Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Gambling Studies
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-023-10269-0
1 3
ORIGINAL PAPER
How Does Religiosity Influence Gambling? ACross‑Cultural
Study Between Portuguese andEnglish Youth
FilipaCalado1,2 · MikeVernon1 · FilipNuyens1 · JoanaAlexandre2 ·
MarkD.Griths1
Accepted: 15 November 2023 / Published online: 9 December 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
Research has shown that religion can play a protective role in diverse risky behaviors
among young people. However, very little is known about the effect of religion in gam-
bling, especially among young problem gamblers. A strong moral belief regarding gam-
bling may prevent adolescents and young adults engaging in gambling and developing
problems. Nevertheless, some evidence suggests that religion might have an influence on
gambling cognitive distortions (i.e., some religious beliefs might influence the conceptions
of chance and luck, which may contribute to an increase in gambling participation). The
present study examined the different effects that religion can have on gambling behavior,
in two different cultural contexts (i.e., Portugal and England), characterized by different
religious affiliations. A sample (n = 725) comprising Portuguese (n = 312) and English
(n = 413) adolescents and young adults completed an online survey. The findings indi-
cated that Portuguese youth were more religious than their English counterparts. Moreo-
ver, religiosity was associated with lower gambling engagement among participants in both
samples. Mediation analyses also showed that the cognitive distortion of illusion of control
mediated the relationship between religiosity and problem gambling among the Portuguese
participants, and the interpretative bias was a significant mediator in the English sample.
The study’s findings suggest that religion can have a protective role on gambling behaviors.
However, further research is needed to explore the interactive role of religion and cognitive
distortions.
Keywords Youth gambling· Problem gambling· Religious affiliations· Religiosity·
Cognitive distortions
Introduction
Religion has always had an important role in human behavior (Van Tongeren, 2019).
From a mental health perspective, religion can provide guidelines that help individuals
to find a course or purpose in their lives (Koenig etal., 2012). Stresses and strains, as
well as uncertainties of life, can be tolerated more easily by religious believers (Behere
etal., 2013). In fact, many individuals turn to religion and spirituality when faced with
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1006
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
stressful life events, and religious belief is associated with increased levels of posttrau-
matic growth (Sharma etal., 2017). A systematic review concluded that higher levels
of religiosity are positively associated with indicators of psychological wellbeing (e.g.,
happiness, life satisfaction) and negatively associated with depression, suicide, and drug
and alcohol abuse/dependence (Moreira-Almeida et al., 2006). Moreover, a growing
body of research suggests that religion can have a protective effect on some health risky
behaviors among adolescents and emerging adults. For instance, Fletcher and Kumar
(2014) found that adolescents who reported religion as being important were less likely
to use addictive psychoactive substances.
However, very little is known about the effect of religion in gambling, in particular
youth problem gambling. Youth problem gambling is an emergent public health issue
across many countries (Calado etal., 2017). Religious beliefs can have an impact on
risky behavioral patterns that are developed during adolescence (e.g., gambling behav-
ior). Uecker and Stokes (2016) found that adolescents who attended weekly religious
services were less likely to have ever gambled. Moreover, in a study with 570 students
from the American University of Beirut, Ghandour and El Sayed (2013) found that
lower levels of practice of faith were associated with higher odds of lifetime gambling
(both social and non-problematic gambling). Stronger associations between religion
and gambling have been observed among Muslim students, whose faith does not permit
gambling. Furthermore, Casey etal. (2011) conducted a study with 436 Canadian ado-
lescents aged 13–16 years and the results showed that religiosity was a protective factor
against involvement in gambling for both males and females.
These studies appear to show that religion can have an impact on the behavioral pat-
terns that are formed during adolescence, such as gambling behavior. Young people’s
religious and moral views are shaped by a number of factors, such as parents, school,
community, and the society in which they live (Welte et al., 2017). A strong moral
belief regarding risky behaviors such as gambling, may well be a protective factor and
might prevent adolescents and young adults engaging in problematic gambling (Casey
etal., 2011).
However, although religion and religious beliefs may prevent young people from engag-
ing in problematic gambling behaviors, some evidence suggests that religion might have
an influence on some gambling cognitive distortions, and may contribute to an increase
in gambling participation (e.g., Browne etal., 2019; Williams etal., 2022). In fact, reli-
gion and gambling can be considered to have some common aspects, such as the belief
that someone may have control over external and uncontrollable events (Binde, 2007). One
of the most consistent predictors of gambling involvement and problematic gambling are
gambling fallacies, in which individuals constantly believe they have the ability to con-
trol gambling outcomes (Toneatto, 1999). For instance, Moore and Ohtsuka (1997) showed
that adolescents and young adults who gamble more often displayed more optimistic views
about their chances of winning.
Moreover, some studies have found that religious beliefs and social values influence
the conceptions of chance, faith, and probability (i.e., probabilistic thinking; Chassapis &
Chatzivasileiou, 2008; Kim etal., 2018). Furthermore, adhering to some superstitious and
religious beliefs, praying to win, performing rituals, and wearing religious medallions as
lucky charms strengthen habits and can encourage the belief that an individual can increase
their chances of winning (Toneatto, 1999). In a study conducted with Pacific Island moth-
ers living in New Zealand, Bellringer etal. (2005) found that their involvement in tradi-
tional gifting to community and churches was associated with gambling behavior. In some
of these communities, gambling for the church was considered acceptable. Similarly, a
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1007
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
study conducted by Lam (2006) found a positive relationship between importance of faith
and gambling frequency among individuals who played the lottery.
Some religious affiliations, such as Muslim and Protestant perceive gambling as a devi-
ant behavior (Ellison & McFarland, 2011), whereas other affiliations, such as Roman
Catholic Church have no sanctions against gambling (Binde, 2007). Moreover, individuals
conceive differently the control of God and the causality of everyday events due to their
religious views and cultural and social values (Chassapis & Chatzivasileiou, 2008). In fact,
a study conducted by Amir and Williams (1999) with children aged 11–12 years in Eng-
land (some of them of Asian origin), found that the culture and the social experiences of
children influence their knowledge of probability, and a significant proportion of Muslim
children had superstitions, and attributed outcomes of chance events to God.
Moreover, individuals from different cultural backgrounds can develop different gam-
bling cognitions as a result of their unique upbringing. For example, Papineau (2005)
reported that Chinese people perceive fate as something unavoidable and the outcome of
a game is used to infer individuals’ destiny, including business prospects and love life.
Therefore, culture-specific beliefs among Chinese gamblers might contribute and reinforce
cognitive distortions such as the illusion of control. Therefore, it can be assumed that some
cultures with specific religious affiliations characterized by stronger religious practices
and through a greater importance of religion can hold different views about the causation
of different phenomena, which can influence their involvement in gambling behavior. In
other words, people who are religious may be more prone to the development of cognitive
distortions.
Consequently, religious affiliation and religiosity might play important yet different
roles in fostering and protecting against the development of problem gambling in different
cultural groups. However, to the best of the present authors’ knowledge, very few studies
have examined this differential effect of religion on the development of gambling and prob-
lematic gambling. Based on the aforementioned literature, there is a need for more rigorous
methodologies and broader samples. Therefore, the present study tested a theoretical model
to further knowledge concerning the different effects that religion can have on youth gam-
bling behavior, in two different cultural contexts (i.e., Portugal and England). To the best of
the present authors’ knowledge, no previous studies have simultaneously examined the role
of religiosity in youth gambling behavior in samples from two different countries.
Although Portugal and England are two Western European countries, the two countries
have profound variances in social structure, demographics, philosophies, cultural dimen-
sions, and religion (Hofstede, 2001). In fact, Portugal is considered one of the most reli-
gious countries in Europe, with more than 84% of the population being members of the
Roman Catholic Church (Instituto Nacional de Estatıstica, 2011; Teixeira, 2019). Com-
pared with the Catholic Church, the numbers of all other religious groups remain relatively
low. On the other hand, in England, according to the 2021 census, “no religion” was the
second most common response, and less than half of the population described themselves
as “Christian” (Office for National Statistics, 2022). However, according to the same data,
those who identified as Christian were less likely than average to regularly attend a reli-
gious service or meeting. Therefore, the differences in religion in both countries may well
influence the gambling behavior of their populations, and as Portuguese individuals seem
to place more emphasis on the importance of religion (Teixeira etal., 2019) it was expected
that the effect of religiosity on the gambling cognitions would be stronger in this context.
Therefore, the hypotheses for the present study were twofold. First, it was hypothesized
that religiosity would have a direct and negative influence on gambling behavior, such that
higher levels of religiosity would be associated with lower levels of problematic gambling
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1008
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
behavior in both samples, English and Portuguese (H1). Second, it was hypothesized that
higher levels of religiosity would have an indirect influence on gambling behavior, such
that higher levels of religiosity would be associated with higher scores on the cognitive dis-
tortions (i.e., illusion of control, predictive control and interpretative bias, which according
to research are the cognitive distortions more influenced by religion), which in turn would
be associated with higher levels of problematic gambling among the Portuguese sample
(H2).
Method
Participants, Procedure, andEthics
The participants comprised 725 adolescents and young adults from Portugal and England,
attending high schools and the first year of university. The Portuguese sample comprised
312 participants (mean age = 18.5 years; SD = 2.4), and the English sample comprised 413
participants (mean age = 19.1 years; SD = 1.8). Portuguese participants were recruited in
Lisbon, whereas English participants were recruited in Nottingham. The institutional ethics
committee of the research team’s university gave ethical approval for the study.
For each country, the sample comprised late adolescents and young adults. With regard
to late adolescents, a contact was made between the first author and the headmaster of three
schools, two private and one public in Lisbon (for the Portuguese sample), and a similar
contact was made between the first author and two public schools in Nottingham (to recruit
the English sample). Then, an information letter explaining the purpose of the study was
sent to the school headmasters. If the headmaster provided permission, another letter was
sent to students and their parents (if participants were minors). Only participants who pro-
vided their full informed consent participated in the study.
For recruiting young adults, some first-year college lecturers were contacted and after
obtaining their permission for collecting data in their class, another letter was sent to their
students. After participants provided their informed consent, they were allowed to partici-
pate in the study. Data were collected using a survey, completed on a voluntary basis in the
classroom of the school or university. Besides the variables already mentioned, participants
were also asked about other psychological variables, such as sensation seeking and attach-
ment, which were analysed in another study (Calado et al., 2020). However, besides the
data included in the surveys, participants were not asked for any other information.
Measures
Sociodemographic Information andGambling Frequency
Sociodemographic data were collected on age, gender, and religious affiliation. Partici-
pants were also asked to indicate how often they had gambled during the past year from 1
(“never”) to 6 (“every day”).
DSM‑IV‑Multiple Response‑Juvenile (DSM‑IV‑MR‑J)
The DSM-IV-MR-J is a psychometrically validated scale developed by Fisher (2000) for
assessing youth problem gambling among those who have gambled during the past year.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1009
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
The scale contains nine items, and assesses a number of important variables related to
youth problem gambling, such as progression and preoccupation, tolerance, withdrawal,
and loss of control. The response categories comprise 1 = “never”, 2 = “once or twice”,
3 = “sometimes”, and 4 = “often”. Total score (range 0–9) was calculated by summing up
the scores of all nine items. Participants who obtain a score of 0 or 1 are classified as social
gamblers, a score of 2 or 3 indicates at-risk gambling, and a score of 4 or more indicates
problem gambling. The present study used the validated Portuguese version of this scale
(Calado etal., 2016) for the Portuguese sample. The Cronbach´s alpha of the scale was
0.72 in the English sample and 0.71 in the Portuguese sample.
Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS)
The 23-item Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS) developed by Raylu and Oei
(2004) was used to assess gambling-related erroneous cognitions. This scale comprises
five sub-scales, which correspond to different types of cognitive distortions: gambling
expectancies (i.e., expected benefits from gambling); illusion of control (i.e., the perceived
ability to control gambling outcomes); predictive control (i.e., the misattribution of cause-
and-effect relationships to unlinked events); inability to stop gambling (i.e., the perceived
inability to stop gambling behavior); and interpretative bias (i.e., an error of assessment,
such as attributing wins to personal abilities). Higher scores on the GRCS indicate higher
levels of cognitive distortions. For the present study, only the cognitive distortions of illu-
sion of control, predictive control and interpretative bias were used as they were the only
variables related to our research aims. In the present study, the instrument was translated
and back translated to Portuguese to be administered to the Portuguese sample following
standardized international guidelines (Beaton etal., 2000). For the Portuguese sample, the
Cronbach alphas for the subscales interpretative bias, illusion of control, predictive control
were respectively 0.86; 0.86 and 0.87. For the English sample, the Cronbach alphas for
these sub-scales were respectively 0.80, 0.76 and 0.84.
Religiosity
Religiosity was assessed using a scale that was slightly adapted by the one developed by
Johnson etal. (2001) and comprises four items. The first and third items assess the behav-
ioral dimension of religiosity (e.g., frequency of attending religious services), on a 5-point
Likert scale from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“daily”). The remaining two items assess the attitudi-
nal dimension (e.g., importance of religion in someone’s life, often called religious sali-
ence), which were also measured on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (“Not important at all”)
to 5 (“Very important”). The instrument was translated and back translated to the Portu-
guese language following the guidelines outlined by Beaton (2000). The Cronbach’s alpha
of the scale was 0.91 for the English sample and 0.92 for the Portuguese sample.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed descriptively in order to characterize each sample and to iden-
tify the religious affiliations and levels of religiosity in each country. Furthermore, to test
the model in which religiosity will influence problematic gambling behavior both directly
and indirectly through the cognitive distortions of interpretative bias, illusion of control
and predictive control, mediation models were tested in lavaan (latent variable analysis)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1010
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
package, with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. The analyses were conducted in
SPSS and in R.
The models were estimated using the lavaan (latent variable analysis) package, with
maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, using R (version 4.1.1) (R Core Team, 2018). After
setting up the models using lavaan model syntax, the models were estimated using the
sem() function before the summary() function is used for the examination of the results.
The bootstrap method was conducted for testing the significance of the indirect effects
(Bollen & Stine, 1990; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The set.seed() function was used, specify-
ing sample 123, to allow for the bootstrap simulations to simulate via the same sample. Six
separate mediation models were estimated, in which religiosity was the predictor variable
and problematic gambling behavior (PGB) was the outcome variable in all instances. The
three mediators were examined separately across the mediation models, once for the Eng-
lish sample and once for the Portuguese sample.
Multiple model adjustment indicators [Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis
Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardised Root
Mean Square Residual (SRMR)] were used to assess the goodness of fit of the proposed
models in relation to the data. The CFI provides a measure of the relative improvement
in fit when comparing the baseline model to the postulated model. It is typically consid-
ered that a CFI ≥ 0.95 indicates a good fit between the models (Hu & Bentler, 1999; West
etal., 2012). The TLI (Tucker & Lewis, 1973) provides a measure of the amount of misfit
per degree of freedom. Similar to the CFI, a TLI ≥ 0.95 indicates a good fit between the
models (Hu & Bentler, 1999; West etal., 2012). In contrast, the RMSEA and SRMR indi-
cates poor fit of the models, where lower values indicate a better fit. It is proposed that an
RMSEA ≤ 0.1 is required for any reasonable consideration (Browne & Cudeck, 1992), with
an RMSEA ≤ 0.06 considered more acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). A SRMR ≤ 0.08 is
considered an indication of a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Results
Descriptive statistics were conducted to understand the sociodemographic characteristics
of each sample and religious affiliations in each country. The sociodemographic charac-
teristics of each sample, as well as descriptive statistics of religious affiliations can be
foundrespectively in Tables1 and 2. As shown in Table2, Roman Catholic was the pre-
dominant religious affiliation in the Portuguese, whereas in the English sample, the major-
ity of individuals classed themselves as having no religion (or atheist). Moreover, the lev-
els of religiosity were significantly higher in the Portuguese sample (M = 2.08, SD = 1.47)
compared to the English sample (M = 1.47; SD = 0.76): t(516.56.) = 8.4, p < 0.001.
Exploratory correlation analysis was run separately between the Portuguese and English
samples to examine any potential dissimilitude (Table 3). As can be seen, most correla-
tions between the two samples were similar and showed the same degree of significance.
Moreover, the association between illusion of control and religiosity was significant in the
Portuguese sample but not in the English sample. This dissimilitude further supports the
separate exploration of these two samples (Table3).
Subsequently, mediation analyses were conducted to test the mediating effect of each
cognitive distortion in the relationship between religiosity and problematic gambling. More
specifically, mediation models were estimated to examine if the predictor variable of religi-
osity (X) affected the outcome variable of problematic gambling behavior (Y) via a third
variable (M), illusion of control, predictive control, or interpretative bias. The structure
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1011
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
used for these models is illustrated in Fig.1, in which there are two paths connecting the
predictor and outcome variables. The direct path (path C) represents the predictor variable
of religiosity affecting the outcome variable of problematic gambling behavior. The indi-
rect path (path A + B) represents the predictor variable of religiosity affecting the mediator
(i.e., illusion of control, predictive control, or interpretative bias), which in turn affects the
outcome variable of problematic gambling behavior. Therefore, three mediation paths were
conducted, which corresponded to the three cognitive distortions, which are illustrated in
Figs.2, 3 and 4.
Illusion ofControl
In the Portuguese sample, religiosity significantly predicted problematic gambling
behavior directly (β = − 0.034, SE = 0.015, Z = − 2.226, p = 0.026). This effect was
Table 1 Demographics
background of participants Portuguese
youth
English
youth
Gender N % N %
Male 142 45.5 150 36.3
Female 170 54.5 263 63.7
Age
< 18 years 135 43.3 82 19.9
> = 18 years 177 56.7 331 80.1
Qualification of parents
Primary school or less 29 9.3 0 0
Attendance of some secondary school 77 24.7 0 0
Completed secondary school 102 32.7 140 33.9
Some university 32 10.3 93 22.5
Completed university 71 22.8 180 43.6
Gambling frequency
Most days 11 3.5 31 7.5
At least once per week 64 20.5 109 26.4
Once or twice a month 74 23.7 82 19.9
Less than once a month 163 52.2 191 46.2
Table 2 Religious affiliations in
each country England % Portugal %
Church of England 17.1 Church of England 0
Roman catholic 7.2 Roman catholic 52.9
Islam 3.1 Islam 1.1
Judaism 0.7 Judaism 1.1
Hinduism 1.5 Hinduism 0
Buddhism 0.9 Buddhism 0
Other religion 5.1 Other religion 7.6
No religion 64.4 No religion 37.3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1012
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
significantly mediated by the Illusion of control whereby the indirect pathway of the
relationship between religiosity and problematic gambling behavior via the Illusion of
control was significant (β[indirect] = 0.017, SE = 0.008, Z = 2.039, p = 0.041). The model
adjustment indicators were adequate (χ2 = 70.844, p < 0.001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00,
RMSEA < 0.01 (90% CI, p < 0.05), and SRMR < 0.01).
In the English sample, the direct effect of religiosity did not predict problematic
gambling behavior (β = − 0.029, SE = 0.02, Z = − 1.468, p = 0.142). This effect was
not significantly mediated by the illusion of control (β[indirect] = 0.002, SE = 0.007,
Z = 0.283, p = 0.777). The model adjustment indicators were adequate (χ2 = 49.16,
p < 0.001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.01 (90%CI, p < 0.05), and SRMR < 0.01).
Table 3 Correlations between the predictor, outcome, and mediator variables
IoC illusion of control, PC predictive control, IB interpretative bias, PGB problematic gambling behavior
*p < 0.05
***p < 0.001
Sample Variable Religiosity IoC PC IB PGB
Portugal 1. Religiosity −
2. IoC 0.13* −
3. PC − 0.02 0.69*** −
4. IB − 0.03 0.54*** 0.68*** −
5. PGB − 0.05 0.42*** 0.58*** 0.45*** −
England 1. Religiosity −
2. IoC 0.01 −
3. PC − 0.07 0.63*** −
4. IB − 0.1 0.51*** 0.63*** −
5. PGB − 0.06 0.33*** 0.46*** 0.45*** −
Fig. 1 Mediation pathway for the relationship between Religiosity and problematic gambling behavior via
the direct path (c) and the indirect path (a + b) of the moderator variables (cognitive distortions: illusion of
control, predictive control or interpretative bias)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1013
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
Fig. 2 Parallel mediation model for the English and Portuguese samples featuring religiosity as the predic-
tor variable, problematic gambling behavior as the outcome variable, and illusion of control as the media-
tor. The coefficients and standard errors for the indirect effect containing the mediator are shown in paren-
theses. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 3 Parallel mediation model for the English and Portuguese samples featuring religiosity as the predic-
tor variable, problematic gambling behavior as the outcome variable, and predictive control as the mediator.
The coefficients and standard errors for the indirect effect containing the mediator are shown in parentheses.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 4 Parallel mediation model for the English and Portuguese samples featuring Religiosity as the predic-
tor variable, problematic gambling behavior as the outcome variable, and Interpretative Bias as the media-
tor. The coefficients and standard errors for the indirect effect containing the mediator are shown in paren-
theses. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1014
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
Predictive Control
Analysis of the Portuguese sample found that religiosity did not significantly predict
problematic gambling behavior directly (β = − 0.012, SE = 0.015, Z = − 0.848, p = 0.396).
There was a non-significant indirect effect, in which the relationship between religiosity
and problematic gambling behavior was not significantly mediated via predictive control
(β[indirect] = − 0.004, SE = 0.01, Z = − 0.412, p = 0.681). The model adjustment indicators
were adequate (χ2 = 130.59, p < 0.001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.01 (90% CI,
p < 0.05), and SRMR < 0.01).
A similar pattern of results was found in the English sample. Religiosity did not signifi-
cantly predict problematic gambling behavior directly (β = − 0.012, SE = 0.019, Z = -0.621,
p = 0.535), and the indirect effect was also non-significant (β[indirect] = -0.016, SE = 0.0011,
Z = -1.493, p = 0.15). The model adjustment indicators were adequate (χ2 = 101.447,
p < 0.001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.01 (90%CI, p < 0.05), and SRMR < 0.01).
Interpretative Bias
A non-significant direct effect was found for religiosity predicting problematic gambling
behavior in the Portuguese sample (β = − 0.012, SE = 0.016, Z = − 0.763, p = 0.446),
with a non-significant indirect effect also found (β = − 0.004, SE = 0.008, Z = − 0.548,
p = 0.584). Interpretative bias did not significantly mediate the relationship between religi-
osity and problematic gambling behavior. The model adjustment indicators were adequate
(χ2 = 70.003, p < 0.001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.01 (90%CI, p < 0.05), and
SRMR < 0.01).
In the English sample, the direct effect of religiosity did not significantly predict prob-
lematic gambling behavior (β = − 0.007, SE = 0.02, Z = − 0.33, p = 0.742). This effect
was significantly mediated by interpretative bias (β(indirect) = − 0.021, SE = 0.011,
Z = − 1.962, p = 0.05). The model adjustment indicators were adequate (χ2 = 98.845,
p < 0.001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA < 0.01 (90%CI, p < 0.05), and SRMR < 0.01).
Discussion
To the best of the present authors’ knowledge, the present study is the first to examine the
differential effect of religiosity on problematic gambling behavior among adolescents and
young adults, as well as the indirect effect through cognitive distortions in two different
samples. First of all, it can be observed some differences between the two samples: the
English sample is composed by older participants, and parents have higher levels of quali-
fications in comparison to the Portuguese sample. Moreover, the religious affiliation most
predominant in the Portuguese sample was Roman Catholic, whereas in the English sample
most participants classed themselves as non-religious.
Regarding the direct effect of religiosity, the findings of the present study showed that
for both English and Portuguese samples there was a negative association between religi-
osity and problematic gambling, although this association did not always reach the sta-
tistical significance. In fact, this association only assumed statistical significance for the
Portuguese sample. However, with regards the mediating effect of cognitive distortions, the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1015
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
cognitive distortion of illusion of control was a significant mediator in the Portuguese sam-
ple. Moreover, the interpretative bias was a significant mediator in the relationship between
religiosity and problematic gambling in the English sample.
The findings related to the direct effect of religiosity on problematic gambling are in
line with previous research on the field, who also showed a negative association between
religiosity and problematic gambling. For example, Fletcher and Kumar (2014) found that
religiosity can have a protective effect on some health risky behaviors, such as substance
abuse among young people. In addition, other studies (e.g., Casey etal., 2011; Uecker &
Stokes, 2016) specifically found that attending religious services and following some reli-
gious traditions can reduce the likelihood of gambling involvement. These findings can be
explained by the fact that many religious institutions in Europe and around the world frame
gambling and other risky behaviors, such as drinking alcohol, taking drugs and using por-
nography as sinful (Beyerlein & Sallaz, 2017). Many scholars have argued that religios-
ity can help to shape moral values regarding risky behaviors, which might prevent young
people from engaging in potentially problematic behaviors, such as gambling (Casey etal.,
2011). The finding that the negative association between religiosity and problematic gam-
bling assumed the statistical significance in the Portuguese sample can be explained by the
fact that the levels of religiosity are significantly higher in this sample.
Moreover, when examining the mediating effect of cognitive distortions, only the illu-
sion of control significantly mediated the relationship between religiosity and problem-
atic gambling in the Portuguese sample. Analyzing the data, it was found that religios-
ity showed a positive significant association with the illusion of control, which in turn
influenced positively problematic gambling behavior. This finding is in line with previous
research that supports that religiosity may play a positive influence in the development of
cognitive distortions (e.g., Browne etal., 2019; Chassapis & Chatzivasileiou, 2008). This
finding may also be explained by the fact that the Portuguese sample showed higher levels
of religiosity in comparison with the English one. In fact, it is important to note that the
illusion of control concerns the belief that if an individual engaged in specific rituals and
behaviors, this will increase their chances of winning.
According to Toneatto (1999), in societies with higher levels of religiosity, adhering to
some religious beliefs, and performing some rituals can encourage the belief that an indi-
vidual can increase their chances of winning, and that if such individuals behave and go
to the church, God “will enable [them] to win”. Moreover, individuals who think that life
events can be influenced by a higher power will also be more likely to hold the belief that
the same higher power can interfere in the outcome of gambling games (Kim etal., 2018).
In addition, according to some scholars (e.g., Binde, 2007), the Roman Catholic Church,
which was the most predominant religious affiliation in the Portuguese sample, does not
label gambling as a dangerous sin in comparison with a Protestant society because many
revenues of gambling games go to the Catholic church, which also helps to explain why
the illusion of control, which is a cognitive distortion that can be more associated with this
religious affiliation, appears to influence problematic gambling.
Another interesting finding was the significant mediating effect of the interpretative
bias in the relationship between religiosity and problematic gambling in the English
sample. Analyzing this effect, it can be noted that religiosity is significantly negatively
associated with interpretative bias, which in turn will significantly influence problem-
atic gambling behaviour. Examining this cognitive distortion in further detail, it can
be observed that it concerns the beliefs about attributing wins to personal abilities and
skills and remembering how much money was won in the past in order to continue to
engage in gambling behaviour. These values of winning money are less in line with
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1016
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
religious moral values and higher levels of religiosity. As the English sample showed
lower levels of religiosity, this might explain the significant mediating effect of this
cognitive distortion. However, these associations need to be further explored in future
research.
The study’s findings showed no significant mediating effect of the predictive con-
trol in the relationship between religiosity and problematic gambling. Although these
findings need to be further examined in future research, the results seem to suggest
that not all cognitive distortions explain the relationship between religiosity and gam-
bling involvement. In fact, predictive control is related to the misattribution of cause-
and-effect relationships to unlinked events, such as that losses will be followed by a
series of wins. Therefore, it seems that these cognitive distortions, due to their nature,
are not influenced by the levels of religiosity. The findings indicated that only the
cognitive distortions of illusion of control and interpretative bias might play a major
role in the conceptions of chance and luck, which can influence someone’s decisions
to gamble.
The findings of the present study also contain some theorical and practical implica-
tions. Future research on gambling should incorporate religious affiliations and religi-
osity in their models as both a risk and protective factor for predicting youth prob-
lematic gambling. Moreover, as the present study suggests that religiosity may protect
young people from engaging in problematic gambling, in specific cultures and com-
munities, attendance of religious services could be encouraged. However, as religiosity
may also influence the development of specific cognitive distortions, more religious
individuals should also be advised that importance of faith and commitment to God
will not affect the outcomes of a gambling game.
Strengths andLimitations
Although the present study has some strengths, such as the novelty of testing a model
for predicting youth problem gambling in two different cultural contexts, and the
examination of previously unexplored relationships between religiosity, cognitive dis-
tortions and problematic gambling, it is not without limitations. These should be taken
into account when interpreting the findings. For instance, the present study exclusively
utilized self-report data, which are prone to well-known biases, such as social desir-
ability. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow the determi-
nation of cause-and-effect relationships. Future research should address this limitation
by using longitudinal designs, which would capture measures of religiosity and gam-
bling involvement over time. Moreover, the present study also comprised a conveni-
ence sample, and therefore it is not representative of youth populations in either coun-
try. Furthermore, religion is a multidimensional concept (Mutti-Packer etal., 2017),
which involves two dimensions, a behavioral and attitudinal component, which were
not explored separately in the present study. In fact, attending religious services can
be considered a behavioral or community aspect of religiousness, whereas the extent
to which someone internalizes their faith and shows the importance of religion in
their life concerns the attitudinal aspect of religion. Therefore, further research should
examine these dimensions to better understand which aspects of religion play a more
robust influence in protecting young people from gambling involvement.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1017
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
Conclusion
The findings of the present study showed that the influence of religiosity on problem-
atic gambling is complex. Overall, the results indicated that religiosity appears to protect
young people from engaging in problematic gambling behaviors, which confirms previous
research. Moreover, the findings appear to indicate that other aspects of religiosity might
influence the development of cognitive distortions because it encourages the acquisition
of transcendental beliefs that might increase perceived control and risk-taking. Therefore,
there is the need to conduct additional research to further knowledge on the complex rela-
tionships between gambling and religiosity. The present study is novel in providing insight
into the effect on religiosity on gambling behavior and generates important avenues for
future research.
Data availability The data are available from the first author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The last author, Mark D. Griffiths has received research funding fromNorsk Tipping(the
gambling operator owned by the Norwegian government). Mark D. Griffiths has received funding for a num-
ber of research projects in the area of gambling education for young people, social responsibility in gambling
and gambling treatment fromGamble Aware(formerly theResponsibility in Gambling Trust), a charitable
body which funds its research program based on donations from the gambling industry. Mark D. Griffiths
undertakes consultancy for various gambling companies in the area of player protection and social responsi-
bility in gambling. The remaining authors do not have any conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Amir, G. S., & Williams, J. S. (1999). Cultural influences on children’s probabilistic thinking. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 18(1), 85–87.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-
cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.
Behere, P. B., Das, A., Yadav, R., & Behere, A. P. (2013). Religion and mental health. Indian Journal of
Psychiatry, 55, S187–S194.
Bellringer, M. E., Cowley-Malcolm, E. T., Abbott, M. W., & Williams, M. M. (2005). Pacific Islands fami-
lies: The first two years of life: Gambling amongst Pacific mothers. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 3(1), 53–56.
Beyerlein, K., & Sallaz, J. J. (2017). Faith’s wager: How religion deters gambling. Social Science Research,
62, 204–218.
Binde, P. (2007). Gambling and religion: Histories of concord and conflict. Journal of Gambling Issues, 20,
145–165.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variabil-
ity. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1018
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods &
Research, 21(2), 230–258.
Browne, M., Hing, N., Rocklof, M., Russell, A. M. T., Greer, N., Nicoll, F., & Smith, G. (2019). A multi-
variate evaluation of 25 proximal and distal risk-factors for gambling-related harm. Journal of Clinical
Medicine, 8(4), 509–524.
Calado, F., Alexandre, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2016). Portuguese validation of the DSM-IV-MR-J. Interna-
tional Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 14, 1096–1106.
Calado, F., Alexandre, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Prevalence of adolescent problem gambling: A sys-
tematic review of recent research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33, 397–424. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10899- 016- 9627-5
Calado, F., Alexandre, J., & Griffiths, M.D. (2020). Gambling Among Adolescents and Emerging Adults: A
Cross-Cultural Study Between Portuguese and English Youth. International Journal of Mental Health
Addiction, 18, 737–753. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11469- 018- 9980-y
Casey, D. M., Williams, R. J., Mossière, A. M., Schopflocher, D. P., El-Guebaly, N., Hodgins, D. C., &
Wood, R. T. (2011). The role of family, religiosity, and behavior in adolescent gambling. Journal of
Adolescence, 34, 841–851.
Chassapis, D., & Chatzivasileiou, E. (2008). Socio-cultural influences on children’s conceptions of chance
and probability. In J. F. Matos, P. Valero, & K. Yasukawa (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Interna-
tional Mathematics Education and Society Conference (pp. 197–206). Lisbon: Centro de Investigação
em Educação, Universidade de Lisboa–Department of Education, Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg
University.
Ellison, C. G., & McFarland, M. J. (2011). Religion and gambling among U.S. adults: Exploring the role of
traditions, beliefs, practices, and networks. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion., 50(1), 82–102.
Fisher, S. (2000). Developing the DSM-IV-MR-J criteria to identify adolescent problem gambling in non-
clinical populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 253–273.
Fletcher, J., & Kumar, S. (2014). Religion and risky health behaviors among US adolescents and adults.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 104, 123–214.
Ghandour, L. A., & El Sayed, D. S. (2013). Gambling behaviors among university youth: Does one’s
religious affiliation and level of religiosity play a role? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(1),
279–286.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Instituto Nacional de Estatıstica. (2011). Estimativas anuais da Populaçao residente. Retrieved November
14, 2023, from https:// www. ine. pt/ xport al/ xmain? xpid= INE& xpgid= ine_ main
Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent religious commitment mat-
ter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 38(1), 22–44.
Kim, H. S., Shifrin, A., Sztainert, T., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2018). Placing your faith on the betting floor:
Religiosity predicts disordered gambling via gambling fallacies. Journal of Behavioral Addictions,
7(2), 401–419.
Koenig, H. G., King, D. E., & Carson, V. B. (2012). Handbook of religion and health (2nd ed.). New Oxford
University Press.
Lam, D. (2006). The influence of religiosity on gambling participation. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22(3),
305–332.
Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1997). Gambling activities of young Australians: Developing a model of
behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(3), 207–236.
Moreira-Almeida, A., Lotufo Neto, F., & Koenig, H. G. (2006). Religiousness and mental health: A review.
Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 242–325.
Mutti-Packer, S., Hodgins, D. C., Williams, R. J., & Konkolÿ Thege, B. (2017). The protective role of religi-
osity against problem gambling: Findings from a five-year prospective study. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1),
356.
Office for National Statistics. (2022). Statistical Bulletin, Religion, England and Wales: Census 2021. Office
for National Statistics.
Papineau, E. (2005). Pathological gambling in Montreal’s Chinese community: An anthropological perspec-
tive. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 157–178.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Founda-
tion for Statistical Computing. Retrieved November 14, 2023, from: https:// www.R- proje ct. org/
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1019
Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:1005–1019
1 3
Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2004). The gambling-related cognitions scale (GRCS): Development, confirma-
tory factor validation and psychometric properties. Addiction, 99(6), 757–769.
Sharma, V., Marin, D. B., Koenig, H. K., Feder, A., Iacoviello, B. M., Southwick, S. M., & Pietrzak, R. H.
(2017). Religion, spirituality, and mental health of US military veterans: Results from the national
health and resilience in veterans study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 217, 197–204.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures
and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
Teixeira, A., Vilaça, H., & Dix, S. (2019). Believers without religion: Trends and paradoxes in Portuguese
society. Journal of Religion in Europe, 12, 415–443.
Teixeira, A. (2019). Religião na sociedade portuguesa (Ensaios da Fundação). Fundação Francisco Manuel
dos Santos.
Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance Use and Misuse, 34(11),
1593–1604.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psycho-
metrika, 38(1), 1–1.
Uecker, J. E., & Stokes, C. E. (2016). Religious background and gambling among young adults in the United
States. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(1), 341-361.
Van Tongeren, D. R. (2019). The importance of meaning in the relationship between religion and death.
Religion, Brain & Behavior, 9(2), 194–220.
Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M. C. O., & Wieczoreck, F. W. (2017). Predictors of Problem Gam-
bling in the U.S. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33, 327–342.
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling.
In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). Guilford Press.
Williams, B. M., Browne, M., Rockloff, M., Stuart, G., & Smith, B. P. (2022). Protective action and risky
beliefs: The relationship between religion and gambling fallacies. Journal of Gambling Studies, 38(1),
253–263.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Authors and Aliations
FilipaCalado1,2 · MikeVernon1 · FilipNuyens1 · JoanaAlexandre2 ·
MarkD.Griths1
* Filipa Calado
filipa.dacostaricocalado@ntu.ac.uk
Mike Vernon
mike.vernon@ntu.ac.uk
Filip Nuyens
filip.nuyens@ntu.ac.uk
Joana Alexandre
joana.alexandre@iscte.pt
Mark D. Griffiths
mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk
1 Department ofPsychology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
2 ISCTE - CIS/IUL - Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Content uploaded by Filipa Calado
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Filipa Calado on Dec 09, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mark D Griffiths
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark D Griffiths on Dec 09, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
