Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 409–419 | Cite as

Lessons from the Grey Area: A Closer Inspection of At-risk Gamblers

  • Ingeborg Lund
Original Paper

Abstract

The study takes a closer look at at-risk gamblers, with the objective to see how they differ from no-risk gamblers. The data comes from a national gambling survey in 2002, and the age group is 15–74 years. The sample consists of 4188 current gamblers with no current gambling problems or pathology. The analysis includes cross-tabulations and a logistic regression. The results show that at-risk gamblers differed substantially from no-risk gamblers in terms of demographic characteristics, gambling behaviour and the presence of other assumed risk factors. Demographic segments with a higher risk of falling into the at-risk group are men, young people, divorced or single people, and non-western immigrants. Furthermore, gambling problems in the family, beginners luck and misconceptions about winning chances significantly increased the odds for at-risk gambling. The study concludes that at-risk gamblers deserve more attention from research, that their similarity with problem gamblers increases the likelihood that many of them will eventually develop a gambling problem, and that their tendency to be superstitious about winning chances might be exploited in preventive work.

Keywords

At-risk gambling Adults Risk factors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study is funded by the Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (SIRUS). The author thanks an anonymous referee for helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Abbott, M. Do EGMs and problem gambling go together like a horse and carriage? Manuscript accepted by Gambling Research (in press).Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, M., & Volberg, R. A. (2000). Taking the pulse on gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand:A report on phase one of the 1999 prevalence survey, report no three of the New Zealand gaming survey. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of internal affairs.Google Scholar
  3. Benhsain, K., Taillefer, A., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). Awareness of independence of events and erroneous perceptions while gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 399–404.Google Scholar
  4. Black, D. W., Monahan, P. O., Temkit, M., & Shaw, M. (2006). A family study of pathological gambling. Psychiatric Research, 141(3), 295–303.Google Scholar
  5. Bonke, J., & Borregaard, K. (2006). Ludomani i Danmark. Udbredelsen af pengespil og problemspillere (Ludomania in Denmark. The prevalence of gambling and problem gamblers). Copenhagen: Report from the Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  6. Cornish, D. (1978). Gambling: A review of the literature and its implications for policy and research. Home office research study (Vol. 42), London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  7. Delfabbro, P. (2004). The stubborn logic of regular gamblers: Obstacles and dilemmas in cognitive gambling research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerstein, D., Hoffmann, J., & Larison, C. et al. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study. Report to the national gambling impact study commission, Chicago, USA: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Gøtestam, K.G., & Johansson, A. (2003). Characteristics of gambling and problematic gambling in the Norwegian context. A DSM-IV-based telephone interview study. Addictive Behaviours, 28, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ilkas, H., & Turja, T. (2003). Penningspelsundersökning (Study of gambling). Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Social and Health.Google Scholar
  11. Johansson, A., & Götestam K. G. (2004). Risk factors for problematic gambling: A critical literature review. Research report from section for psychiatric and behavioural medicine. Trondheim, Norway: Department of Neuroscience, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kavli, H, & Berntsen, W. (2005). Undersøkelse om pengespill. Spillevaner og spilleproblemer i befolkningen (Study of gambling, gambling habits and gambling problems in the population). Oslo, Norway: Report from MMI (Market and Media Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Lesieur, H. R. (1994). Epidemiological surveys of pathological gambling: Critique and suggestions for modification. Journal of Gambling Studies 10(4), pp 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lund, I., & Nordlund, S. (2003). Pengespill og pengespillproblemer i Norge. (Gambling and problem gambling in Norway.) SIRUS report no 2. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research.Google Scholar
  16. Lund I. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Norway: What part does the gambling machine play? Addiction Research and Theory, 14(5), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orford, J., Sproston, K., Erens, B., White, C., & Mitchell, L. (2003). Gambling and problem gambling in Britain. Hove and New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. 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, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Schrans, T. & Schellinck, T. (2004). 2003 Nova scotia gambling prevalence study. Nova Scotia Office of Health Promotion Final Report, Focal Research.Google Scholar
  20. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1997). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis. Boston: Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.Google Scholar
  21. SIRUS (2002). Gambling survey. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, SIRUS.Google Scholar
  22. Sproston, K., Erens, B., & Orford, J. (2000). gambling behaviour in britain. Results from the british gambling prevalence study. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  23. Statistics Norway (2003). http://www.ssb.no/.
  24. The Norwegian Gaming and Foundation Authority (2006). http://www.lotteritilsynet.no/Google Scholar
  25. Wiebe, J., Single, E. & Falowski-Ham, A. (2001). Measuring gambling and problem gambling in ontario. Ontario: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar
  26. Williams R. J., & Connolly, D. (2006). Does learning about the mathematics of gambling change gambling behavior? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20(1), 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug ResearchOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations