Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 361–372 | Cite as

Gambling Motivations, Money-Limiting Strategies, and Precommitment Preferences of Problem Versus Non-Problem Gamblers

  • Lia Nower
  • Alex Blaszczynski
Original Paper

Abstract

Studies attempting to identify the specific ‘addictive’ features of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) have yielded largely inconclusive results, suggesting that it is the interaction between a gambler’s cognitions and the machine, rather than the machine itself, which fuels excessive play. Research has reported that machine players with gambling problems adopt a number of erroneous cognitive perceptions regarding the probability of winning and the nature of randomness. What is unknown, however, is whether motivations for gambling and attitudes toward pre-session monetary limit-setting vary across levels of gambling severity, and whether proposed precommitment strategies would be useful in minimizing excessive gambling expenditures. The current study explored these concepts in a sample of 127 adults, ages 18 to 81, attending one of four gambling venues in Queensland, Australia. The study found that problem gamblers were more likely than other gamblers to play machines to earn income or escape their problems rather than for fun and enjoyment. Similarly, they were less likely to endorse any type of monetary limit-setting prior to play. They were also reticent to adopt the use of a ‘smart card’ or other strategy to limit access to money during a session, though they indicated they lost track of money while gambling and were rarely aware of whether they were winning or losing during play. Implications for precommitment policies and further research are discussed.

Keywords

Pathological gambling Problem gambling Precommitment Money attitudes Gaming machines Addictions Impulse control disorders Smart cards Harm reduction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Queensland Government through the provision of a Responsible Gambling Research grant. We greatly appreciate the assistance of the gaming staff and operators involved in the study who allowed the researchers to access patrons at their venues.

References

  1. Biddle, D., Hawthorne, G., Forbes, D., & Coman, G. (2005). Problem gambling in Australian PTSD treatment-seeking veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 759–767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Shannon, K., & Coughlan, M.-J. (2005). Structural characteristics of electronic gaming machines and satisfaction of play among recreational and problem gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 5, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 31–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Côté, D., Caron, A., Aubert, J., Descrochers, V., & Labouceur, R. (2003). Near wins prolong gambling on a video lottery terminal. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 433–438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, B. J., Kwong, J., Michaud, V., & Enns, M. W. (2000). Problem and probable pathological gambling: Considerations from a community survey. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 548–553.Google Scholar
  7. Delfabbro, P. H., Falzon, K. P., & Ingram, T. L. (2005). The effects of parameter variations in electronic gambling simulations: results of a laboratory-based pilot investigation. Journal of the National Association of Gambling Studies, 17, 7–27.Google Scholar
  8. Dickerson, M. G., & O’Connor, J. (2006). Gambling is an addictive disorder: Impaired control harm minimisation, treatment and prevention. Cambridge: International Research Monographs in the Addictions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  10. Gaboury, A., & Ladouceur, R. (1989). Erroneous perceptions and gambling. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 411–420.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs, D. (1986). A general theory of addictions: A new theoretical model. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., & Doucet, C. (2002). Understanding and treating pathological gamblers. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Lea, S., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 161–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Manoso, V., Labrador, F. J., & Fernandez-Alba, A. (2004). Differences on cognitive distortions during gambling in pathological gamblers and no-gamblers. Psicothema, 16, 576–581.Google Scholar
  15. Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T. W., Cronce, J. M., & Larimer, M. E. (2002). Exploring college student gambling. Motivation, 18, 361–370.Google Scholar
  16. Nisbet, S. (2005). Responsible gambling features of card-based technologies. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3, 54–63.Google Scholar
  17. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2006). Characteristics and gender differences in casino self-excluders: Missouri data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2008). Characteristics of gamblers ages 56 and older: A statewide study of casino gamblers who self-exclude. Psychology and Aging, 23, 577–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Park, A., Griffiths, M., & Irwing, P. (2004). Personality traits in pathological gambling: Sensation seeking, deferment of gratification and competiveness as risk factor. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petry, N. M. (2003). A comparison of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activity. Addiction, 98, 645–655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Report no. 10. Canberra, Australia: AusInfo.Google Scholar
  22. Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Coughlan, M.-J., Enersen, K., & Blaszczynski, A. (2005). Structural changes to electronic gaming machines as effective harm minimization strategies for non-problem and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 503–520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Walker, M. B. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  24. Wood, R. T. A., Gupta, R., Derevensky, J. L., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Video game playing and gambling in adolescents: Common risk factors. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 14, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Gambling StudiesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations