Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 81–99 | Cite as

Characteristics and Gender Differences Among Self-Excluded Casino Problem Gamblers: Missouri Data

Article

The present study explores gender-related differences in the demographic and gambling-related characteristics of 2670 problem gamblers participating in a state-administered (Missouri) casino self-exclusion program between 2001 and 2003. Female (n=1298, 48.4%) and male (n=1372, 51.1%) participants ranged in age from 21 to 84 years. Gender-related differences were noted among demographic variables, patterns of gambling behavior, reasons for self-exclusion, and involvement in self-help, counseling, and bankruptcy services. Female self-excluders were more likely than males to be older at time of application, African American, and either retired, unemployed or otherwise outside the traditional workforce. In addition, female self-excluders were more likely to report a later age of gambling onset, a shorter period between onset and self-exclusion, a preference for non-strategic forms of gambling and prior bankruptcy. The main predictors for female participation in self-exclusion included a desire to gain control and prevent suicide and referral by a counselor. The desire to save the marriage was a motivating factor for all participants. Findings suggest that the most efficacious treatment strategies with this group will include family systemic therapy and financial management in addition to pharmaco-treatment and culturally-sensitive individual therapy.

Keywords

self-exclusion gender differences problem or pathological gambling gambling treatment. 

References

  1. Bland R. C., Newman S. C., Orn H., Stebelsky G., (1993). Epidemiology of pathological gambling in EdmontonCanadian Journal of Psychology 38: 108–112Google Scholar
  2. Blaszczynski A., Silove D., (1995) Cognitive and behavioral therapies of pathological gamblingJournal of Gambling Studies 11: 195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaszczynski A., Silove D., (1996). Pathological gambling: Forensic issuesAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 30: 358–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Custer R., Milt H., (1985). When Luck Runs Out: Help for Compulsive Gamblers and Their Families Facts on File, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Darbyshire P., Oster C., Carrig H., (2001). The experience of pervasive loss: Children and young people living in a family where parental gambling is a problemJournal of Gambling Studies 17: 23–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Grant J. E., Kim S. W., (2002). Gender differences in pathological gamblers seeking medication treatmentComprehensive Psychiatry 43: 56–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths M., (1990). The cognitive psychology of gamblingJournal of Gambling Studies 6: 31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gupta R., Derevensky J. L., (1998). Adolescent gambling behavior: A prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with problem gamblingJournal of Gambling Studies 14: 319–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hing N., Breen H., (2001). Profiling lady luck: An empirical study of gambling and problem gambling amongst female club membersJournal of Gambling Studies 17: 47–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ibanez A., Blanco C., Moreryra P., Saiz-Ruiz J., (2003). Gender differences in pathological gamblingJournal of Clinical Psychiatry 64: 295–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs D. F., Marston A. R., Singer R. D., Widaman K., Little T., Veizades J., (1989). Children of problem gamblersJournal of Gambling Studies 5: 261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ladouceur R., Jacques C., Giroux I., Ferland F., Leblond J., (2000). Analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion programJournal of Gambling Studies 16: 453–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lesieur H. R., Blume S. B., (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblersAmerican Journal of Psychiatry 144: 1184–1188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lesieur H., Blume S. B. (1991). When lady luck loses: Women and compulsive gambling. In: van den Bergh N., (eds), Feminist Perspectives on Addictions New York: Springer pp. 181–197Google Scholar
  15. Lesieur H. R., Rothschild J., (1989). Children of Gamblers Anonymous membersJournal of Gambling Behavior 5: 269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lorenz V. C., Shuttlesworth D. E., (1983). The impact of pathological gambling on the spouse of the gamblerJournal of Community Psychology 11: 67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lorenz V. C., Yaffee R. A., (1988). Pathological gambling: Psychosomatic, emotional and marital difficulties as reported by the spouseJournal of Gambling Behavior 4: 13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mark M. E., Lesieur H. R., (1992). A feminist critique of problem gambling researchBritish Journal of Addiction 87: 549–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. National Opinion Research Center (NORC) (1999). Gambling Impact and Behavior Study Author, University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. National Research Council (NRC) (1999). Pathological Gambling: A Critical Review National Academy Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  21. Nowatzki N. R., Williams R. J., (2002). Casino self-exclusion programmes: A review of the issuesInternational Gambling Studies 2: 3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nower L., Derevensky J. L., Gupta R., (2004). The relationship of impulsivity, sensation seeking, coping, and substance use in youth gamblersPsychology of Addictive Behaviors 18: 49–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Neil M., Whetton S., Dolman B., Herbert M., Giannopolous V., O’Neil D., Wordley J., (2003). Part A – Evaluation of Self-Exclusion Programs in Victoria and Part B – Summary of Self-Exclusion Programs in Australian States and Territories Gambling Research Panel, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  24. Petry N. M., Armentano C., (1999). Prevalence, assessment, and treatment of pathological gambling: A reviewPsychiatric Services 50: 1021–1027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Petry N. M., (2003). A comparison of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activityAddiction 98: 645–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Petry N. M. (2004). Pathological Gambling: Etiology, Comorbidity, and Treatment American Psychological Association, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  27. Potenza M. N., Steinberg M. A., McLaughlin S. D., Wu R. M. S., Rounsaville B. J., O’Malley S. S., (2001). Gender-related differences in the characteristics of problem gamblers using a gambling helplineAmerican Journal of Psychiatry 158: 1500–1505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaffer H. J., Hall M. N., Vander Bilt J. (1997). Estimating the Prevalence of Disordered Gambling in the United States and Canada: A Meta-Analysis Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Tavares H., Martins S. S., Lobo D. S., Silveira C. M., Gentil V., Hodgins D. C. (2003). Factors at play in faster progression for female pathological gamblers: An exploratory analysisJournal of Clinical Psychiatry 64: 433–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toneatto T., Ladouceur R., (2003). Treatment of pathological gambling: A critical review of the literaturePsychology of Addictive Behaviors 17: 284–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Trevorrow K., Moore S.,. (1998). The association between loneliness, social isolation, and women’s electronic gaming machine gamblingJournal of Gambling Studies 14: 263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Census (2004). Missouri QuickFacts, 2000–2003. (online) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29000.html, accessed August 1, 2004Google Scholar
  33. Volberg R. A., (1994). The prevalence and demographics of pathological gamblers: Implications for public healthAmerican Journal of Public Health 84: 237–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walters G. D., (2002). Behavior genetic research on gambling and problem gambling: A preliminary meta-analysis of available dataJournal of Gambling Studies 17: 255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of Social WelfareUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations