Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 247–256 | Cite as

The Population Mean and the Proportion of Frequent Gamblers: Is the Theory of Total Consumption Valid for Gambling?

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The study looks at three representative samples of Norwegians in different age groups with the aim of finding evidence for the validity of the total consumption model for the area of gambling. The results show that gambling was distributed in the population in a way consistent with the predictions of the total consumption theory. Populations with a low mean gambling frequency had a lower proportion of frequent gamblers than populations with a high mean gambling frequency. It was also shown that in a population with a low mean gambling frequency, consumers along the whole consumption continuum gambled less frequently, than in a population with a high mean gambling frequency. It is concluded that the total consumption model seems to be valid for gambling, and that gambling consequently needs to be understood as a public health issue. The actions and behaviours of the normal majority can then not be regarded as irrelevant for the development in problem gambling prevalences.

Keywords

Total consumption model Gambling distribution Mean gambling frequency Frequent gamblers 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study is financed by the Norwegian institute for alcohol and drug research.

References

  1. Abbott, M. (2005). Disabling public interest: Gambling strategies and policies for Britain: A comment on Orford 2005. Addiction, 100(9), 1233–1235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, M. (2006). Do EGMs and Problem Gambling go together like a Horse and Carriage? Gambling Research, 18(2), 7–38.Google Scholar
  3. Babor, T., Caetano, R., Casswell, S., Edwards, G., Giesbrecht, N., Graham, K., Grube, J., Bruenewald, P., Hill, L., Holder, H., Homel, R., Österberg, E., Rehm, J., Room, R., & Rossow, I. (2003). Alcohol: No ordinary commodity. Research and public policy. New York:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Black, D. W., Monahan, P. O., Temkit, M., & Shaw, M. (2006). A family study of pathological gambling, Psychiatry Research, 141(3), 295–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonke, J. (2007). Ludomani i Danmark - II. Faktorer av betydning for spilleproblemer. (Pathological gambling in Denmark - II. Factors that influence the risk for gambling problems). Copenhagen: Report from Socialforskningsinstituttet.Google Scholar
  6. Bonke, J., & Borregaard, K. (2006). Ludomani i Danmark. Utbredelsen af pengespil og problemspillere (Pathological gambling in Denmark. The prevalence of gambling and problem gamblers). Copenhagen: Report from Socialforskningsinstituttet.Google Scholar
  7. Bruun, K., Edwards, G., Lumio, M., Pan, L., Popham, R., Room, R., Schmidt, W., Skog, O. J., Sulkunen, P., & Österberg, E. (1975). Alcohol control policies in public health perspective. Helsinki: Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, G., Anderson, P., Babor, T., Casswell, S., Ferrence, R., Giesbrecht, N., Godfrey, Chr., Holder, H., Lemmens, P., Mäkelä, K., Midanik, L., Norström, T., Österberg, E., Romelsjö, A., Room, R., Simpura, J., & Skog, O. J. (1995). Alcohol policy and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grun, L., & McKeigue, P. (2000). Prevalence of excessive gambling before and after introduction of a national lottery in the United Kingdom: Another example of the single distribution theory. Addiction, 95(6), 959–966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kramer M. S. (1987). Determinants of low birth weight: Methodological assessment and meta-analysis. Bull WHO, 65, 663–737.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., & Doucet, C. (1998). Understanding and treating the pathological gambler. England:John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, West Sussex.Google Scholar
  13. Lederman, S. (1956). Alcool, alcoolisme, alcolisation (alcohol, alcoholism, alcoholisation), Vol 1, Institut National d’etudes Demographiques, Travaux et Documents, Cahier no 29, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Lemmens, P. (1991). Measurement and Distribution of Alcohol Consumption. Datawyse Maastricht/ Krips Repro Meppel.Google Scholar
  15. Lund, I. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Norway. What part does the gambling machine play? Journal of Addiction Research and Theory, 14(5), 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lund, I., & Nordlund, S. (2003). Pengespill og pengespillproblemer i Norge. (Gambling and Gambling Problems in Norway.), SIRUS report no. 2/2003, Oslo.Google Scholar
  17. MMI Politikk og samfunn (2006). Brukerveiledning til PC-Monitor. Rapport. (User Manual for PC-Monitor. Report.) Oslo.Google Scholar
  18. Moodie, C., & Finnigan, F. (2006). Prevalence and correlates of youth gambling in Scotland. Addiction Research and Theory, 14(4), 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orford, J. (2005). Disabling the public interest: Gambling strategies and policies for Britain. Addiction, 100(9), 1219–1225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pape, H., Rossow, I., & Storvoll, E. (2005): Metoderapport for Skoleundersøkelsen 2004 (“baseline”) i tilknytning til SIRUS’ evaluering av Regionsprosjektet. (Methodology report for the school survey 2004 (baseline) related to SIRUS’ evaluation of the region project).Google Scholar
  21. Rockloff, M. J., & Dyer, V. (2007). An Experiment on the Social Facilitation of gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rönnberg, S., Volberg, R. A., Abbott, M., Moore, L., Andrén, A., Munck, I., Jonsson, J., Nilsson, T., & Svensson, O. (1999). Spel och spelberoende i Sverige. (Gambling and problem gambling in Sweden.) Rapport nr 3 i Folkhälsoinstitutets serie om spel och spelberoende, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  23. Room, R., Turner, N. E., & Ialomiteanu, A. (1999). Community effects of the opening of the Niagara Casino. Addiction, 94, 1449–1466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose, G. (2001). Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 427–432 (Reiteration of Int. Jrn. of Epid (1985); 14, 32–38).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose, G., & Day, S. (1990). The population mean predicts the number of deviant individuals. British Medical Journal, 301, 1031–1034.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaffer, H. (2005). From disabling to enabling the public interest: Natural transitions from gambling exposure to adaptation and self-regulation. Addiction, 100(9), 1227–1230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skog, O. J. (1980). Social interaction and the distribution of alcohol consumption. Journal of Drug Issues, 10, 71–92.Google Scholar
  28. Skog, O. J. (1985). The collectivity of drinking cultures. A theory of the distribution of alcohol consumption. British Journal of Addiction, 81, 1033–1041.Google Scholar
  29. Turner, N. E., Ialomiteanu, A., & Room, R. (1999). Chequered expectations: Predictors of approval of opening a casino in the Niagara community. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 45–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M.-C. O., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors for pathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 323–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (SIRUS)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations