Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Dispositional and Contextual Correlates of In-Play Sports Betting and

Related Harms: A 2-Week Ecological Momentary Assessment Study
Hyoun S. Kim, Sophie G. Coelho, Jenna L. Vieira, and Matthew T. Keough
Online First Publication, August 3, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000948

CITATION
Kim, H. S., Coelho, S. G., Vieira, J. L., & Keough, M. T. (2023, August 3). Dispositional and Contextual Correlates of In-Play
Sports Betting and Related Harms: A 2-Week Ecological Momentary Assessment Study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.
Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000948
 Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
© 2023 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 0893-164X https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000948

Dispositional and Contextual Correlates of In-Play Sports Betting and

Related Harms: A 2-Week Ecological Momentary Assessment Study
Hyoun S. Kim1, 2, Sophie G. Coelho3, Jenna L. Vieira1, and Matthew T. Keough3
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

1
Department of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University
2
The Royal’s Institute of Mental Health Research, University of Ottawa
3
Department of Psychology, York University

Objective: In-play betting is a novel form of sports betting that allows players to make continuous bets during
a game. The present study examined the dispositional and contextual correlates of in-play sports betting and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

related harms. Method: Participants were 84 individuals (73.81% men, Mage = 41.02) who engaged in in-play
betting. Participants first completed an online questionnaire including measures of problem gambling severity,
childhood trauma, impulsivity, and emotion dysregulation. Participants then completed a 14-day ecological
momentary assessment (EMA) study involving completing brief surveys twice per day. EMA surveys
assessed in-play betting behaviors, motives, contexts, and harms. Results: A total of 1,365 EMA surveys were
completed, of which 32.89% involved placing at least one in-play bet. A total of 77 (91.67%) participants
placed at least one in-play bet during the study period. Participants reported greater in-play betting
involvement (the number of bets placed, money spent) and an increased likelihood of experiencing in-play
betting-related financial and relationship harms when using substances while betting and when motivated to
place in-play bets by an interest in sports or to “be in the game.” Participants, who used substances during a
greater proportion of in-play betting occasions, who more frequently endorsed coping motives for in-play
betting, and who exhibited elevated problem gambling severity, reported greater in-play betting involvement
and the likelihood of experiencing in-play betting-related harms overall. Conclusions: Responsible gambling
initiatives targeting contextual risk factors, such as using alcohol and cannabis while in-play betting, may help
to reduce the intensity of in-play betting and its associated harms.

Public Health Significance Statement

The present study found that both dispositional factors, such as childhood trauma, impulsivity, and
problem gambling severity, as well as contextual factors, such as simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use
and social influences (e.g., friends betting), were associated with in-play betting intensity and associated
harms. Although dispositional factors may be resistant to change, it may be possible to modify
contextual factors, for example abstaining from alcohol and cannabis use while placing in-play bets, to
reduce the harms associated with in-play betting.

Keywords: sports gambling, in-play betting, ecological momentary assessment, daily diary, simultaneous
substance use

Sports betting is becoming an increasingly popular gambling Furthermore, sports betting saw a 270% increase in revenue in
activity (Winters & Derevensky, 2020). According to the American the first 3 months of 2021 compared to 2020 (American Gaming
Gaming Association (2021a), sports betting revenue increased by Association, 2021b). The exponential increase in sports betting
69% from 2019 to 2020, reaching a record $1.5 billion. revenue coincides with the recent legalization of online sports

Hyoun S. Kim played a lead role in conceptualization, funding acquisition,

Hyoun S. Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0804-0256
Sophie G. Coelho https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1730-9250
Funding for this study was provided by a research grant independently
managed from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO) with funds
supported by Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) to Hyoun S.
Kim and Matthew T. Keough. GREO and OLG had no role in the study
design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; writing the article; or
the decision to submit the article for publication.
This study was not preregistered. Data and code for analyses reported in
the present study have been made publicly available at https://osf.io/tp2zj/.
Analyses were performed in R and RStudio, using the glmmTMB package
(Brooks et al., 2017).
supervision, and writing–original draft and a supporting role in writing–
review and editing. Sophie G. Coelho played a lead role in data curation,
formal analysis, and writing–review and editing; a supporting role in
writing–original draft; and an equal role in methodology. Jenna L. Vieira
played a lead role in project administration and a supporting role in
methodology and writing–review and editing. Matthew T. Keough played a
supporting role in conceptualization, formal analysis, funding acquisition,
supervision, and writing–review and editing.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hyoun
S. Kim, Department of Psychology, Toronto Metropolitan University,
350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2k3, Canada. Email:
andrewhs.kim@torontomu.ca

1
 2 KIM, COELHO, VIEIRA, AND KEOUGH
gambling in many jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. As
of May 2023, 35 U.S. states have legalized sports betting, including
Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois, among others (McQuillan,
2023). Three additional states are currently pending legalization,
with Kentucky being the most recent to approve the required bill in
2023 (McQuillan, 2023). In contrast, all 13 provinces and territories
in Canada have legalized sports betting, including single-event
betting, as of 2023, with Nova Scotia having been the last to make
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
single-event betting available to its residents in February 2022
(Watters, 2023). These advances in legalization will likely increase
the popularity of sports betting in the years to come.
Coupled with expanding legalization, advances in technology have
increased the availability of modern forms of sports betting (Parke &
Parke, 2019), including in-play betting. Also known as live-action
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
betting, in-play betting allows players to place bets on specific
outcomes that may occur while a game is ongoing (Whiteford et al.,
2022). For example, individuals can place bets on which team will
score the next goal or which player will take the next penalty (Winters
& Derevensky, 2020). In-play betting has become increasingly
popular, with studies estimating that 25%–45% of individuals who
bet online engage in this modern form of sports betting (Gainsbury
et al., 2020; Gambling Commission, 2016).
In-play bets can be considered an umbrella term encompassing
various types of sports bets. Although sometimes referred to as
microbets (i.e., betting on a smaller portion of a game, such as the
winner of a period in hockey rather than the full game) or prop bets
(i.e., bets that are not tied to the final outcome of a game, such as
which player will score a goal), these bets can also take place prior to
the start of a game. In-play bets differ from more traditional forms of
sports bets in that they can take place once a sporting event has
started (Killick & Griffiths, 2019). An important implication of in-
play bets is the concept of live odds, in which the odds given for a
given outcome, such as the winner of a game, are dynamic and can
change minute-by-minute, play-by-play (Killick & Griffiths, 2021).
It has been hypothesized that in-play betting may be riskier than
traditional sports betting activities (LaPlante et al., 2008; Lopez-
Gonzalez et al., 2017), such as fixed-odds or parlay betting. Whereas
these traditional sports betting activities are discrete forms of
gambling, akin to purchasing lottery tickets, in-play betting is a
continuous form of gambling, sharing structural characteristics with
electronic gaming machines (EGMs; Newall et al., 2021; Parke &
Parke, 2019). Specifically, in-play betting allows individuals to
gamble continuously without breaks, provides increased rates of
reinforcement, and includes near misses—structural characteristics
that have previously been linked to gambling-related harms,
including problem gambling (Killick & Griffiths, 2019; Newall
et al., 2021). Additionally, most in-play betting is likely to take place
online or on mobile devices, with a scoping study finding that 87.5%
of the sports betting websites examined offered in-play betting via
mobile and desktop devices (Killick & Griffiths, 2019). This makes
in-play betting highly accessible, as individuals can place a bet from
anywhere at any time; rather than visiting brick-and-mortar casinos,
which generally operate within limited hours, people can place in-
play bets from their homes 24/7 (Hing et al., 2022; Parke & Parke,
2019). The online component of in-play betting may also contribute
to an increased risk of harm, given that increased accessibility and
availability of gambling has been linked to greater problem
gambling (see Gainsbury, 2015, for a review). Consequently, it is
not surprising that in-play betting accounts for up to 80% of total
sports betting revenue, suggesting a potential association with
financial harms (Killick & Griffiths, 2019).
Although the literature on in-play betting is sparse, several studies
have found that those who engage in in-play relative to traditional
sports betting endorse greater gambling involvement and problem
gambling severity (Gainsbury et al., 2020; Killick & Griffiths,
2019). However, there is a dearth of research examining the factors
that contribute to greater in-play betting and related harms among
those who place in-play bets. What is currently known is that
sociodemographic and psychological traits differentiate in-play
bettors from traditional sports bettors. For example, in-play bettors
tend to be younger (Gainsbury et al., 2020), more often male (Hing
et al., 2016), and more impulsive (Killick & Griffiths, 2019) relative
to traditional sports bettors. Contextual and motivational factors
may also be important in understanding in-play betting. Indeed,
studies have identified coping, excitement, making the game more
interesting, and demonstrating knowledge of sports as motives of in-
play betting (Killick & Griffiths, 2021; Lopez-Gonzalez et al.,
2018), and have noted greater endorsement of simultaneous alcohol
use among in-play bettors relative to traditional sports bettors
(Lopez-Gonzalez et al., 2018). It is possible that these socio-
demographic, psychological, contextual, and motivational factors
may similarly be associated with greater in-play betting engagement
and related harms among in-play bettors, although this has yet to be
empirically tested. An understanding of for whom, among in-play
bettors, and in what contexts in-play betting and associated harms
may be heightened is needed to inform targeted responsible
gambling messaging and harm reduction interventions.
To this end, the present study examined the dispositional,
contextual, and motivational correlates of in-play betting involve-
ment (i.e., the number of bets placed, money spent) and associated
harms among people who engage in in-play betting. Dispositional
factors selected for examination were risk factors for in-play
(relative to traditional) sports betting and for problem gambling,
including adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), impulsivity, and
emotion dysregulation (Ioannidis et al., 2019; Sharman et al., 2019;
Velotti et al., 2021). In the present study, we included ACEs as a
dispositional correlate given its association with problem gambling
severity (Goodrich et al., 2023; Poole et al., 2017) and the
conceptualization of in-play betting as a particularly risky form of
gambling (Killick & Griffiths, 2019; Parke & Parke, 2019).
Consequently, it is possible that individuals with greater experiences
of ACEs are attracted to in-play betting as it may facilitate coping
with distress given the continuous rate of play, similar to EGMs
(Newall et al., 2021). We also examined problem gambling severity
(not specific to in-play betting) as a dispositional correlate of in-play
betting involvement and related harms. Contextual and motivational
factors while in-play betting were informed by the preliminary
literature on in-play betting and included watching sports, being
with others, using substances, and endorsing various motives for in-
play betting (Killick & Griffiths, 2021; Lopez-Gonzalez et al.,
2018). We used a 14-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA)
design to capture the associations of dispositional, contextual, and
motivational factors with daily in-play betting behaviors and related
harms. EMA studies are well suited for capturing the proximal
internal and environmental factors associated with addictive
behaviors in people’s daily lives (e.g., Lukasiewicz et al., 2007),
providing a more nuanced view of who is at elevated risk for harms
(Jones et al., 2019). We hypothesized that greater impulsivity,
 IN-PLAY SPORTS BETTING
emotional dysregulation, ACEs, and problem gambling severity
would be associated with greater in-play betting involvement and
related harms at the between-person level. Further, we hypothesized
that watching sports, being with others, using substances while
betting, and betting to cope with negative affect would be associated
with greater in-play betting (the number of bets placed, money
spent) and in-play betting-related harms at the within-person level.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were a subset of in-play bettors who were drawn from
a larger cross-sectional study of sports betting and consented to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
participate in the EMA of in-play betting. Participants were recruited
through AskingCanadians, an online crowdsourcing panel. Eligibility
criteria for the larger cross-sectional study were (a) at least 18 years of
age, (b) currently residing in Ontario, Canada, and (c) reporting sports
betting in the past 3 months. After providing informed consent,
eligible participants completed a questionnaire through Qualtrics, an
online survey platform, which assessed demographic characteristics,
gambling behaviors (i.e., sports betting including in-play bets),
gambling-related harms, gambling motives, and psychological
variables (e.g., impulsivity, emotion dysregulation).
Individuals who reported having placed at least one in-play bet in
the past 3 months were eligible to participate in the present study.
Upon completion of the online questionnaire, they were partially
debriefed and invited to participate in the 14-day daily diary study,
which was hosted on the secure MetricWire app (MetricWire Inc.,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) and specifically examined the ante-
cedents and consequences of in-play betting.
Of the 239 eligible individuals, 187 consented to participate in the
EMA study and 85 completed at least one EMA assessment.1 The
14-day EMA study took place during May and June 2022, coinciding
with the National Hockey League (NHL) and National Basketball
Association (NBA) playoffs. This time frame was chosen given the
increased rates of sports betting during the playoffs season of major
sporting leagues (van der Maas et al., 2022). Each day during the
14-day study period, participants were prompted to complete two
surveys: a morning survey at 8:00 a.m. and a night survey at 10:00
p.m.—times chosen to capture in-play bets placed during the games
with 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. start times, respectively.
The morning and night surveys consisted of the same questions,
which assessed in-play betting behaviors, motives, harms, and
context. At the end of the 14-day study period, participants were
prompted to complete a Qualtrics survey in which they were fully
debriefed and asked to provide consent to the use of their data. One
participant requested the withdrawal of their data, resulting in a final
analytic sample of N = 84.
The study received approval from Toronto Metropolitan
University’s Research Ethics Board (REB No. 2022-102) and
York University’s Research Ethics Board (REB No. 2022-147).
Measures
Baseline Measures
Demographic Characteristics. Participants reported their age,
gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, employment status,
household income, highest education level, and relationship status.
3
Problem Gambling. The Problem Gambling Severity Index
(PGSI; Ferris & Wynne, 2001) was used to measure gambling
problems. The PGSI consists of nine items assessing past-year
problematic gambling behaviors, which were summed to obtain a
total score. The PGSI exhibited excellent internal consistency in our
sample (α = 0.96).
Problematic Alcohol and Cannabis Use. Problematic alcohol
use and cannabis use in the past year were measured using the
alcohol and cannabis subscales of the Brief Screener for Substance
and Behavioural Addictions (SSBA; Schluter et al., 2018, 2020).
Each subscale consists of four items that measure indicators of
potentially problematic use (e.g., “Once I started, I couldn’t stop”).
Items within each subscale were summed to compute severity
scores, and each subscale displayed excellent internal consistency in
our sample (αs > 0.92). Scores greater than or equal to 3 on each
subscale indicate potentially problematic use (Schluter et al., 2020).
Impulsivity. Impulsivity was measured using the Short Urgency,
Premeditation (lack of), Perseverance (lack of), Sensation Seeking,
Positive Urgency Impulsive Behavior Scale (SUPPS-P; Cyders et al.,
2014), which is a 20-item self-report measure that assesses five
dimensions of impulsive behavior: negative urgency, positive
urgency, sensation seeking, lack of premeditation, and lack of
perseverance. Mean scores were computed for each subscale, and all
subscales demonstrated acceptable to good internal consistency in our
sample (αs > 0.67).
Emotion Dysregulation. The Difficulties in Emotion Regula-
tion Scale–18 (DERS-18; Victor & Klonsky, 2016) is an 18-item
self-report measure that assesses the extent to which individuals
identify, manage, and accept their emotional experiences. Items
were summed to obtain a total score, which was used to measure
emotion dysregulation. The DERS-18 exhibited excellent internal
consistency in our sample (α = 0.94).
ACEs. ACEs were measured using the ACE Questionnaire
(Felitti et al., 1998). The ACE is a self-report measure in which
participants report the extent to which they have encountered 10
types of adverse experiences prior to the age of 18 years: emotional
abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical
neglect, interparental violence, household substance use, household
mental illness, household crime, and parental separation or divorce.
Scores represent the total number of domains endorsed. The
ACE demonstrated excellent internal consistency in our sample
(α = 0.85).
EMA Surveys
In each EMA survey, participants were first instructed to view their
online betting accounts to aid their recall for subsequent questions.
They were then asked whether they had placed any in-play bets since
10:00 p.m. the previous night (for morning surveys) or since 8:00 a.m.
that morning (for night surveys). Only those who reported having
placed in-play bets were shown subsequent questions, which asked
specifically about in-play betting behaviors since the previous
assessment (10:00 p.m. the previous night for morning assessments,
8:00 a.m. that morning for night assessments).
1
Participants who did (N = 84) and did not (N = 113) did not significantly
differ in demographic or psychological characteristics measured in the larger
cross-sectional study. See Supplemental Tables 1 and 2 on Open Science
Framework https://osf.io/tp2zj/.
 4 KIM, COELHO, VIEIRA, AND KEOUGH
In-Play Betting. Participants reported that (a) how many in-
play bets they placed and (b) the total Canadian dollar amount they
spent on these in-play bets.
Context of In-Play Betting. Participants reported whether they
were using alcohol, using cannabis, or watching the game while
placing in-play bets. Participants who were watching the game were
then asked whether they viewed any sports betting ads and whether
they were with others (i.e., friends, family, coworkers) while betting.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Those who were with others were then asked whether the people
they were with were placing in-play bets. All context variables were
dichotomous and coded as 1 = yes and 0 = no.
Motives for In-Play Betting. Motives for in-play betting were
adapted from the Sports Betting Motivation Scale (SBMS; Gökce
Yüce et al., 2021), a self-report questionnaire that assesses reasons
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for placing sports bets. The SBMS consists of the following
subscales: fun (i.e., enhancement), recreation/escape (i.e., coping),
making money, socializing, knowledge of the game, interest in
sport, and being in the game. To reduce participant burden, we
included only the item with the highest factor loadings from each
subscale. Participants first reported whether each motive had led
them to place in-play bets (coded 1 = yes, 0 = no), and then for
motives endorsed, rated the extent to which the motive had
impacted their in-play betting, from did not impact (1) to heavily
impacted (10). Continuous scores for each motive’s impact were
retained for analyses, with not having endorsed a given motive
coded as 0.
In-Play Betting-Related Harms. Participants completed the
Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS; McLauchlan et al., 2020),
which is an 18-item self-report questionnaire assessing negative
consequences resulting from gambling. The instructional text for the
measure was modified such that participants were asked only to
report on harms associated with in-play betting that had occurred
since the previous assessment. The SGHS consists of six subscales:
financial harms, interpersonal harms, health harms, emotional/
psychological harms, work/study harms, and social deviance. In the
present study, we focus on financial and interpersonal harms, which
are more likely to fluctuate from day-to-day relative to other, more
cumulative harms (e.g., health harms). Scores for financial harms
and relationship harms were dichotomous, representing whether a
participant had endorsed at least one harm within the subscale
(coded 1 = yes, 0 = no).
Data Analysis
We used generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) to examine
correlates of in-play betting and in-play betting-related harms, with
surveys (Level 1) nested within person (Level 2). Our Level 1
outcome variables of interest were (a) the number of in-play bets
placed, (b) money spent on in-play bets, (c) the likelihood of
experiencing financial harms, and (d) the likelihood of experiencing
interpersonal harms. The number of in-play bets and money spent on
in-play bets were count outcomes, modeled using Poisson or
negative binomial distributions (the latter in cases of overdisper-
sion). The likelihood of experiencing financial harms and the
likelihood of experiencing interpersonal harms were dichotomous
outcomes, modeled using binomial distributions. All models were
specified with random intercepts and fixed slopes and were fit using
maximum likelihood estimation.
Demographic and Psychological Correlates of
In-Play Betting and Harms
Models examining demographic and psychological correlates of
in-play betting and harms included all observations, regardless of
whether in-play bets were placed. Consequently, large (>60%)
proportions of zero values were observed in each in-play betting
involvement outcome variable (i.e., the number of in-play bets placed
and money spent on in-play bets). Thus, these outcome variables were
modeled as count outcomes using zero-inflated negative binomial
models. This approach yields two sets of parameter estimates for the
prediction of dependent variables: (a) the likelihood of not placing an
in-play bet (vs. placing an in-play bet) or not spending any money on
in-play bets (vs. spending money on in-play bets), such that negative
estimates indicate an increased likelihood of placing an in-play bet or
spending any money on in-play bets, and (b) the number of in-play
bets placed or the number of dollars spent on in-play bets. Using zero-
inflated negative binomial GLMMs improved model fit relative to the
regular negative binomial GLMMs.
Gender (1 = man, 0 = woman), ethnicity (1 = White, 0 = person of
color), PGSI total score, ACE total score, SUPPS-P negative urgency
score, SUPPS-P positive urgency score, SUPPS-P sensation-seeking
score, and DERS total score were simultaneously entered as
independent variables in models predicting each outcome variable.
We only included the aforementioned three facets of impulsivity
given their robust associations with gambling (Hodgins & Holub,
2015; MacLaren et al., 2011; Willie et al., 2022). Only one participant
reported a gender identity (nonbinary) other than man or woman and
was excluded from models due to insufficient sample size to create an
additional category.
Contextual and Motivational Correlates of
In-Play Betting and Harms
Models examining contextual and motivational correlates of in-
play betting and harms included only the observations during which
in-play bets were placed, as contextual and motivational variables
were only assessed when participants endorsed having placed at
least one in-play bet. As context, motives, and in-play betting
involvement and associated harms, each assessed daily, varied both
within and between participants, we took steps to disaggregate
within- and between-person associations (Curran & Bauer, 2011).
For each contextual or motivational variable, we included both the
survey-level variable at Level 1 and the person-level mean of the
variable at Level 2 in our models. As all contextual variables were
dichotomous, person-level means represented the proportion of the
surveys completed by a given participant in which they endorsed a
particular contextual factor; these person-level means were multiplied
by 100 to yield the percentage of surveys completed by a given
participant in which they endorsed a particular contextual factor. At
Level 1, contextual and motivational variables were person-mean
centered, and at Level 2, contextual and motivational variables
were grand-mean centered. Centering was necessary to yield
unconflated parameter estimates that disaggregate within- and
between-person variance (Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Yaremych
et al., 2021).
Contextual Correlates. To assess context, we ran three models
for each outcome variable, including the following independent
variables: Model 1: watching the game, using alcohol, using cannabis;
 IN-PLAY SPORTS BETTING 5

Model 2: using alcohol, using cannabis, being with others, seeing ads Table 1
for sports betting; and Model 3: using alcohol, using cannabis, seeing Sample Characteristics (N = 84)
ads for sports betting, others placing bets. The separation of our
independent variables was necessary due to the branching logic used Characteristic M (SD) or n (%)
in assessments; that is, as participants were only asked whether they Age (years) 41.02 (10.31)
were with others or had seen ads for sports betting ads if they had Sex
reported watching the game while betting, Model 2 included only the Male 63 (75)
subset of observations during which participants reported watching the Female 21 (25)
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Gender
game while placing in-play bets. Likewise, as participants were only Man 62 (73.81)
asked whether others were placing bets if they reported being with Woman 21 (25)
others, Model 3 included only the subset of observations during which Nonbinary 1 (1.19)
participants reported being with others. Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 71 (84.52)
Motivational Correlates. All seven motives were simulta- Gay or lesbian 6 (7.14)
neously entered as independent variables in models predicting each
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Bisexual 4 (4.76)
outcome variable. Pansexual 3 (3.57)
Asexual 0 (0)
Questioning 0 (0)
Results Queer 0 (0)
Prefer to specify 0 (0)
Descriptive Statistics Ethnicitya
White 49 (68.06)
The majority of participants identified as White (68.06%), male POC 23 (31.94)
(75.00%), men (73.81%), and heterosexual (84.52%). The mean age Employment statusb
was 41.02 (SD = 10.31). On the PGSI, 22.62% (n = 9) of participants Not working 6 (7.41)
were identified as no-risk, 17.86% (n = 15) as low risk, 27.38% (n = Working part time 8 (9.89)
Working full time 67 (82.72)
23) as moderate risk, and 32.14% (n = 27) as experiencing problem Household income
gambling. In addition, 48.75% (n = 39) of participants met or <$20,000 1 (1.19)
exceeded the SSBA cutoff for problematic alcohol use, and 37.18% $20,000–$39,999 5 (5.95)
(n = 29) of participants met or exceeded the SSBA cutoff for $40,000–$59,999 14 (16.67)
$60,000–$79,999 12 (14.29)
problematic cannabis use. Further sample characteristics are provided $80,000–$99,999 15 (17.86)
in Table 1. $100,000–$149,999 21 (25)
A total of 1,365 surveys were completed. Participants’ mean $150,000–$199,999 9 (10.71)
compliance was 57.50% (SD = 25.59). Two observations were ≥$200,000 6 (7.14)
removed due to improbable values for the number of in-play bets Prefer not to answer 1 (1.19)
Highest level of education
placed (>600), and six observations were removed due to discordant Less than high school 1 (1.19)
responses on outcome variables, resulting in the use of 1,357 High school diploma 4 (4.76)
observations in analyses. Twelve participants (providing 165 1 or 2 years post high school but not college 1 (1.19)
observations) did not report on ethnicity and were thus omitted 1- or 2-year diploma from a trade or 4 (4.76)
professional school but not a college
from models in which ethnicity was an independent variable. Some college or university education 11 (13.1)
Complete data were available on all other variables of interest. College or university degree (Bachelor’s 42 (50)
Throughout the study period, 77 (91.67%) participants reported degree)
placing at least one in-play bet, contributing to 449 observations Postgraduate work 3 (3.57)
in which in-play bets were placed (betting observations). The Postgraduate degree 18 (21.43)
Relationship status
mean number of bets placed across betting observations was 4.01 Single, never married 26 (30.95)
(SD = 6.41), with an average of $109.28 (SD = 176.80) spent. The Single, divorced 6 (7.14)
mean number of harms endorsed across betting observations was 4.58 Single, widowed 1 (1.19)
(SD = 5.53), with a mean of 1.17 (SD = 1.30) financial harms and 0.82 Married 38 (45.24)
Living common-law 11 (13.1)
(SD = 1.13) relationship harms. Across betting observations, watching Long-term relationship but living separately 2 (2.38)
the game while betting was reported in 66.15% of observations ACE total score 3.24 (2.99)
(n = 297), being with others while placing bets in 22.49% of SUPPS-P negative urgency 2.43 (0.81)
observations (n = 101), friends also betting in 16.70% of observations SUPPS-P positive urgency 2.26 (0.82)
(n = 75), alcohol use in 43.88% of observations (n = 197), cannabis SUPPS-P sensation seeking 2.71 (0.68)
DERS-18 total score 40.13 (14.89)
use in 22.05% of observations (n = 99), and seeing ads for sports PGSI total score 5.8 (6.18)
betting in 33.63% of observations (n = 151). PGSI risk level
No risk 19 (22.62)
Low risk 15 (17.86)
Demographic and Psychological Correlates of Moderate risk 23 (27.38)
In-Play Betting and Harms Problem gambling 27 (32.14)
SSBA alcohol total scorec 3.98 (4.23)
Tables 2 and 3 display the results of GLMMs examining SSBA alcohol met cutoff for problemtic usec 39 (48.75)
demographic and psychological correlates of in-play betting and (table continues)
 6 KIM, COELHO, VIEIRA, AND KEOUGH

Table 1 (continued) variables were significantly associated with money spent on in-play
betting in the conditional (count) portion of the model.
Characteristic M (SD) or n (%) In models examining demographic and psychological correlates
SSBA cannabis total scoredd 3.24 (4.51) of in-play betting-related harms, greater problem gambling severity
SSBA cannabis met cutoff for problematic usedd 29 (37.18) was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of
Note. POC = person of color; ACE = Adverse Childhood Experiences experiencing both financial and relationship harms due to in-play
Questionnaire; SUPPS-P = Short Urgency, Premeditation (lack of), betting overall across surveys.
Perseverance (lack of), Sensation Seeking, Positive Urgency, Impulsive
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Behavior Scale; DERS-18 = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale–18;

PGSI = problem gambling severity index; SSBA = screener for substance Contextual and Motivational Correlates of
and behavioural addictions.
a
Twelve participants did not report on ethnicity. b Three participants did In-Play Betting and Harms
not report on employment status. c Four participants did not complete the
SSBA alcohol subscale. d Six participants did not complete the SSBA Contextual Correlates
cannabis subscale; complete data were available on all other variables.
Tables 4 and 5 show the results of GLMMs examining contextual
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

correlates of in-play betting and in-play betting-related harms,

in-play betting-related harms, respectively. In the zero-inflated
(logistic) portion of the model examining between-person
correlates of in-play bets placed, greater negative urgency was
significantly associated with an increased likelihood of placing any
(compared to no) in-play bets overall across surveys, whereas
greater emotion dysregulation was significantly associated with a
decreased likelihood of placing any (compared to no) in-play bets
overall across surveys. No between-person variables were
significantly associated with the number of in-play bets placed
in the conditional (count) portion of the model.
In the zero-inflated (logistic) portion of the model examining
money spent on in-play betting, greater problem gambling severity,
ACEs, and sensation seeking were all significantly associated with an
increased likelihood of spending any (compared to no) money on in-
play bets overall across surveys. No demographic or psychological
respectively. In analyses examining contextual correlates of the
number of in-play bets placed, in Model 1, which included all
betting observations (n = 449), simultaneous alcohol use while
gambling was significantly associated with placing a greater number
of in-play bets at the within-person level, and simultaneous cannabis
use while gambling was significantly associated with placing more
in-play bets at the between-person level. Watching the game was
significantly associated with placing fewer in-play bets at the
between-person level. In Model 2, which included only the betting
observations in which watching the game was reported (n = 297),
simultaneous alcohol use and being with others were both
significantly associated with placing more in-play bets at the
within-person level, and simultaneous cannabis use was signifi-
cantly associated with placing more in-play bets at the between-
person level. In Model 3, which included only the betting

Table 2
Demographic and Psychological Correlates of In-Play Betting

Zero-inflated (logistic portion) Conditional (count portion)

Variable OR Estimate SE p RR Estimate SE p

Dependent variable: Number of in-play bets

Gender (1 = man, 0 = woman) 0.46 −0.769 0.594 .196 0.75 −0.282 0.363 .437
Ethnicity (1 = White, 0 = POC) 2.63 0.966 0.724 .182 1.47 0.388 0.373 .299
PGSI 0.86 −0.151 0.080 .060 1.06 0.061 0.043 .153
ACEs 0.85 −0.168 0.127 .187 1.08 0.075 0.074 .303
SUPPS-P negative urgency 0.29 −1.223 0.615 .047 0.63 −0.464 0.356 .192
SUPPS-P positive urgency 1.85 0.617 0.686 .368 1.10 0.099 0.385 .797
SUPPS-P sensation seeking 0.53 −0.643 0.510 .208 1.18 0.166 0.291 .567
DERS 1.07 0.067 0.034 .045 1.01 0.007 0.019 .730
Dependent variable: Money spent on in-play betting
Gender (1 = man, 0 = woman) 0.69 −0.377 0.425 .376 1.71 0.536 0.305 .079
Ethnicity (1 = White, 0 = POC) 1.50 0.408 0.407 .316 0.83 −0.183 0.294 .532
PGSI 0.88 −0.126 0.053 .017 1.07 0.072 0.037 .053
ACEs 0.81 −0.209 0.084 .013 1.04 0.035 0.061 .574
SUPPS-P negative urgency 0.59 −0.524 0.405 .195 1.12 0.117 0.298 .695
SUPPS-P positive urgency 1.70 0.528 0.402 .190 1.31 0.267 0.300 .373
SUPPS-P sensation seeking 0.53 −0.637 0.313 .042 1.25 0.222 0.228 .331
DERS 1.04 0.039 0.022 .070 0.98 −0.021 0.016 .183
Note. OR = odds ratio; RR = rate ratio; SE = standard error; POC = person of color; PGSI = problem gambling severity index; ACEs =
adverse childhood experiences; DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; SUPPS-P = Short Urgency, Premeditation (lack of),
Perseverance (lack of), Sensation Seeking, Positive Urgency, Impulsive Behavior Scale; Dependent variable = absence of in-play betting or
money spent on in-play bets (logistic portion) and the number of in-play bets or money spent on in-play bets (count portion). In the logistic
portions, negative coefficients are interpreted as predicting a greater likelihood of placing in-play bets or spending money on in-play bets. In
the count portions of each model, negative binomial distributions were used due to the overdispersion of the dependent variables. Bolding
indicates statistical significance at p < .05.
 IN-PLAY SPORTS BETTING 7

Table 3 Motivational Correlates

Demographic and Psychological Correlates of In-Play Betting-
Related Harms Results of GLMMs examining motivational correlates of in-play
betting and in-play betting-related harms are provided in Tables 6
Variable OR Estimate SE p and 7, respectively. Enhancement and being in the game motives
were significantly associated with placing more in-play bets at the
Dependent variable: Financial harms
Gender (1 = man, 0 = woman) 0.65 −0.427 0.978 .662 within-person level, and coping motives were significantly
Ethnicity (1 = White, 0 = POC) 0.55 −0.594 0.931 .523 associated with placing more in-play bets at the between-person
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

PGSI 1.38 0.325 0.121 .007 level. Coping and interest in sports motives were significantly
ACEs 1.45 0.375 0.196 .056 associated with spending more money on in-play betting at the
SUPPS-P negative urgency 2.98 1.093 1.032 .289
within-person level, and enhancement motives were significantly
SUPPS-P positive urgency 0.22 −1.510 1.017 .137
SUPPS-P sensation seeking 4.41 1.484 0.815 .069 associated with spending more money on in-play betting at the
DERS 0.99 −0.010 0.051 .851 between-person level. Interest in sports motives was associated with
Dependent variable: Relationship harms an increased likelihood of experiencing financial harms at the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Gender (1 = man, 0 = woman) 1.82 0.601 1.022 .556 within-person level, and coping and making money motives were
Ethnicity (1 = White, 0 = POC) 0.31 −1.182 0.918 .198
PGSI 1.51 0.412 0.120 .001 significantly associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing
ACEs 1.15 0.141 0.196 .504 financial harms at the between-person level. Coping motives were
SUPPS-P negative urgency 1.43 0.360 0.998 .718 significantly associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing
SUPPS-P positive urgency 2.05 0.719 1.014 .479 relationship harms at the between-person level.
SUPPS-P sensation seeking 1.72 0.540 0.745 .468
DERS 0.96 −0.044 0.051 .385
Note. OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error. Dependent variables are Supplementary Analyses
dichotomous, representing endorsing any (compared to no) harms. POC =
person of color; PGSI = problem gambling severity index; ACEs =
We also examined the person-level relationship between
adverse childhood experiences; DERS = Difficulties in Emotion exceeding the lower risk gambling guidelines and experiencing
Regulation Scale; SUPPS-P = Short Urgency, Premeditation (lack of), financial and interpersonal harms. Specifically, we calculated the
Perseverance (lack of), Sensation Seeking, Positive Urgency, Impulsive percent of participants’ annual income (estimated from taking the
Behavior Scale. Bolding indicates statistical significance at p < .05. midpoint of the range of annual household income reported)
wagered during the 2-week study period. Two-week expenditure
representing less than 0.5% of one’s annual income was considered
observations in which being with others was reported (n = 101), consistent with lower risk gambling guidelines, corresponding to the
being with friends who were placing bets was significantly recommendation of wagering less than 1% of one’s annual income
associated with placing fewer in-play bets at the within-person per month (Hodgins et al., 2022; Young et al., 2021, 2022). Next, we
level, and simultaneous cannabis use was significantly associated examined correlations of this percent of income wagered variables,
with placing more in-play bets at the between-person level. as well as of a dichotomous variable indicating whether lower risk
In analyses examining contextual correlates of money spent on in- gambling guidelines were exceeded based on this variable, with (a)
play betting, in Model 1, simultaneous alcohol use and cannabis use the proportion of EMA surveys in which any financial harms were
were both significantly associated with spending more money at the endorsed and (b) the proportion of EMA surveys in which any
within-person level, and simultaneous alcohol use was significantly relationship harms were endorsed.
associated with spending more money at the between-person level. On average, participants wagered 0.61% (SD = 1.04) of their
In Model 2, being with others was significantly associated with approximate 2-week income on in-play betting during the study
spending more money at the within-person level, and simultaneous period. Twenty-three (27.71%) participants exceeded the lower risk
alcohol use was significantly associated with spending more money gambling guidelines by wagering more than 0.5% of their annual
at the between-person level. In Model 3, simultaneous alcohol use income during the 2-week study period. Percent of income wagered
was significantly associated with spending more money at the was significantly correlated with both the proportion of EMA
between-person level. surveys involving financial harms (r = 0.56, p < .001) and the
In analyses examining contextual correlates of in-play betting- proportion of EMA surveys involving relationship harms (r = 0.43,
related financial harms, simultaneous alcohol use was significantly p < .001). In addition, exceeding lower risk gambling guidelines
associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing financial was significantly correlated with both the proportion of EMA
harms at both the within- and between-person levels in Model 1 and surveys involving financial harms (r = 0.60, p < .001) and the
only at the between-person level in Model 2. In Model 3, simultaneous proportion of EMA surveys involving relationship harms (r = 0.44,
cannabis use was significantly associated with an increased likelihood p < .001).
of experiencing financial harms at the between-person level.
In analyses examining contextual correlates of in-play-betting-
Discussion
related relationship harms, in Model 1, watching the game was
significantly associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing In-play sports betting has been theorized to be a more harmful
relationship harms at the within-person level. In Models 2 and 3, no form of sports betting (Newall et al., 2021). Yet, little is known
contextual variables were significantly associated with the likelihood about the correlation between in-play betting and potential harms.
of experiencing relationship harms at either the within- or between- Herein, we conducted the first-known EMA study of in-play sports
person levels. betting to identify dispositional, contextual, and motivational
 8 KIM, COELHO, VIEIRA, AND KEOUGH

Table 4 Table 4 (continued)

Contextual Correlates of In-Play Betting
Model Variable RR Estimate SE p
Model Variable RR Estimate SE p See ads 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .466
Friends placing bets 1.01 0.01 <0.01 .067
Dependent variable: Number of in-play bets placed
1a n = 449 observations, 77 participants Note. RR = rate ratio; SE = standard error. Bolding indicates statistical
Within-person associations significance at p < .05.
Watching the game 1.15 0.14 0.10 .179 a
Negative binomial distribution was used due to the overdispersion of the
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Using alcohol 1.60 0.47 0.11 <.001 dependent variable. b Mean of a variable across all surveys completed by
Using cannabis 1.01 0.01 0.11 .951 a participant throughout the study period, multiplied by 100.
Between-person associationsb
Watching the game 0.99 −0.01 <0.01 .011
Using alcohol 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .169
Using cannabis 1.01 0.01 <0.01 <.001 correlates of in-play betting and associated harms. The results of the
2 n = 297 observations, 64 participants present study contribute to the understanding of risk factors for this
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Within-person associations modern form of sports betting, which may become more popular in
Using alcohol 1.63 0.49 0.10 <.001
Using cannabis 1.14 0.13 0.09 .154 the context of the ongoing legalization and availability of sports
With others 1.52 0.42 0.08 <.001 betting in the United States and Canada.
See ads 1.09 0.08 0.10 .378 At the between-person or dispositional level, impulsivity
Between-person associationsb (negative urgency, sensation seeking), ACEs, and greater problem
Using alcohol 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .305
Using cannabis 1.01 0.01 <0.01 .034 gambling severity were tested as correlates of in-play bets placed
With others 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .203 and money spent on in-play betting. Of these, only impulsivity was
See ads 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .502 associated with both the overall likelihood of placing in-play bets
3 n = 101 observations, 40 participants (negative urgency) and the overall likelihood of spending money on
Within-person associations
Using alcohol 1.17 0.16 0.26 .549 in-play betting (sensation seeking); specifically, a one-unit greater
Using cannabis 0.90 −0.11 0.22 .622 negative urgency score was associated with an estimated 3.4×
See ads 0.90 −0.11 0.16 .498 increased likelihood of placing in-play bets on average across
Friends placing bets 0.68 −0.39 0.19 .045 surveys, and a one-unit greater sensation seeking score was
Between-person associationsb
associated with an estimated 1.9× increased likelihood of spending
Using alcohol 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .428
Using cannabis 1.01 0.01 <0.01 .02 money on in-play bets on average across surveys. These results
See ads 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .553 suggest that impulsivity related to affective distress (rather than
Friends placing bets 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .287 thrill-seeking) may be an important trigger for in-play bets. It is
Dependent variable: Money spent on in-play bets possible that those who are higher in negative urgency may be more
1 a
n = 449 observations, 77 participants
Within-person associations likely to place in-play bets to regulate negative emotions,
Watching the game 1.01 0.01 0.09 .952 particularly in the context of a losing wager. This supposition is
Using alcohol 1.47 0.38 0.10 <.001 supported by previous findings that have found that in-play sports
Using cannabis 1.28 0.24 0.11 .027 bettors are more likely to bet on sports to cope (Lopez-Gonzalez
Watching the game person mean
Between-person 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .271 et al., 2018).
associationsb ACEs were associated with an increased overall likelihood of
Using alcohol 1.01 0.01 <0.01 <.001 spending money on in-play betting. This finding is not surprising,
Using cannabis 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .273 given that ACEs are a robust risk factor for addictive behaviors
2a n = 297 observations, 64 participants
Within-person associations
(Hughes et al., 2017), including gambling (Sharma & Sacco, 2015).
Using alcohol 1.19 0.18 0.14 .203 As ACEs are distal and static risk factors (i.e., events that occurred in
Using cannabis 1.25 0.23 0.13 .091 the past and are not modifiable), they may increase the risk of
With others 1.83 0.6 0.11 <.001 gambling through more proximal mechanisms, such as emotion
See ads 1.16 0.15 0.12 .227
dysregulation (Poole et al., 2017). Indeed, ACEs detrimentally
Between-person associationsb
Using alcohol 1.01 0.01 <0.01 .001 impact individuals’ abilities to regulate their emotions (Burns et al.,
Using cannabis 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .369 2010). Consequently, it is plausible that ACEs may increase the
With others 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .364 likelihood of in-play betting through more proximal risk factors,
See ads 1.00 <0.01 <0.01 .671 such as emotion dysregulation and impulsivity. This was supported
3 a
n = 101 observations, 40 participants
Within-person associations in the present research, as negative urgency was the facet of
Using alcohol 1.18 0.16 0.30 .582 impulsivity with the largest effect on in-play betting. This finding
Using cannabis 1.13 0.12 0.27 .659 suggests that ACEs’ impact on emotion dysregulation may lead to
See ads 0.89 −0.12 0.21 .573 greater in-play betting as a maladaptive coping strategy, perhaps
Friends placing bets 1.57 0.45 0.25 .071
Between-person associationsb especially among people who are prone to impulsivity when
Using alcohol 1.01 0.01 <0.01 .016 experiencing negative affect. Future research that examines
Using cannabis 1.01 0.01 0.01 .209 potential moderators and mediators of the link between ACEs
(table continues) and in-play betting would be highly informative.
 IN-PLAY SPORTS BETTING 9

Table 5 Table 5 (continued)

Contextual Correlates of In-Play Betting-Related Harms
Model Variable OR Estimate SE p
Model Variable OR Estimate SE p See ads 1.02 0.02 0.03 .57
Friends placing bets 1.02 0.02 0.03 .548
Dependent variable: Financial harms
1a n = 449 observations, 77 participants Note. OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error. Dependent variables are
Within-person associations dichotomous, representing endorsing any (compared to no) financial and
Watching the game 1.17 0.16 0.58 .78 relationship harms. Bolding indicates statistical significance at p < .05.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Using alcohol 9.83 2.29 0.83 .006 a

Negative binomial distribution was used due to the overdispersion of the
Using cannabis 0.24 −1.44 0.85 .089 dependent variable. b Mean of a variable across all surveys completed by
Between-person associationsb a participant throughout the study period, multiplied by 100.
Watching the game 1.00 <0.01 0.02 .968
Using alcohol 1.12 0.11 0.04 .003
Using cannabis 1.03 0.03 0.03 .368
2 n = 297 observations, 64 participants
Problem gambling severity was the only dispositional variable
that was significantly associated with an increased overall
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Within-person associations
Using alcohol 3.82 1.34 1.01 .186 likelihood of experiencing in-play betting-related harms. This is
Using cannabis 0.43 −0.84 0.94 .37 not surprising, given that problem gambling severity and
With others 1.55 0.44 0.67 .512 gambling-related harms are thought to be separate but related
See ads 1.39 0.33 0.64 .607
Between-person associationsb constructs (Browne et al., 2018; Browne & Rockloff, 2018). Still,
Using alcohol 1.10 0.1 0.04 .019 it should be noted that negative urgency and sensation seeking
Using cannabis 1.06 0.06 0.04 .109 also had relatively large effect sizes in predicting the likelihood of
With others 0.97 −0.03 0.03 .277 experiencing interpersonal and financial harms (odds ratios [ORs]
See ads 1.00 <0.01 0.02 .939
3 n = 101 observations, 40 participants = 1.43–4.41), despite not being statistically significant in our
Within-person associations models due to relatively larger standard errors. These findings
Using alcohol 0.95 −0.05 1.87 .977 suggest that impulsivity may also be an important dispositional
Using cannabis 0.94 −0.06 1.68 .972 correlate of in-play betting-related harms and warrant future
See ads 4.49 1.5 1.23 .221
investigation in larger sample sizes with greater power to detect
Friends placing bets 1.11 0.1 1.45 .945
Between-person associationsb between-person effects.
Using alcohol 1.07 0.06 0.03 .064 At the within-person level, being with friends was associated
Using cannabis 1.07 0.07 0.03 .049 with placing an estimated 52% more in-play bets and spending an
See ads 1.00 <0.01 0.03 .846 estimated 83% more money on in-play bets, whereas being with
Friends placing bets 1.02 0.02 0.02 .425
Dependent variable: Relationship harms friends who were placing in-play bets was associated with
1a n = 449 observations, 77 participants placing an estimated 32% fewer in-play bets. This finding is
Within-person associations somewhat inconsistent with the findings of previous studies. In a
Watching the game 0.55 −0.6 0.56 .281 qualitative study conducted among Australian sports bettors,
Using alcohol 2.24 0.8 0.62 .191
Using cannabis 1.91 0.65 0.65 .323
sports betting was found to be motivated not only by individual
Between-person associationsb factors but also by social-contextual factors such as wanting to fit
Watching the game 0.99 −0.01 0.02 .658 in and demonstrate one’s skill or knowledge of sports (Lamont &
Using alcohol 1.05 0.05 0.02 .029 Hing, 2020). Yet, the social factor of being with friends, who
Using cannabis 1.04 0.04 0.03 .192 were placing in-play bets, was associated with placing fewer in-
2a n = 297 observations, 64 participants
Within-person associations play bets in the present study. Future research that examines the
Using alcohol 3.38 1.22 0.85 .155 impacts of social factors on in-play betting is needed to clarify
Using cannabis 2.03 0.71 0.8 .379 this discordance with previous studies.
With others 1.20 0.19 0.68 .784 At the within-person level, simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use
See ads 1.63 0.49 0.62 .43
Between-person associationsb were also associated with placing an estimated 60%–63% more in-play
Using alcohol 99.28 4.60 2.54 .07 bets and spending an estimated 28%–47% more money on in-play
Using cannabis 1.06 0.06 0.03 .053 betting. These results are consistent with findings from Lopez-
With others 0.97 −0.03 0.03 .242 Gonzalez et al. (2018), wherein in-play sports bettors were more likely
See ads 1.02 0.02 0.02 .399
to consume alcohol while watching sports (Noel et al., 2013). A
3 a
n = 101 observations, 40 participants
Within-person associations potential explanation for this finding is that using alcohol and
Using alcohol 0.25 −1.4 2.47 .573 cannabis may increase the relative reinforcing value of gambling,
Using cannabis 4.45 1.49 1.53 .33 which may in turn contribute to greater in-play betting intensity.
See ads 11.56 2.45 1.5 .104 Unfortunately, although the existing literature on simultaneous
Friends placing bets 0.24 −1.42 2.21 .519
Between-person associationsb gambling and substance use is sparse, studies suggest that using
Using alcohol 1.07 0.07 0.04 .094 substances while gambling (including alcohol) is associated with
Using cannabis 1.06 0.06 0.04 .122 increased intensity of gambling behavior and greater harms (French
(table continues) et al., 2008; Geisner et al., 2016; Kyngdon & Dickerson, 1999;
 10 KIM, COELHO, VIEIRA, AND KEOUGH

Table 6 thus perceived as more acceptable to use while watching a game,

Motivational Correlates of In-Play Betting which could influence in-play betting behavior. However, further
research is required to confirm this supposition.
Variable RR Estimate SE p Regarding motives, enhancement motives were associated with
Dependent variable: Number of in-play bets the number of in-play bets placed at the between-person level, which
Within-person associations is in line with a previous study that found that increased excitement
Enhancement 1.05 0.05 0.02 .005 was an important reason for placing in-play bets Killick and Griffiths
Coping 1.01 0.01 0.02 .791
(2021). Indeed, placing an in-play bet can be an effective way to
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.

Knowledge of the game 0.99 −0.01 0.02 .649

Social 1.04 0.04 0.04 .31 make any game more exciting. On the other hand, coping motives
Make money 1.02 0.02 0.02 .409 were associated with both placing more in-play bets and spending
Interest in sports 1.02 0.02 0.02 .196 more money at both the between-person and within-person levels.
Being in the game 1.04 0.04 0.02 .02
a Further, coping motives showed the largest effects in predicting
Between-person associations
Enhancement 1.02 0.02 0.05 .653 financial and relationship harms at the between-person level
(estimated OR of 25.53 for financial harms and estimated OR of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Coping 1.23 0.21 0.08 .013

Knowledge of the game 0.97 −0.03 0.05 .605 59.74 for relationship harms) relative to the other motives. These
Social 1.11 0.1 0.14 .455
findings are not surprising, given that coping motives have been
Make money 1.01 0.01 0.05 .828
Interest in sports 0.95 −0.05 0.07 .478 identified as a robust risk factor for increased gambling engagement
Being in the game 0.93 −0.07 0.07 .316 and problem gambling severity (MacLaren et al., 2015; Mathieu
Dependent variable: Money spent on in-play bets et al., 2020). In addition to general motives that overlap with
Within-person associations gambling, the present study found that motives unique to sports
Enhancement 1.02 0.02 0.01 .179
Coping 1.04 0.04 0.02 .041
Knowledge of the game 1.01 0.01 0.02 .675
Social 1.04 0.04 0.03 .197 Table 7
Make money 1.03 0.03 0.02 .116 Motivational Correlates of In-Play Betting-Related Harms
Interest in sports 1.04 0.04 0.02 .012
Being in the game 1.00 0.00 0.01 .99 Variable OR Estimate SE p
a
Between-person associations
Enhancement 1.26 0.23 0.07 .001 Dependent variable: Financial harms
Coping 1.20 0.18 0.11 .107 Within-person associations
Knowledge of the game 0.94 −0.06 0.07 .318 Enhancement 0.99 −0.01 0.08 .939
Social 1.16 0.15 0.18 .411 Coping 0.81 −0.21 0.14 .128
Make money 0.97 −0.03 0.07 .696 Knowledge of the game 1.00 0 0.1 .967
Interest in sports 0.96 −0.04 0.08 .608 Social 1.20 0.18 0.47 .711
Being in the game 1.03 0.03 0.08 .682 Make money 1.07 0.07 0.11 .5
Interest in sports 1.27 0.24 0.1 .016
Note. RR = rate ratio; SE = standard error. Negative binomial Being in the game 0.96 −0.04 0.09 .644
a
distributions were used for each model due to the overdispersion of the Between-person associations
dependent variables. Bolding indicates significance at p < .05. Enhancement person mean 1.82 0.6 0.48 .211
a
Mean of a variable across all surveys completed by a participant Coping 25.53 3.24 1.07 .003
throughout the study period. Knowledge of the game 0.55 −0.6 0.49 .223
Social 3.25 1.18 1.46 .419
Make money 4.95 1.6 0.66 .015
Interest in sports 1.11 0.1 0.44 .824
Welte et al., 2004). Consistent with the aforementioned findings, Being in the game 0.32 −1.15 0.73 .116
simultaneously using alcohol while placing in-play bets was Dependent variable: Relationship harms
associated with an estimated 9.8× increase in the likelihood of Within-person associations
experiencing in-play betting-related financial harms. These findings Enhancement 1.07 0.07 0.08 .358
Coping 0.91 −0.09 0.12 .464
are in line with the broader substance use literature, which points to
Knowledge of the game 0.98 −0.02 0.1 .84
increased severity and harms associated with simultaneous use (e.g., Social 1.40 0.34 0.33 .295
using alcohol and cannabis at the same time) compared to concurrent Make money 1.01 0.01 0.1 .951
use (i.e., using substances and gambling but not at the same time; Interest in sports 1.12 0.11 0.09 .222
Bravo et al., 2021; Linden-Carmichael et al., 2019; Thompson et al., Being in the game 0.89 −0.12 0.09 .164
Between-person associationsa
2021). Of note, simultaneous alcohol use had relatively larger effects Enhancement 1.11 0.1 0.35 .779
in predicting the likelihood of experiencing financial and relationship Coping 59.74 4.09 1.38 .003
harms compared to simultaneous cannabis use. This finding may be Knowledge of the game 0.87 −0.14 0.33 .678
related to the psychoactive effects of alcohol, including impaired Social 0.81 −0.21 1.31 .872
Make money 2.32 0.84 0.45 .065
decision making and reduced inhibition (Hendershot et al., 2015; Interest in sports 0.97 −0.03 0.41 .932
Vera et al., 2018), which may lead to greater engagement in-play Being in the game 0.61 −0.5 0.47 .292
betting and money spent and in turn greater likelihood of
Note. OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error. Dependent variables are
experiencing harms. Although cannabis use may also impair decision dichotomous, representing endorsing any (compared to no) harms. Bolding
making (Raymond et al., 2020), our findings suggest that alcohol may indicates statistical significance at p < .05.
a
be a riskier substance to use while in-play betting. Relative to Mean of a variable across all surveys completed by a participant
cannabis, alcohol may be more ingrained within sports culture and throughout the study period.
 IN-PLAY SPORTS BETTING
betting were associated with in-play betting. Specifically, interest in
sports was associated with spending more money and a greater
likelihood of experiencing financial harm at the within-person level,
whereas being in the game was associated with placing more bets at
the within-person level. These findings highlight that state-level,
rather than trait-level, sports-related motives are risk factors for
increased betting and money spent on in-play betting. Taken together,
results suggest that motives for sports betting overlap with general
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
motives for gambling such as coping and enhancement but also
extend to include unique motives such as an interest in sports and
demonstrating one’s knowledge of sports (Killick & Griffiths, 2021;
Lamont & Hing, 2020). Thus, the motives of people who bet on sports
should be considered within the context of the culture surrounding
sports.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The findings of the present study may have important implications
for reducing in-play betting-related harm. Although the between-
person correlates of in-play betting behaviors identified were
dispositional traits (impulsivity) and static risk factors (ACEs),
which may be resistant to change, the within-person correlates
identified, such as peer influences and simultaneous substance use,
are modifiable. Thus, it may be valuable from a public health
perspective to design responsible gambling messaging that en-
courages users to resist peer influences and abstain from using
substances during in-play betting sessions. Further empirical research
is needed to examine the utility of such messaging.
Limitations
The results of the present study should be considered within the
context of several limitations. First, although participants were
prompted to review their online betting accounts when completing
the EMA surveys, in-play betting behavior was self-reported
retrospectively, which may be associated with recall biases. Still,
EMA studies have been found to improve self-report accuracy
relative to cross-sectional surveys with given shorter latency
between the behavior and the report (Shiffman et al., 2008). Second,
the EMA was conducted during the NHL and NBA playoffs. As
previous studies have suggested that the frequency of sports betting
increases during the playoffs (van der Maas et al., 2022), results may
not generalize to other times of the year. Third, mean compliance
with the EMA protocol was 57.50%. This is in line with previous
EMA studies of gambling, in which compliance rates of 51%
(Hawker et al., 2021a), 51.47% (Dowling et al., 2021), 50%–70%
(Hing et al., 2019), and 65% (Russell et al., 2018) have been
reported, with just one study reporting a compliance rate of 94.13%
(Hawker et al., 2021b). Still, noncompliance was a limitation,
largely because whether missing EMA surveys were missing at
random could not be determined, potentially biasing results.
Similarly, if the days during which EMA surveys were missed
were in-play betting days, person-level descriptive statistics may
have underestimated in-play betting frequency and intensity. In
addition, noncompliance resulted in fewer complete observations
and thus reduced statistical power to detect significant effects.
Future EMA studies replicating the present study’s analyses are thus
needed and should explore strategies for increasing participant
compliance. Fourth, the contextual factors selected for examination
in the present study were also based on the limited existing empirical
literature on in-play betting. Consequently, there undoubtedly exist
other contextual factors that contribute to the frequency and harms
11
associated with in-play betting that we did not assess. For example,
we did not assess whether participants were communicating with
others through online forms such as texting or WhatsApp while
watching a sporting event. Given our findings that being with friends
physically influenced in-play betting, it is plausible that communi-
cating with friends online during a sporting event may also be an
important contextual correlate of in-play betting. Future studies that
more broadly examine in-person and online forms of communication
as correlates of in-play betting would be informative. Fifth, as the
majority of our sample identified as White, the generalizability of
findings to non-White participants may be limited. Relatedly, the
sample of sports bettors in our study was highly educated and high
earners with 75% of the sample having a college degree or greater
and over 40% reporting an annual household income of over
$100,000 CAD. Although there is robust evidence to suggest that
sports bettors tend to be highly educated and high earners
(Valenciano-Mendoza et al., 2023), it is important to note that our
findings may not generalize to those with lower levels of education
and lower socioeconomic status. Last, the regulatory landscape for
sports betting continues to change, and as a result, so might the
demographic characteristics of individuals who bet on sports. Thus,
future EMA studies will be needed to reevaluate findings in new
cohorts of in-play bettors.
Conclusions
Sports betting continues to rise in popularity (Winters &
Derevensky, 2020). Importantly, modern forms of sports betting,
such as in-play betting, may be associated with greater gambling-
related harms (LaPlante et al., 2008; Lopez-Gonzalez et al., 2017).
Herein, we examined the dispositional, contextual, and motivational
correlates of in-play betting, identifying factors that may promote
greater n-play betting intensity. Importantly, we also identified factors
associated with experiencing a greater likelihood of experiencing
financial and interpersonal in-play betting-related harms. These
preliminary findings, together with additional empirical research on
the antecedents and consequences of in-play betting, may ultimately
inform strategies to reduce the harms associated with this modern
form of sports betting.
References
American Gaming Association. (2021a). Commercial gaming revenue
tracker 2020—Fourth quarter. https://www.americangaming.org/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2021/02/Q4-Email-PDF.pdf
American Gaming Association. (2021b). Commerical gaming revenue
tracker 2021—First quarter. https://www.americangaming.org/wp-conte
nt/uploads/2021/05/Q1-2021-Email-PDF-v3.pdf
Bravo, A. J., Prince, M. A., Pilatti, A., Mezquita, L., Keough, M. T., Hogarth,
L., & the Cross-Cultural Addictions Study Team. (2021). Young adult
concurrent use and simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana: A cross-
national examination among college students in seven countries. Addictive
Behaviors Reports, 14, Article 100373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep
.2021.100373
Brooks, M. E., Kristensen, K., van Benthem, K. J., Magnusson, A., Berg,
C. W., Nielsen, A., Skaug, H. J., Mächler, M., & Bolker, B. M. (2017).
glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-
inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal, 9(2), 378–400.
https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Browne, M., Goodwin, B. C., & Rockloff, M. J. (2018). Validation of the
Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS): A tool for assessment of harms
 12 KIM, COELHO, VIEIRA, AND KEOUGH
from gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34(2), 499–512. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9698-y
Browne, M., & Rockloff, M. J. (2018). Prevalence of gambling-related harm
provides evidence for the prevention paradox. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 7(2), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.41
Burns, E. E., Jackson, J. L., & Harding, H. G. (2010). Child maltreatment,
emotion regulation, and posttraumatic stress: The impact of emotional
abuse. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(8), 801–819.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.522947
Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and
between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review
of Psychology, 62(1), 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych
.093008.100356
Cyders, M. A., Littlefield, A. K., Coffey, S., & Karyadi, K. A. (2014).
Examination of a short English version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Scale. Addictive Behaviors, 39(9), 1372–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.addbeh.2014.02.013
Dowling, N. A., Merkouris, S. S., & Spence, K. (2021). Ecological momentary
assessment of the relationship between positive outcome expectancies and
gambling behaviour. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(8), Article 1709.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081709
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-
sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological
Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M.,
Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of
childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes
of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index.
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
French, M. T., Maclean, J. C., & Ettner, S. L. (2008). Drinkers and bettors:
Investigating the complementarity of alcohol consumption and problem
gambling. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 96(1–2), 155–164. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.02.011
Gainsbury, S. M. (2015). Online gambling addiction: The relationship
between internet gambling and disordered gambling. Current Addiction
Reports, 2(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-015-0057-8
Gainsbury, S. M., Abarbanel, B., & Blaszczynski, A. (2020). The relationship
between in-play betting and gambling problems in an Australian context of
prohibited online in-play betting. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article
574884. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.574884
Gambling Commission. (2016, September). In-play or in-running betting:
Position paper. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/licensees-and-
businesses/guide/in-play-or-in-running-betting#2DmF4zp2Beywm6U5
WWaUHz
Geisner, I. M., Huh, D., Cronce, J. M., Lostutter, T. W., Kilmer, J., &
Larimer, M. E. (2016). Exploring the relationship between stimulant use
and gambling in college students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(3),
1001–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-015-9586-2
Gökce Yüce, S., Yüce, A., Katırcı, H., Nogueira-López, A., & González-
Hernández, J. (2021). Effects of sports betting motivations on sports
betting addiction in a Turkish sample. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 20(5), 3022–3043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-
021-00563-6
Goodrich, K. M., Trott, A., Rodríguez, M. N., Waller, M., & Lilliott, E.
(2023). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on problem
gambling in New Mexico. Journal of Prevention, 44(3), 309–324. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10935-023-00725-3
Hawker, C. O., Merkouris, S. S., Youssef, G. J., & Dowling, N. A. (2021a).
A smartphone-delivered ecological momentary intervention for problem
gambling (GamblingLess: Curb Your Urge): Single-arm acceptability and
feasibility trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(3), Article
e25786. https://doi.org/10.2196/25786
Hawker, C. O., Merkouris, S. S., Youssef, G. J., & Dowling, N. A. (2021b).
Exploring the associations between gambling cravings, self-efficacy, and
gambling episodes: An Ecological Momentary Assessment study. Addictive
Behaviors, 112, Article 106574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106574
Hendershot, C. S., Wardell, J. D., Strang, N. M., Markovich, M. S., Claus,
E. D., & Ramchandani, V. A. (2015). Application of an alcohol clamp
paradigm to examine inhibitory control, subjective responses, and acute
tolerance in late adolescence. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharma-
cology, 23(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000017
Hing, N., Russell, A. M., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. (2016). Demographic,
behavioural and normative risk factors for gambling problems amongst
sports bettors. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(2), 625–641. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10899-015-9571-9
Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., Thomas, A., & Jenkinson, R. (2019). Hey big
spender: An ecological momentary assessment of sports and race betting
expenditure by gambler characteristics. Journal of Gambling Issues, 42,
42–61. https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2019.42.3
Hing, N., Smith, M., Rockloff, M., Thorne, H., Russell, A. M. T., Dowling,
N. A., & Breen, H. (2022). How structural changes in online gambling are
shaping the contemporary experiences and behaviours of online gamblers:
An interview study. BMC Public Health, 22(1), Article 1620. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14019-6
Hodgins, D. C., & Holub, A. (2015). Components of impulsivity in gambling
disorder. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 13(6),
699–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9572-z
Hodgins, D. C., Young, M. M., Currie, S. R., Abbott, M., Billi, R., Brunelle,
N., Costes, J.-M., Dufour, M., Flores-Pajot, M.-C., Olason, D. T., Paradis,
C., Romild, U., Salonen, A., Volberg, R., & Nadeau, L. (2022). Lower-risk
gambling limits: Linked analyses across eight countries. International
Gambling Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14459795.2022.2143546
Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Hardcastle, K. A., Sethi, D., Butchart, A., Mikton,
C., Jones, L., & Dunne, M. P. (2017). The effect of multiple adverse
childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Public Health, 2(8), e356–e366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-
2667(17)30118-4
Ioannidis, K., Hook, R., Wickham, K., Grant, J. E., & Chamberlain, S. R.
(2019). Impulsivity in Gambling Disorder and problem gambling: A meta-
analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 44(8), 1354–1361. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41386-019-0393-9
Jones, A., Remmerswaal, D., Verveer, I., Robinson, E., Franken, I. H. A.,
Wen, C. K. F., & Field, M. (2019). Compliance with ecological
momentary assessment protocols in substance users: A meta-analysis.
Addiction, 114(4), 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14503
Killick, E. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). In-play sports betting: A scoping
study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(6), 1456–
1495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9896-6
Killick, E. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2021). Why do individuals engage in in-
play sports betting? A qualitative interview study. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 37(1), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09968-9
Kyngdon, A., & Dickerson, M. (1999). An experimental study of the effect of
prior alcohol consumption on a simulated gambling activity. Addiction,
94(5), 697–707. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.9456977.x
Lamont, M., & Hing, N. (2020). Sports betting motivations among young
men: An adaptive theory analysis. Leisure Sciences, 42(2), 185–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2018.1483852
LaPlante, D. A., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008).
Population trends in internet sports gambling. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24(5), 2399–2414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.015
Linden-Carmichael, A. N., Stamates, A. L., & Lau-Barraco, C. (2019).
Simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana: Patterns and individual
 IN-PLAY SPORTS BETTING
differences. Substance Use & Misuse, 54(13), 2156–2166. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10826084.2019.1638407
Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estévez, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Marketing and
advertising online sports betting: A problem gambling perspective.
Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 41(3), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0193723517705545
Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Griffiths, M. D., & Estévez, A. (2018). In-play
betting, sport broadcasts, and gambling severity: A survey study of
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Spanish sports bettors on the risks of betting on sport while watching it.
Communication & Sport, 8(1), 50–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795
18816338
Lukasiewicz, M., Fareng, M., Benyamina, A., Blecha, L., Reynaud, M., &
Falissard, B. (2007). Ecological momentary assessment in addiction. Expert
Review of Neurotherapeutics, 7(8), 939–950. https://doi.org/10.1586/
14737175.7.8.939
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Maclaren, V. V., Fugelsang, J. A., Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M. J. (2011). The
personality of pathological gamblers: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology
Review, 31(6), 1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.02.002
MacLaren, V. V., Ellery, M., & Knoll, T. (2015). Personality, gambling
motives and cognitive distortions in electronic gambling machine players.
Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 24–28. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.paid.2014.09.019
Mathieu, S., Barrault, S., Brunault, P., & Varescon, I. (2020). The role of
gambling type on gambling motives, cognitive distortions, and gambling
severity in gamblers recruited online. PLOS ONE, 15(10), Article
e0238978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238978
McLauchlan, J. R. B., Browne, M., Russell, A. M. T., & Rockloff, M. (2020).
Evaluating the reliability and validity of the short gambling harm screen:
Are binary scales worse than Likert scales at capturing gambling harm?
Journal of Gambling Issues, 44, 103–120. https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi
.2020.44.6
McQuillan, S. (2023, May 15). Where is sports betting legal? Projections for
all 50 states. Action Network. https://www.actionnetwork.com/news/legal-
sports-betting-united-states-projections
Newall, P. W. S., Russell, A. M. T., & Hing, N. (2021). Structural
characteristics of fixed-odds sports betting products. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 10(3), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00008
Noel, N. E., Heaton, J. A., & Brown, B. P. (2013). Substance induced
myopia. In P. M. Miller (Ed.), Principles of addiction. Comprehensive
addictive behaviors and disorders (pp. 349–354). Academic Press. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-398336-7.00036-X
Parke, A., & Parke, J. (2019). Transformation of sports betting into a rapid
and continuous gambling activity: A grounded theoretical investigation of
problem sports betting in online settings. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 17(6), 1340–1359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-
018-0049-8
Poole, J. C., Kim, H. S., Dobson, K. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Adverse
childhood experiences and disordered gambling: Assessing the mediating
role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(4), 1187–
1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9680-8
Raymond, D. R., Paneto, A., Yoder, K. K., O’Donnell, B. F., Brown, J. W.,
Hetrick, W. P., & Newman, S. D. (2020). Does chronic cannabis use
impact risky decision-making: An examination of fMRI activation and
effective connectivity? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article 599256.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.599256
Russell, A. M. T., Hing, N., Browne, M., & Rawat, V. (2018). Are direct
messages (texts and emails) from wagering operators associated with
betting intention and behavior? An ecological momentary assessment
study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(4), 1079–1090. https://doi.org/
10.1556/2006.7.2018.99
Schluter, M. G., Hodgins, D. C., Konkolÿ Thege, B., & Wild, T. C. (2020).
Predictive utility of the brief screener for substance and behavioral
13
addictions for identifying self-attributed problems. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 9(3), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00064
Schluter, M. G., Hodgins, D. C., Wolfe, J., & Wild, T. C. (2018). Can one
simple questionnaire assess substance-related and behavioural addiction
problems? Results of a proposed new screener for community epidemiol-
ogy. Addiction, 113(8), 1528–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14166
Sharma, A., & Sacco, P. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences and gambling:
Results from a national survey. Journal of Social Work Practice in the
Addictions, 15(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2015.996502
Sharman, S., Butler, K., & Roberts, A. (2019). Psychosocial risk factors in
disordered gambling: A descriptive systematic overview of vulnerable
populations. Addictive Behaviors, 99, Article 106071. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106071
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary
assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 1–32. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
Thompson, K., Holley, M., Sturgess, C., & Leadbeater, B. (2021). Co-use of
alcohol and cannabis: Longitudinal associations with mental health
outcomes in young adulthood. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(7), Article 3652. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph18073652
Valenciano-Mendoza, E., Mora-Maltas, B., Mestre-Bach, G., Munguía, L.,
Richard, J., Derevensky, J. L., Potenza, M. N., & Jiménez-Murcia, S.
(2023). Clinical correlates of sports betting: A systematic review. Journal
of Gambling Studies, 39(2), 579–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-
023-10196-0
van der Maas, M., Cho, S. R., & Nower, L. (2022). Problem gambling
message board activity and the legalization of sports betting in the US: A
mixed methods approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, Article
107133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107133
Velotti, P., Rogier, G., Beomonte Zobel, S., & Billieux, J. (2021).
Association between gambling disorder and emotion (dys)regulation: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 87,
Article 102037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102037
Vera, B. V., Pilatti, A., Garimaldi, J., & Pautassi, R. M. (2018). Acute effects
of alcohol intoxication on decision making and impulsivity in at-risk
gamblers with or without problematic drinking. Psychology & Neurosci-
ence, 11(3), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000133
Victor, S. E., & Klonsky, E. D. (2016). Validation of a brief version of the
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-18) in five samples.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38(4), 582–589.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-016-9547-9
Watters, J. (2023, May 17). Is sports betting legal in Canada? All provinces
covered in detail. Covers. https://www.covers.com/betting/canada/legal-spo
rts-betting#provinces-where-single-game-sports-betting-is-legal-anchor
Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., & Tidwell, M. C. (2004).
Simultaneous drinking and gambling: A risk factor for pathological
gambling. Substance Use & Misuse, 39(9), 1405–1422. https://doi.org/10
.1081/JA-120039397
Whiteford, S., Hoon, A. E., James, R., Tunney, R., & Dymond, S. (2022).
Quantile regression analysis of in-play betting in a large online gambling
dataset. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 6, Article 100194. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100194
Willie, C., Gill, P. R., Teese, R., Stavropoulos, V., & Jago, A. (2022).
Emotion-driven problem behaviour: The predictive utility of positive and
negative urgency. Brain and Neuroscience Advances, 6. https://doi.org/10
.1177/23982128221079573
Winters, K. C., & Derevensky, J. L. (2020). A review of sports wagering:
Prevalence, characteristics of sports bettors, and association with problem
gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 43, 102–127. https://doi.org/10
.4309/jgi.2019.43.7
Yaremych, H. E., Preacher, K. J., & Hedeker, D. (2021). Centering
categorical predictors in multilevel models: Best practices and
 14 KIM, COELHO, VIEIRA, AND KEOUGH

interpretation. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. develop lower-risk gambling guidelines. International Journal of Mental
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000434 Health and Addiction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10
Young, M. M., Hodgins, D. C., Brunelle, N., Currie, S., & Dufour, M., .1007/s11469-022-00896-w
FloresPajot, M.-C., Paradis, C., & Nadeau, L. (2021). Developing lower-
risk gambling guidelines. Canadian Centre on Substance Use and
Addiction.
Young, M. M., Hodgins, D. C., Currie, S. R., Brunelle, N., Dufour, M., Received April 7, 2023
Flores-Pajot, M. C., & Nadeau, L. (2022). Not too much, not too often, and Revision received June 14, 2023
not too many: The results of the first large-scale, international project to Accepted June 15, 2023 ▪
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.