An Expert Map of Gambling Risk Perception
- 424 Downloads
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the moderating or mediating role played by risk perception in decision-making, gambling behaviour, and disordered gambling aetiology. Eleven gambling expert clinicians and researchers completed a semi-structured interview derived from mental models and grounded theory methodologies. Expert interview data was used to construct a comprehensive expert mental model ‘map’ detailing risk-perception related factors contributing to harmful or safe gambling. Systematic overlapping processes of data gathering and analysis were used to iteratively extend, saturate, test for exception, and verify concepts and emergent themes. Findings indicated that experts considered idiosyncratic beliefs among gamblers result in overall underestimates of risk and loss, insufficient prioritization of needs, and planning and implementation of risk management strategies. Additional contextual factors influencing use of risk information (reinforcement and learning; mental states, environmental cues, ambivalence; and socio-cultural and biological variables) acted to shape risk perceptions and increase vulnerabilities to harm or disordered gambling. It was concluded that understanding the nature, extent and processes by which risk perception predisposes an individual to maintain gambling despite adverse consequences can guide the content of preventative educational responsible gambling campaigns.
KeywordsGambling Pathological gambling Harm Risk perception Cognition Decision making Qualitative Grounded theory Mental models
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Auslander, B. A. (1999). An exploratory study investigating variables in relation to juvenile sexual reoffending. Auslander, USA: The Florida State University.Google Scholar
- Baudinet, J., & Blaszczynski, A. (2012). Arousal and gambling mode preference: A review of the literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8(8). doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9304-2.
- Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Adolescent gambling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hall, H. V., & Poirier, J. G. (2001). Detecting malingering and deception: Forensic distortion analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Hayes, N. (1997). Doing qualitative analysis in psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Stability and progression of disordered gambling: Lessons from longitudinal studies. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(1), 52–60.Google Scholar
- Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Productivity Commission. (2010). Productivity Commission inquiry report: Gambling. Canberra.Google Scholar
- Rebelo, F. R. (1999). Denial level and coping style in a substance abuse treatment population. Cincinnati, USA: University of Cincinnati.Google Scholar
- Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). Paradoxes of gambling behaviour. England: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Walker, M. (1998). The psychology of gambling. Liverpool: Routledge.Google Scholar