible for limited psychosocial functioning [75,76], and adolescents who focus on the present and on the immediate future have a greater risk of engaging in high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse [76,77,78]. Therefore, our results showed that a poor developmental self-vision predicted a dysfunctional theory of mind toward one’s best friend. This could hinder the formation of positive peer relationships, which are crucial for the development of one’s identity [79,80]. The ability to interpret others’ behaviors within a mentalistic structure to understand how oneself and others think, feel, perceive, imagine, react, attribute and infer [49] influences adaptation strategies for social interactions [45,72]. When relationships with peers are negative and problematic, an adolescent may experience dysfunctional responses such as delinquent and aggressive behaviors [12], symptoms of depression [7], increased risk of comorbidity [81], general health problems [10] and gambling disorders [8]. All of these factors provide an understandable explanation for the connection highlighted by the data between one’s theory of the mind (friend) and adaptive responses to stress, which in turn affect gambling behaviors. Indeed, according to previous research [50,52,53,54,55,56], gambling disorder in adolescence, as with other addictive behaviors, could be interpreted as a dysfunctional response used to cope with stress and negative situations when the subject lacks the resources to find more adequate answers. Adolescents with insecure attachment tend to have maladaptive emotion-regulation strategies [20]. Based on this perspective, pathological gambling could be an attempt at self-medication [23,24].

5. Conclusions

Our study adds two main aspects. First, a multiple-mediation model was used to explore some latent psychological constructs in the pathological manifestation of gambling, specifically insecure attachment, deficits in the developmental perspective, a failed theory of the mind, and nonadaptive responses. Second, we used the Friends and Family Interview (FFI; [59,60]), a semistructured interview similar to the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; [82]), which detects attachment representations among adolescents. Compared to the AAI, the FFI is focused on oneself and one’s peers (best friend), siblings and parents, and it systematically investigates the adolescent’s perspective, instead of comparing one’s semantic and episodic memories of past experiences with attachment figures as the AAI does. Our results can be applied to psychological interventions based on restructuring attachment patterns, developing theory of mind and reflective self-functioning, promoting adaptive coping strategies, and improving relationships with peers.
Importantly, this study has some limitations. Its cross-sectional nature limited the possibility of establishing inferences about the causal/directional relationships between the variables. Future longitudinal research may be important to consolidate the conclusions drawn from this study and to investigate results also in adult pathological gamblers. Additionally, gambling behaviors were analyzed using a self-report measure, which, although quick and easy to administer, exposes participants to the risk of bias such as social desirability biases. The measure’s integration with different methods (e.g., interviews) could be useful in future studies. Finally, the different subtypes of gambling were not analyzed. The exploration of such data could be an important challenge for future research to delineate different profiles of pathological gamblers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.T.; Methodology, G.T. and A.G.; Formal analysis, A.G. and E.T.; Investigation, A.S. and C.G.; Writing original draft preparation, E.T. and C.G.; Writing review and editing G.T., A.G. and A.M.; Supervision, V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding received for this publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of University Lumsa of Rome (Nº 3650/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

References

  1. Wilber, M.K.; Potenza, M.N. Adolescent gambling: Research and clinical implications. Psychiatry 2006, 3, 40. [Google Scholar]
  2. Derevensky, J.; Gupta, R. Adolescent gambling: Current knowledge, myths, assessment strategies and public policy implications. In Research and Measurement Issues in Gambling Studies; Smith, G., Hodgins, D., Williams, R., Eds.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2007; pp. 437–463. [Google Scholar]
  3. Griffiths, M. Internet gambling: Issues, concerns, and recommendations. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2003, 6, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Griffiths, M.D.; Parke, J. Adolescent gambling on the Internet: A review. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 2010, 22, 59–75. [Google Scholar]
  5. Floros, G.D. Gambling disorder in adolescents: Prevalence, new developments, and treatment challenges. Adolesc. HealthMed. Ther. 2018, 9, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Derevensky, J.L.; Gupta, R. The measurement of youth gambling problems: Current instruments, methodological issues and future directions. In Gambling Problems in Youth: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives; Derevensky, J., Gupta, R., Eds.; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 121–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bonnaire, C.; Bungener, C.; Varescon, I. Subtypes of French pathological gamblers: Comparison of sensation seeking, alexithymia and depression scores. J. Gambl. Stud. 2009, 25, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Blinn-Pike, L.; Worthy, S.L.; Jonkman, J.N. Adolescent gambling: A review of an emerging field of research. J. Adolesc. Health 2010, 47, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gupta, R.; Derevensky, J.L. Adolescent gambling behavior: A prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with problem gambling. J. Gambl. Stud. 1998, 14, 319–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hanss, D.; Mentzoni, R.A.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pallesen, S. The impact of gambling advertising: Problem gamblers report stronger impacts on involvement, knowledge, and awareness than recreational gamblers. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2015, 29, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Potenza, M.N.; Wareham, J.D.; Steinberg, M.A.; Rugle, L.; Cavallo, D.A.; Krishnan-Sarin, S.; Desai, R.A. Correlates of at-risk/problem internet gambling in adolescents. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2011, 50, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Vitaro, F.; Brendgen, M.; Ladouceur, R.; Tremblay, R.E. Gambling, delinquency, and drug use during adolescence: Mutual influences and common risk factors. J. Gambl. Stud. 2001, 17, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Caretti, V.; Gori, A.; Craparo, G.; Giannini, M.; Iraci-Sareri, G.; Schimmenti, A. A new measure for assessing substance-related and addictive disorders: The addictive behavior questionnaire (ABQ). J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Diamond, N.; Marrone, M. Attachment and Intersubjectivity; Whurr Publishers: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  15. Flores, P.J. Addiction as an Attachment Disorder; Jason Aronson: Lanham, MD, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  16. Terrone, G.; Musetti, A.; Raschielli, S.; Marino, A.; Costrini, P.; Mossi, P.; Salvatore, S.; Caretti, V. Attachment relationships and internalization and externalization problems in a group of adolescents with pathological gambling disorder. Clin. Neuropsychiatry 2018, 15, 66–74. [Google Scholar]
  17. Di Trani, M.; Renzi, A.; Vari, C.; Zavattini, G.C.; Solano, L. Gambling disorder and affect regulation: The role of alexithymia and attachment style. J. Gambl. Stud. 2017, 33, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Magoon, M.E.; Ingersoll, G.M. Parental modeling, attachment, and supervision as moderators of adolescent gambling. J. Gambl. Stud. 2006, 22, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Pace, U.; Schimmenti, A.; Zappulla, C.; Di Maggio, R. Psychological variables characterizing different types of adolescent gamblers: A discriminant function analysis. Clinical. Neuropsychiatry 2013, 10, 253–259. [Google Scholar]
  20. Beebe, B.; Lachmann, F. Organizing principles of interaction from infant research and the lifespan prediction of attachment: Application to adult treatment. J. InfantChildAdolesc. Psychother. 2002, 2, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schimmenti, A.; Guglielmucci, F.; Barbasio, C.; Granieri, A. Attachment disorganization and dissociation in virtual worlds: A study on problematic Internet use among players of online roleplaying games. Clin. Neuropsychiatry 2012, 9, 195–202. [Google Scholar]
  22. Schimmenti, A.; Musetti, A.; Costanzo, A.; Terrone, G.; Maganuco, N.R.; Rinella, C.A.; Gervasi, A.M. The unfabulous four: Maladaptive personality functioning, insecure attachment, dissociative experiences, and problematic internet use among young adults. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khantzian, E.J. Understanding addictive vulnerability: An evolving psychodynamic perspective. Neuropsychoanalysis 2003, 5, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marlatt, G.A.; Donovan, D.M. Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  25. Schimmenti, A.; Caretti, V. Psychic retreats or psychic pits? Unbearable states of mind and technological addiction. Psychoanal. Psychol. 2010, 27, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gori, A.; Craparo, G.; Caretti, V.; Giannini, M.; Iraci-Sareri, G.; Bruschi, A.; Janiri, L.; Ponti, L.; Tani, F. Impulsivity, alexithymia and dissociation among pathological gamblers in different therapeutic settings: A multisaple comparison study. Psychiatry Res. 2016, 246, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pace, U.; Zappulla, C.; Di Maggio, R.; Passanisi, A.; Craparo, G. Characteristics of regular gamblers in Italy: The role of control and emotion regulation. Clin. Neuropsychiatry 2015, 12, 111–117. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rogier, G.; Velotti, P. Conceptualizing gambling disorder with the process model of emotion regulation. J. Behav. Addict. 2018, 7, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Gori, A.; Topino, E.; Craparo, G.; Bagnoli, I.; Caretti, V.; Schimmenti, A. A Comprehensive Model for Gambling Behaviors: Assessment of vulnerability and maintenance factors of Gambling Disorder. J. Gambl. Stud. in press.
  30. Sherrer, J.F.; Xian, H.; Kapp, J.M.; Waterman, B.; Shah, K.R.; Volberg, R.; Eisen, S.A. Association between exposure to childhood and lifetime traumatic events and lifetime pathological gambling in a twin cohort. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2007, 195, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Laghi, F.; D’Alessio, M.; Pallini, S.; Baiocco, R. Attachment representations and time perspective in adolescence. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 90, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cassidy, J.; Shaver, P.R. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  33. Seiffge-Krenke, I.; Beyers, W. Coping trajectories from adolescence to young adulthood: Links to attachment state of mind. J. Res. Adolesc. 2005, 15, 561–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meeus, W.; Oosterwegel, A.; Vollebergh, W. Parental and peer attachment and identity development in adolescence. J. Adolesc. 2002, 25, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Musetti, A.; Schimmenti, A.; Corsano, P. Mass media influences on body image and body esteem in female adolescents: The mediating role of hopeful future expectations. Atl. J. Commun. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sroufe, L.A. Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2005, 7, 349–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss. Volume II. Separation: Anxiety and Anger; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  38. Nickerson, A.B.; Nagle, R.J. The influence of parent and peer attachments on life satisfaction in middle childhood and early adolescence. Soc. Indic. Res. 2004, 66, 35–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Welch-Ross, M. An integrative model of the development of autobiographical memory. Dev. Rev. 1995, 15, 338–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bowlby, J. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  41. Muris, P.; Meesters, C.; van Melick, M.; Zwambag, L. Self-reported attachment style, attachment quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression in young adolescents. J. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2001, 30, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pavlidis, K.; McCauley, E. Autonomy and relatedness in family interactions with depressed adolescents. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2001, 29, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Musetti, A.; Terrone, G.; Corsano, P.; Magnani, B.; Salvatore, S. Exploring the link among state of mind concerning childhood attachment, attachment in close relationships, parental bonding, and psychopathological symptoms in substance users. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Musetti, A.; Corsano, P. Multidimensional self-esteem and secrecy from friends during adolescence: The mediating role of loneliness. Curr. Psychol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rubin, K.; Fredstrom, B.; Bowker, J. Future directions in… Friendship in childhood and early adolescence. Soc. Dev. 2008, 17, 1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Allen, J.P. The attachment system in adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 419–435. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zimmermann, P. Attachment representation and characteristics of friendship relations during adolescence. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2004, 88, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dykas, M.J.; Cassidy, J. Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 137, 19–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Premack, D.; Woodruff, G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 1978, 1, 515–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Calado, F.; Alexandre, J.; Griffiths, M.D. How coping styles, cognitive distortions, and attachment predict problem gambling among adolescents and young adults. J. Behav. Addict. 2017, 6, 648–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. McNally, A.M.; Palfai, T.P.; Levine, R.V.; Moore, B.M. Attachment dimensions and drinking-related problems among young adults. The mediational role of coping motives. Addict. Behav. 2003, 28, 1115–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gupta, R.; Derevensky, J.; Marget, N. Coping strategies employed by adolescents with gambling problems. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2004, 9, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Nower, L.; Derevensky, J.; Gupta, R. The relationship of impulsivity, sensation seeking, coping and substance use in youth gamblers. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2004, 18, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Jacobs, D.F. A general theory of addictions: A new theoretical model. J. Gambl. Behav. 1986, 2, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jacobs, D.F. Juvenile gambling in North America: An analysis of long term trends and future prospects. J. Gambl. Stud. 2000, 16, 119–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gupta, R.; Derevensky, J.L. An empirical examination of Jacobs’ general theory of addictions: Do adolescent gamblers fit the theory? J. Gambl. Stud. 1998, 14, 17–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Winters, K.C.; Stinchfield, R.D.; Kim, L.G. Monitoring adolescent gambling in Minnesota. J. Gambl. Stud. 1995, 11, 165–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Colasante, E.; Gori, M.; Bastiani, L.; Scalese, M.; Siciliano, V.; Molinaro, S. Italian adolescent gambling behaviour: Psychometric evaluation of the South Oaks Gambling Screen: Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA) among a sample of Italian students. J. Gambl. Stud. 2014, 30, 789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kriss, A.; Steele, H.; Steele, M. Measuring attachment and reflective functioning in early adolescence: An introduction to the friends and family interview. Res. Psychother. Psychopathol. Process. Outcome 2013, 15, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Steele, H.; Steele, M. The construct of coherence as an indicator of attachment security in middle childhood: The Friends and Family Interview. In Attachment in Middle Childhood; Kerns, K., Richardson, R., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 137–160. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pace, C.S.; Muzi, S.; Steele, H. Adolescents’ Attachment: Content and Discriminant Validity of the Friends and Family Interview. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2020, 29, 1173–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  63. Griffiths, M.D. Adolescent gambling. In Encyclopedia of Adolescence; Bradford Brown, B., Prinstein, M.J., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2011; Volume 3, pp. 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bergevin, T.; Gupta, R.; Derevensky, J.; Kaufman, F. Adolescent gambling: Understanding the role of stress and coping. J. Gambl. Stud. 2006, 22, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shead, N.W.; Derevensky, J.L.; Gupta, R. Risk and protective factors associated with youth problem gambling. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 2010, 22, 39. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kessler, R.C.; Hwang, I.; LaBrie, R.; Petukhova, M.; Sampson, N.A.; Winters, K.C.; Shaffer, H.J. DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychol. Med. 2008, 38, 1351–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Nower, L.; Martins, S.S.; Lin, K.H.; Blanco, C. Subtypes of disordered gamblers: Results from the N ational E pidemiologic S urvey on a lcohol and R elated C onditions. Addiction 2013, 108, 789–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Blomgren, A.S.; Svahn, K.; Åström, E.; Rönnlund, M. Coping strategies in late adolescence: Relationships to parental attachment and time perspective. J. Genet. Psychol. 2016, 177, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fonagy, P.; Target, M. Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self organization. Dev. Psychopathol. 1997, 9, 679–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Laghi, F.; Pallini, S.; Baumgartner, E.; Guarino, A.; Baiocco, R. Parent and peer attachment relationships and time perspective in adolescence: Are they related to satisfaction with life? Time Soc. 2016, 25, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Luyten, P.; Fonagy, P. The Neurobiology of Attachment and Mentalizing: A Neurodevelopmental Perspective. In Neurobiology of Personality Disorders; Schmahl, C., Phan, K.L., Friedel, R.O., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Brüne, M.; Brüne-Cohrs, U. Theory of mind-evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 1988, 30, 437–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fonagy, P. Thinking about thinking: Some clinical and theoretical considerations in the treatment of a borderline patient. Int. J. Psychoanal. 1991, 72, 639–656. [Google Scholar]
  74. Terrone, G.; Santona, A. The psychopathological risk in preadolescence. G. Ital. Psicol. 2012, 39, 697–706. [Google Scholar]
  75. Boniwell, I.; Zimbardo, P.G. Balancing time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. Posit. Psychol. Pract. 2004, 12, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Keough, K.A.; Zimbardo, P.G.; Boyd, J.N. Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 21, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Apostolidis, T.; Fieulaine, N.; Soulé, F. Future time perspective as predictor of cannabis use: Exploring the role of substance perception among French adolescents. Addict. Behav. 2006, 31, 2339–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Wills, T.A.; Sandy, J.M.; Yaeger, A.M. Time perspective and early-onset substance use: A model based on stress-coping theory. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2001, 15, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Årseth, A.K.; Kroger, J.; Martinussen, M.; Marcia, J.E. Meta-analytic studies of the relational issues of attachment and intimacy. Identity Int. J. Theory Res. 2009, 9, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Martinussen, M.; Kroger, J. Meta-analytic studies of identity status and personality: Introduction and overview. Identity Int. J. Theory Res. 2013, 13, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lorains, F.K.; Cowlishaw, S.; Thomas, S.A. Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: Systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addiction 2011, 106, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Main, M.; Goldwyn, R.; Hesse, E. Adult Attachment Scoring and Classification System; Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Jpm 11 00228 g001 550
Figure 1. Chained multiple mediation model from insecure attachment to gambling disorder, through developmental perspective, theory of mind (friend) and adaptive response.
Figure 1. Chained multiple mediation model from insecure attachment to gambling disorder, through developmental perspective, theory of mind (friend) and adaptive response.
Jpm 11 00228 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Means (SD)
Total (N = 178)GenderGambling Disease
Boys (N = 75)Girls (N = 103)Absent (N = 141)Risk (N = 24)Pathological (N = 13)
Age17.51 (0.82)17.52 (0.88)17.50 (0.78)17.38 (0.651)18.12 (1.30)17.77 (0.83)
Measures
SOGS0.95 (1.81)1.71 (2.41)0.40 (0.88)0.20 (0.40)2.58 (0.50)6.08 (2.40)
FFI
Attachment Patterns
Secure-autonomous2.74 (0.81)2.62 (0.84)2.84 (0.76)2.90 (0.73)2.10 (0.83)2.36 (0.81)
Insecure-dismissing1.95 (0.88)2.09 (0.92)1.83 (0.84)1.80 (0.79)2.62 (0.97)2.17 (1.03)
Insecure-preoccupied1.45 (0.67)1.46 (0.76)1.44 (0.60)1.43 (0.63)1.50 (0.72)1.58 (1.00)
Disorganized1.26 (0.63)1.24 (0.65)1.27 (0.63)1.23 (0.59)1.33 (0.82)1.46 (0.67)
Coherence
Truth2.87 (0.72)2.81 (0.76)2.92 (0.68)2.98 (0.69)2.39 (0.58)2.69 (0.86)
Economy2.79 (0.65)2.71 (0.71)2.84 (0.61)2.91 (0.61)2.33 (0.57)2.38 (0.77)
Relation2.69 (0.80)2.53 (0.85)2.80 (0.73)2.82 (0.76)2.17 (0.72)2.31 (0.75)
Manner3.25 (0.73)3.20 (0.69)3.29 (0.76)3.36 (0.69)2.79 (0.83)3.00 (0.58)
Overall coherence2.74 (0.76)2.62 (0.88)2.83 (0.67)2.85 (0.65)2.74 (1.10)2.75 (0.50)
Reflective Functioning
Developmental perspective 2.77 (0.93)2.74 (0.89)2.79 (0.95)2.85 (0.91)2.35 (0.86)2.73 (1.01)
Theory of mind
Mother2.68 (0.80)2.61 (0.84)2.73 (0.77)2.75 (0.76)2.48 (0.85)2.31 (1.03)
Father2.58 (0.83)2.31 (0.87)2.60 (0.78)2.54 (0.82)2.26 (0.81)2.23 (0.93)
Friend2.43 (0.91)2.26 (0.90)2.55 (0.90)2.54 (0.89)1.96 (0.88)2.23 (0.93)
Sibling2.42 (0.84)2.27 (0.88)2.52 (0.80)2.57 (0.77)1.82 (0.88)1.78 (0.83)
Teacher2.59 (0.75)2.58 (0.66)2.60 (0.80)2.64 (0.73)2.25 (0.91)2.69 (0.48)
Diversity of feelings
Self2.73 (0.97)2.68 (0.95)2.76 (0.99)2.83 (0.99)2.38 (0.82)2.36 (0.81)
Mother2.48 (1.06)2.37 (1.04)2.56 (1.07)2.60 (1.04)2.09 (1.04)2.00 (1.04)
Father2.54 (0.80)2.51 (0.76)2.56 (0.84)2.60 (0.81)2.43 (0.79)2.17 (0.72)
Friend2.46 (0.93)2.33 (0.87)2.54 (0.96)2.53 (0.96)2.08 (0.78)2.46 (0.78)
Sibling2.60 (0.83)2.56 (0.78)2.62 (0.88)2.72 (0.79)2.12 (0.89)2.20 (0.79)
Secure base/safe haven
Mother2.52 (0.83)2.38 (0.93)2.63 (0.73)2.60 (0.80)2.23 (0.92)2.25 (0.87)
Father2.17 (0.73)2.13 (70)2.20 (0.76)2.21 (0.72)1.96 (0.81)2.15 (0.69)
Self-esteem
Social competence2.86 (68)2.79 (0.72)2.92 (0.64)2.56 (0.53)2.54 (0.72)2.77 (0.83)
School competence2.90 (0.57)2.81 (0.60)2.97 (0.54)2.93 (0.64)2.71 (0.55)3.00 (0.95)
Self-regard2.61 (0.67)2.67 (0.61)2.57 (0.69)2.67 (0.64)2.30 (0.77)0.62 (0.51)
Friend relationship
Frequency of contact2.63 (1.01)2.66 (1.03)2.61 (0.99)2.69 (0.99)2.70 (0.97)1.92 (1.04)
Quality of relation2.77 (0.78)2.65 (0.82)2.85 (0.73)2.85 (0.75)2.46 (0.78)2.54 (0.88)
Sibling relationship
Warmth2.83 (0.82)2.67 (0.84)2.94 (0.80)2.93 (0.80)2.29 (0.77)2.60 (0.84)
Hostility1.41 (0.64)1.54 (0.72)1.33 (0.57)1.36 (0.62)1.56 (0.63)1.80 (0.79)
Rivalry1.13 (0.33)1.15 (0.37)1.11 (0.32)1.11(0.32)1.12 (0.33)1.30 (0.48)
Affective regulation
Idealization
Self1.19 (0.43)1.20 (0.44)1.19 (0.42)1.17 (0.40)1.29 (0.55)1.23 (0.44)
Mother1.76 (0.72)1.83 (0.77)1.72 (0.68)1.70 (0.64)2.09 (1.00)1.83 (0.84)
Father1.68 (0.68)1.64 (0.70)1.71 (0.67)1.65 (0.65)1.83 (0.89)1.69 (0.63)
Role reversal
Mother1.25 (0.50)1.29 (0.52)1.22 (0.50)1.22 (0.50)1.35 (0.49)1.38 (0.51)
Father1.15 (0.42)1.15 (0.44)1.15 (0.41)1.14 (0.39)1.29 (0.62)1.00 (0.00)
Anger
Mother1.24 (0.52)1.30 (0.57)1.19 (0.47)1.23 (0.51)1.38 (0.65)1.08 (0.28)
Father1.19 (0.44)1.31 (0.55)1.11 (0.31)1.17 (0.38)1.25 (0.53)1.31 (0.75)
Derogation
Self1.17 (0.44)1.21 (0.45)1.14 (0.43)1.18 (0.42)1.08 (0.41)1.23 (0.60)
Mother1.10 (0.41)1.17 (0.45)1.05 (0.37)1.06 (0.37)1.21 (0.51)1.31 (0.48)
Father1.12 (0.37)1.16 (0.44)1.10 (0.30)1.09 (0.32)1.13 (0.34)1.42 (0.67)
Adaptive Response2.69 (0.80)2.56 (0.84)2.78 (0.76)2.83 (0.77)2.17 (0.72)2.23 (0.73)
Differentiation of parental3.05 (0.73)3.04 (0.75)3.06 (0.71)3.15 (0.67)2.67 (0.96)2.85 (0.56)
representations
Table
Table 2. Correlation matrix between South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), Friends and Family Interview (FFI) attachment patterns and FFI domains.
Table 2. Correlation matrix between South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), Friends and Family Interview (FFI) attachment patterns and FFI domains.
FFI Attachment PatternsSOGS
4-Way2-Way
Secure-AutonomousInsecure-DismissingInsecure-PreoccupiedDisorganized-DisorientedSecure/Insecure
SOGS−0.263 **0.186 *0.0460.0510.311 **1
FFI
Coeherence
Truth0.791 **−0.658 **0.002−0.378 **−0.592 **−0.156 *
Economy0.728 **−0.520 **−0.134−0.337 **−0.592 **−0.249 **
Relation0.752 **−0.482 **−0.138−0.351 **−0.567 **−0.229 **
Manner0.578 **−0.332 **−0.197 *−0.236 **−0.396 **−0.182 *
Overall coherence0.733 **−0.554 **−0.075−0.402 **−0.530 **−0.157
Reflective Functioning
Developmental perspective 0.515 **−0.499 **0.115−0.207 **−0.320 **−0.076
Theory of mind
Mother0.488 **−0.381 **0.079−0.156 *−0.249 **−0.132
Father0.442 **−0.365 **0.127−0.153−0.286 **−0.126
Friend0.514 **−0.522 **0.033−0.224 **−0.480 **−0.148
Sibling0.377 **−0.391 **−0.108−0.198 *−0.371 **−0.264 **
Teacher0.415 **−0.452 **0.124−0.152−0.303 **−0.035
Diversity of feelings
Self0.572 **−0.536 **0.067−0.351 **−0.429 **−0.126
Mother0.559 **−0.459 **0.129−0.192 *−0.390 **−0.210 **
Father0.520 **−0.457 **0.135−0.059−0.344 **−0.149
Friend−0.0770.100−0.055−0.0330.132−0.044
Sibling0.656 **−0.538 **−0.060−0.324 **−0.604 **−0.186 *
Secure base/safe haven
Mother0.612 **−0.402 **−0.165 *−0.261 **−0.503 **−0.123
Father0.468 **−0.345 **−0.037−0.201 *−0.375 **−0.077
Self-esteem
Social competence0.462 **−0.411 **−0.053−0.296 **−0.320 **−0.100
School competence0.374 **−0.382 **−0.040−0.255 **−0.343 **0.003
Self-regard0.423 **−0.317 **−0.074−0.289 **−0.304 **−0.115
Friend relationship
Frequency of contact0.141−0.220 **0.037−0.162 *−0.140−0.123
Quality of relation0.585 **−0.561 **0.087−0.248 **−0.458 **−0.107
Sibling relationship
Warmth0.398 **−0.340 **−0.034−0.283 **−0.333 **−0.157
Hostility−0.227 *0.1090.0410.0350.1590.143
Rivalry−0.043−0.0680.146−0.0130.0490.143
Affective regulation
Self−0.1350.183 *−0.0430.173 *0.1200.038
Mother−0.429 **0.574 **−0.246 **0.176 *0.373 **0.035
Father−0.388 **0.439 **−0.205 **0.154 *0.342 **−0.013
Role reversal
Mother−0.036−0.201 *0.263 **−0.011−0.0140.124
Father−0.0300.0190.160 *0.216 **0.049−0.055
Anger
Mother−0.202 *−0.0550.328 **0.1500.209 **0.003
Father−0.118−0.1510.364 **0.0200.0850.133
Derogation
Self−0.250 **0.1360.1150.222 **0.182 *0.022
Mother−0.360 **0.212 **0.1220.0840.326 **0.136
Father−0.208 *−0.0260.309 **0.0180.187 *0.228 **
Adaptive Response0.635 **−0.391 **−0.134−0.261 **−0.505 **−0.290 **
Differentiation of parental
representations		0.335 **−0.441 **0.210 **−0.045−0.312 **−0.243 **
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table
Table 3. Mediation model coefficients.
Table 3. Mediation model coefficients.
AntecedentConsequent
M1M2M3Y
Coeff.SEp Coeff.SEp Coeff.SEp Coeff.SEp
Xa1−0.6910.167<0.001a2−0.7600.147<0.001a3−0.6530.146<0.001c’0.9300.4010.022
M1 ---a40.3410.068<0.001b10.1240.0670.066b20.0940.1750.592
M2 --- ---b30.1930.0750.011b40.1060.1960.590
M3 --- --- ---b5−0.4940.2110.021
ConstantiM13.6310.220<0.001iM22.4560.308<0.001iM22.6980.335<0.001iY0.6161.0340.545
R2= 0.102
F(1,151)= 17.064, p <0.001		 R2= 0.336
F(2,150)= 37.863, p < 0.001		 R2= 0.317
F(3,149)= 0.317, p < 0.001		 R2= 0.115
F(4,148)= 4.825, p = 0.001
Note: X = Insecure attachment; M1 = developmental perspective; M2 = theory of mind (friend); M3 = adaptive response; Y = gambling disorder.
Table
Table 4. Model effect indices.
Table 4. Model effect indices.
Total EffectDirect EffectIndirect EffectPartial Standardized
Indirect Effect		Bootstrapping
95% CI
1.220.930.020.01(0.001, 0.063]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Terrone, G.; Gori, A.; Topino, E.; Musetti, A.; Scarinci, A.; Guccione, C.; Caretti, V. The Link between Attachment and Gambling in Adolescence: A Multiple Mediation Analysis with Developmental Perspective, Theory of Mind (Friend) and Adaptive Response. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11030228

AMA Style

Terrone G, Gori A, Topino E, Musetti A, Scarinci A, Guccione C, Caretti V. The Link between Attachment and Gambling in Adolescence: A Multiple Mediation Analysis with Developmental Perspective, Theory of Mind (Friend) and Adaptive Response. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2021; 11(3):228. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11030228

Chicago/Turabian Style

Terrone, Grazia, Alessio Gori, Eleonora Topino, Alessandro Musetti, Alessia Scarinci, Camilla Guccione, and Vincenzo Caretti. 2021. "The Link between Attachment and Gambling in Adolescence: A Multiple Mediation Analysis with Developmental Perspective, Theory of Mind (Friend) and Adaptive Response" Journal of Personalized Medicine 11, no. 3: 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11030228

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop