↓ Skip to main content

Public Stigma and the Label of Gambling Disorder: Does it Make a Difference?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Public Stigma and the Label of Gambling Disorder: Does it Make a Difference?
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10899-017-9735-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Billy A. Palmer, Eric J. Richardson, Martin Heesacker, M. Kristina DePue

Abstract

This study examined public gambling stigma by testing stigmatization of those diagnosed with a gambling disorder, as specified by the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association in Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm16 ). The researchers hypothesized that the magnitude of stigmatization would fall in this order, from most stigmatized to least: (a) the target labelled and described in ways consistent with moderate gambling disorder (b) the target described in ways consistent with moderate gambling disorder, (c) the target described in ways consistent with recreational gambling, (d) and control. Participants were randomly presented with one of the four descriptions, then completed measures of cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions. Results showed that those labelled with gambling disorder evoked slightly more social distance than those meeting criteria for the disorder with no label. However, both groups meeting criteria were more stigmatized than those who gamble without meeting criteria and those who do not gamble. Those described who gamble without meeting criteria were no more stigmatized than those who do not gamble, giving a more total picture of what gambling stigma is by indicating what it is not. Findings and implications are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Librarian 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 44%
Unspecified 2 22%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Design 1 11%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,423,508
of 12,363,980 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#365
of 556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,639
of 350,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,363,980 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.