1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The current study aimed to identify subtypes of young adolescents who are differentially at risk for gambling problems. Subtypes were determined according to individual risk factors most often associated with gambling (i.e., impulsivity, depression, anxiety, substance use, aggressiveness, and antisociality). A second objective was to explore the difference in reported gambling problems between these profiles by middle adolescence or by early adulthood, as well as the temporal stability between the two time points. A third and final objective was to explore the compensatory or protective effects of various social factors. The compensatory or protective factors retained for the present study represent two domains: peers and family.» (p. 374)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Deux échantillons ont été utilisés dans cette étude. Le premier échantillon est constitué de 1 033 garçons âgés de 12-14-16 et 23 ans, vivant dans des arrondissements économiquement défavorisées de Montréal. Le second échantillon comprend 3 142 adolescents et jeunes adultes québécois de 12-14-16 et 23 ans. Ces données proviennent de l’Étude longitudinale des enfants de la maternelle au Québec effectuée en 2014.

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

The results show that «[a]t age 16, higher parental involvement significantly predicted fewer gambling problems for all participants. No interaction effects emerged, indicating that all the profiles equally benefited from parent involvement. At age 23, again, higher parental involvement significantly predicted fewer gambling problems for all participants. However, when participants’ profiles were included in the analysis, only internalizing participants reported fewer gambling problems when parental involvement was high, indicating that the compensatory effect observed previously might be unique to this profile […]. [Furthermore at] age 16, higher parent– child connectedness significantly predicted fewer gambling problems for all participants. No interaction effects emerged, indicating that all the profiles equally benefited from parent involvement. At age 23, there was no main and no interaction effect of parent– child connectedness on gambling problems.» (p. 378)