Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 1317–1335 | Cite as

Gambling Participation and Problem Gambling Severity in a Stratified Random Survey: Findings from the Second Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania

  • Darren R. Christensen
  • Nicki A. Dowling
  • Alun C. Jackson
  • Shane A. Thomas
Original Paper

Abstract

Demographic characteristics associated with gambling participation and problem gambling severity were investigated in a stratified random survey in Tasmania, Australia. Computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted in March 2011 resulting in a representative sample of 4,303 Tasmanian residents aged 18 years or older. Overall, 64.8 % of Tasmanian adults reported participating in some form of gambling in the previous 12 months. The most common forms of gambling were lotteries (46.5 %), keno (24.3 %), instant scratch tickets (24.3 %), and electronic gaming machines (20.5 %). Gambling severity rates were estimated at non-gambling (34.8 %), non-problem gambling (57.4 %), low risk gambling (5.3 %), moderate risk (1.8 %), and problem gambling (.7 %). Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole significantly higher annual participation rates were reported by couples with no children, those in full time paid employment, and people who did not complete secondary school. Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole significantly higher gambling frequencies were reported by males, people aged 65 or older, and people who were on pensions or were unable to work. Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole significantly higher gambling expenditure was reported by males. The highest average expenditure was for horse and greyhound racing ($AUD 1,556), double the next highest gambling activity electronic gaming machines ($AUD 767). Compared to Tasmanian gamblers as a whole problem gamblers were significantly younger, in paid employment, reported lower incomes, and were born in Australia. Although gambling participation rates appear to be falling, problem gambling severity rates remain stable. These changes appear to reflect a maturing gambling market and the need for population specific harm minimisation strategies.

Keywords

Demographics Problem gambling Socio-economic Severity Prevalence PGSI Tasmania 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The second Social and Economic Impact Study of Gambling in Tasmania was funded by the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance (Project IGFP 2010 01).

References

  1. Allen Consulting Group, Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre, and the Social Research Centre (2011). Social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania (Vols. 1–3). Hobart, TAS: The Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance.Google Scholar
  2. Australasian Gaming Council. (2012). Database on Australia’s gambling industries 09/10. VIC Author: Melbourne.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006a). Census of population and housing: Socio-economic indexes for areas. Canberra, ACT: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006b). Population by age and sex, Australia. Canberra, ACT: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Consumer price index. Canberra, ACT: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Goulet, A., & Savard, C. (2006). How much do you spend gambling? Ambiguities in questionnaire items assessing expenditure. International Gambling Studies, 6, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, T., & Rodgers, B. (2010). 2009 Survey of the nature and extent of gambling, and problem gambling, in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Justice. (2009). Problem gambling from a public health perspective: A study of gambling in Victoria. Melbourne, VIC: Author.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Justice and Attorney-General. (2012). Queensland household gambling survey 2011–2012. Brisbane, QLD: Author.Google Scholar
  12. Dickerson, M., & Maddern, R. (1997). The extent and impact of gambling in Tasmania with particular reference to problem gambling: A follow up to the baseline study conducted in 1994. The extent and impact of gambling in Tasmania, 1996. Sydney, NSW: Australian Institute for Gambling Research.Google Scholar
  13. Dickerson, M., Walker, M., & Baron, E. (1994). A baseline study of the extent and impact of gambling Tasmania with particular reference to problem gambling. Sydney, NSW: Australian Institute for Gambling Research.Google Scholar
  14. Dowling, N. A. (2013). The cognitive-behavioral treatment of female problem gambling. In David C. S. Richard, Alex A. Blaszczynski and L. L. Nower (Eds.), The wiley-blackwell handbook for disordered gambling. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  16. Government Statistician. (2012). Australian gambling statistics. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland Treasury and Trade.Google Scholar
  17. Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. (2001). An examination of the differential coping styles of adolescents with gambling problems. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.Google Scholar
  18. Hing, N., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. J. (2013). Gambling sponsorship of sport: An exploratory study of links with gambling attitudes and intentions. International Gambling Studies, 13, 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson, A. C., Wynne, H., Dowling, N. A., Tomnay, J. E., & Thomas, S. A. (2010). Using the CPGI to determine problem gambling prevalence in Australia: Measurement issues. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 570–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. LaPlante, D. S., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Understanding the influence of gambling opportunities: Expanding exposure models to include adaptation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 616–623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A New instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McMillen, J., & Pitt, S. (2005). Review of the ACT government’s harm minisation measures. Canberra, ACT: Centre for Gambling Research, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  23. National Centre for Social Research. (2010). British gambling prevalence survey. Brimingham, West Midlands: The Gambling Commission.Google Scholar
  24. Neale, P., Delfabbro, P., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: A national definition. Adeliade, SA: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
  25. Office for Problem Gambling (2006). Gambling prevalence in South Australia: October to December 2005. Adeliade, SA: Population Research and Outcome Studies Unit.Google Scholar
  26. Ogilvy Illumination: Strategic Communication Research (2012). Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in New South Wales. Sydney, VIC: NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.Google Scholar
  27. Productivity Commission (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Report No. 10. Canberra, VIC. Author.Google Scholar
  28. Productivity Commission (2010). Gambling. Report No. 50. Canberra, VIC. Author.Google Scholar
  29. Purdie, N., Matters, G., Hillman, K., Murphy, M., Ozolins, C., & Millwood, P. (2011). Gambling and young people in Australia. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.Google Scholar
  30. Risley, K. (2003). Report on smoke-free policies in Australia. Melbourne, VIC: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
  31. Roy Morgan Research. (2001). The third study into the extent and impact of gambling in Tasmania with particular reference to problem gambling: Follow up to the baseline studies conducted in 1994 and 1996. Hobart, TAS: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  32. Roy Morgan Research. (2006). The fourth study into the extent and impact of gambling in Tasmania with particular reference to problem gambling: Follow up to the studies conducted in 1994, 1996, and 2000. Hobart, TAS: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  33. Silvers, J. A., McRae, K., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Gross, J. L., Remy, K. A., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion, 12, 1235–1247.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Social Research Centre (2013). Gambling prevalence in South Australia. Melbourne, VIC: Office for Problem Gambling, South Australia Department for Communities and Social Inclusion.Google Scholar
  35. South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. (2008). Social and economic impact study into gambling in Tasmania. Hobart, TAS: Department of Treasury and Finance.Google Scholar
  36. Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78–106.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenzel, M., McMillen, J., Marshall, D., & Ahmed, E. (2004). Validation of the Victorian gambling screen. Canberra, ACT: The Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, L. M., Brown, K. J., Palmer, D., Liddell, B. J., Kemp, A. H., Oliveri, G., et al. (2006). The Mellow years? The neural basis of improving emotional stability over age. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 6422–6430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., & Stevens, M. G. (2012). The population prevalence of problem gambling: Methodological influences, standardized rates, jurisdictional differences, and worldwide trends. Guelph, ON: The Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada
  2. 2.Problem Gambling Research and Treatment CentreUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Problem Gambling Research and Treatment CentreMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.School of PsychologyDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.School of Psychological SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations