Despite rising popularity, gambling remains a risky behavior that costs the U.S. an estimated $14 billion annually. One reason these costs are so high is because of the pervasiveness of gambling harms. Like other addictive behaviors, harms from gambling can stretch across multiple domains including social, occupational, health, financial, and even criminal. To minimize gambling harms, it is necessary to identify gamblers who might benefit from self-help tools or professional support, ideally before they experience severe consequences. One available screening tool is the Gambling Harms Scale 10 (GHS-10). One potential weakness of the GHS-10 is that it asks respondents to report whether they’re experiencing each harm using a simple “yes or no” format, rather than allowing them to report on how severely they’re experiencing a given harm. A person’s score is simply the total number of harms they’re experiencing. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Philip Newall and colleagues that explored the validity of this measure by studying the lived experiences of gamblers in Australia with different levels of problem gambling severity according to the GHS-10.
What was the research question?
Is the GHS-10 a valid gambling harm screener, in that the lived experiences of gamblers relate in a logical way to their scores on the GHS-10?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers re-contacted a sample of 30 individuals from a previous study. These participants were recruited based on problem gambling severity according to scores on the GHS-10 from the previous study. Additionally, all participants were age 18 or older and had reported gambling within the past year. The research team then conducted semi-structured interviews with participants to elicit information about the role that gambling has played in their lives, including positive and negative experiences and harms to themselves and society more generally. The researchers grouped participants according to their GHS-10 scores (no-harm = 0 harms, low-harm = 1-2 harms, moderate-harm = 3-5 harms, and high-harm = 6-10 harms). Then they explored whether those with higher scores described having more severe negative experiences with gambling. This would support the idea that the GHS-10 is a valid measure.
What did they find?
Qualitative perceptions of gambling and experiences of harms were strongly related to participants’ GHS-10 scores (Figure shows themes and selected responses). For example, participants in the no-harm category described gambling as similar to any other leisure activity, with one participant describing the financial impact as the same as “collecting stamps”. In support of the GHS-10’s validity, as GHS-10 scores increased, so too did the propensity for financial harms. At the low-harm level, financial impacts were within reason but could veer towards regrettable. Participants in the moderate harm category occasionally experienced severe financial harms and participants in the high-harm category described significant financial harms. Interestingly, many other themes were present at multiple levels of problem gambling severity (e.g., gambling to build relationships) albeit with some adverse consequences or risk as problem gambling severity increased.
Figure: Displays the subthemes identified by the research team at each level of problem gambling severity, according to the GHS-10. A selected quote is shown under each subtheme that represents one participant’s understanding of each subtheme. Click on figure to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings are important because they provide more evidence for the utility of gambling harm screens, and the GHS-10 in particular. Specifically, this study showed that even without inquiring about the severity of gambling problems, the GHS-10 is able to discriminate between severe and less severe cases. Researchers should consider using this type of mixed methods approach that includes both quantitative and qualitative elements when studying gambling, as it can provide a more holistic view to better understand lived experiences.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
The researchers note that their background as gambling addiction researchers (and beyond that the developers of the GHS-10) might have biased their interpretations of participants’ qualitative responses. Additionally, though the overall sample contained 30 participants, no group of participants (i.e., across the no-harm, low-harm, moderate-harm, and high-harm gamblers groups) included more than eight participants, limiting the generalizability of this study.
The Minnesota Conference on Problem Gambling takes place on Thursday, Sept. 19 at the Hilton Minneapolis/Bloomington. While we’re still finalizing the day’s sessions, here are some topics we plan to cover:
The intersection of gambling and suicide
Financial counseling for families
The impact of gambling on families
Community leader panel discussion about gambling
Update on sports betting legislation
National gambling attitudes survey results
Please check mnapg.org in the coming months for additional information about the conference as we solidify the agenda.
National Conference
The National Conference on Gambling Addiction & Responsible Gambling takes place in San Diego on July 17-19. The conference brings together world-class presenters to deliver powerful and insightful messages about problem gambling and responsible gambling. For more information and to register, visit ncpgconference.org.
Due to the recent proliferation of new investing applications , more laypeople are engaging in retail stock market trading. Though some people have profited from this activity, many others have experienced significant harms. For example, in one high profile case, a young retail trader died by suicide because he (mistakenly) believed he suffered a huge trading loss. Several interested parties have also raised concerns around the gamification of the stock market, especially in brokerage apps like Robinhood, combined with the rapid pace of today’s retail trading, which calls to mind casino gambling. To prevent harm, it is important to understand specific mechanisms driving harms from investing. Therefore, this week, The WAGER reviews a study by Leonardo Weiss-Cohen and colleagues that examined how problem gambling severity and market volatility influenced trading intensity.
What were the research questions?
(1) Does problem gambling severity relate to trading intensity? (2) Does volatility in the market affect trading intensity?
What did the researchers do?
The research team invited 604 participants from an online survey panel to complete a simulated trading task. All reported both gambling in the past year and having lifetime experience buying a financial asset like a stock or bond. The researchers formed four semi-equally sized groups based on their scores on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI); 1) recreational/no-risk gamblers, 2) low-risk gamblers, 3) medium-risk gamblers, and finally, 4) high-risk gamblers. In the trading task, each participant received a startup fund and had the opportunity to invest in six fictitious stocks on a computerized trading platform. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, one with high volatility (i.e., stock prices moving up and down frequently) and one with low volatility. The research team manipulated the stocks in both conditions so that they would both have the same overall return (i.e., potential profit), albeit with significantly more volatility in the high volatility condition. To better replicate real-world behavior, participants received financial bonuses based on the results of their trading, with better performance resulting in higher bonuses. The researchers studied how problem gambling severity related to the intensity with which participants made stock trades, and whether participants traded more intensely when faced with high market volatility.
What did they find?
Contrary with other research, participants with more severe problem gambling did not trade more intensely. However, volatility did shape trading intensity; participants in the high volatility condition made 17% more trades compared to participants in the low volatility condition. This effect remained regardless of problem gambling severity and while controlling for financial literacy, overconfidence, age, and gender. Interestingly, exploratory analyses suggested that problem gambling severity may play a moderating role in predicting trading frequency, but only outside the highest levels of risk. Specifically, in all four of the gambling groups, participants in the high volatility condition traded more intensely than those in the low volatility condition; however, this difference was especially apparent in the three lowest-risk groups (see Figure).
Figure. Displays the mean number of trades for each PGSI category between conditions from exploratory analyses. The boxes on the right represent the average difference between participants in the high volatility vs. low volatility conditions for each level of PGSI severity. Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings are important for two reasons. Namely, they suggest that volatile assets such as cryptocurrencies or high-risk stocks (e.g., penny stocks) encourage more intense, gambling-like trading than less volatile assets mutual or index funds. This suggests that the gamification of brokerage apps like Robinhood and Webull may be putting more users at risk than was initially expected. Additionally, because the effects of volatility were strongest among no-risk participants, messaging efforts should potentially target lower-risk traders and gamblers as well. Often, outreach messaging focuses on those most at-risk in the population, yet this study suggests that those at lower-risk might actually be experiencing more harms from trading.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This study occurred in a simulated environment in which participants did not trade with their own personal money, so the external validity of this study is in question. Additionally, compared to the average online brokerage account, this study provided relatively modest amounts of capital to trade with. It is quite likely that higher stakes with more money could influence the results of this study, possibly by encouraging more risky trading.
The need to ensure there’s an adequate number of gambling treatment counselors in Minnesota is one thing. Ensuring that these counselors have the opportunity to collaborate and learn best practices to be successful is another
To ensure a level of quality control among counselors, MNAPG subsidizes a state-wide supervisory process whereby a certified gambling treatment counselor in one corner of the state can learn from a colleague in another part. Each month, providers have two opportunities to virtually meet one another and learn. “It’s a chance to network, connect, encourage and be a mentor for new people in the field,” says Lisa Vig Johnson, gambling addiction counselor at Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota who oversees the process.
“Newer providers need role models who can let them know about resources and tools to help them, such as videos, books, lectures or PowerPoint presentations” says Lisa. Seasoned providers can also help less experienced counselors with specific strategies and approaches when they encounter situations with clients that are challenging to treat effectively.
The provider convening also provides an opportunity to discuss ethical dilemmas that may arise during the course of treatment. “For example, there may be a situation where someone is coming to a provider but it’s not appropriate for them to provide services for legal or other reasons,” says Lisa. “In that case, we help direct them to the appropriate venue.”
In addition to being a place where gambling counselors can share their struggles and successes, the meetings provided a place for good old-fashioned bonding. “In the same way that people participating in treatment want to feel a sense of belonging and a place to share similar experiences, the same is true from a counseling perspective,” says Lisa. “It helps with morale and to keep each other engaged and dedicated even in the face of setbacks.”
Although the process is referred to as “provider supervision,” “supervision” is somewhat of a misnomer. “It has nothing to do with being “supervised” as an employee in the traditional context,” says Lisa. “It’s all about honing skills to be as effective a gambling counselor as possible.”
Currently, Minnesota does not mandate provider supervision. MNAPG believes this is an important component to the quality of care and therefore subsidizes this program. Provider supervision is voluntary and there is no cost for counselors or their organization to become involved. It’s a great opportunity for counselors to elevate their competencies, and ultimately provide Minnesotans struggling with gambling addiction the best possible outcome.
Wanted: community leaders interested in helping to educate and advocate for those in their community experiencing problem gambling.
MNAPG is in the process of organizing problem gambling awareness training sessions for community leaders to whom others turn for advice. The training is free and assists community leaders in helping others find the resources they need if they have a gambling problem.
The goal is to help those who need treatment get it as soon as possible. Research shows that it often takes seven to ten years before someone with a gambling problem seeks help. The earlier someone gets treatment, the lower the likelihood they will endure financial ruin, lose jobs and relationships, or experience a despair that ends in suicide.
In addition to helping people get help, community leaders are also in a position to reduce the stigma associated with gambling addiction. The goal of community leader training is to increase empathy and build knowledge about available resources rather than to provide professional treatment.
MNAPG will be offering the free, six-hour online training in partnership with Jody Bechtold from The Better Institute. Jody is a professional coach, gambling addiction expert, international speaker and trainer, and a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® certified facilitator.
Those taking the training will learn:
• Who is at risk for gambling disorder.
• The impacts on the family from gambling disorders.
• The often-overlapping occurrence of mental health problems, substance abuse and suicide.
• The need to understand finances in gambling disorders.
• Why it’s important to understand gambling-motivated crime.
• Choices for recovery and healing.
Following completion of the six-hour training, trainees will meet with MNAPG and other trainees for a two-hour in-person session to address questions or concerns. MNAPG’s goal is to build a network of trained leaders around the state to inform what additional resources and training may be needed to build greater awareness about gambling addiction.
Those interested in this training or desiring to learn more should contact Adina Black at asblack@mnapg.org. Remember, this training is offered at no cost.
By the time a person suffering from a gambling addiction seeks professional help, they are often in dire straits. In addition to the emotional turmoil that causes some to feel suicidal and the path of destruction in personal relationships that often follows in their wake, there is also a very practical matter: most gambling addicts have spent their last penny.
While gambling counselors are equipped to help individuals manage their addiction, seek more healing ways and eventually start on the road to recovery, few have an in-depth knowledge of how the gambler can clean up from financial ruin. At best, counselors may have a few worksheets on basic budgeting that they can give to their clients, but they don’t have the range of tools that financial professionals can provide.
Recognizing that the lack of financial counseling represents a significant gap in treatment for many clients, MNAPG has dedicated resources for GamFin, an online financial education community for professionals in problem gambling, so that financial counselors can meet with individuals on an as-needed basis. The service is a boon to counselors — it represents an added and important service they can offer to their clients — and can provide an important anchor leg for those in recovery.
“When I heard that we could bring in a financial specialist to talk to our clients in a group session, I was thrilled,” says Amy Dady, a problem gambling counselor with Fairview Health Services. “It gives people a chance to ask about anything, such as budgeting, current financing, FICO scores, paying down debt, bankruptcy and future planning.”
Clients who want to ask specific questions can meet privately with the financial specialist — at no cost. “When clients know they can talk to the specialists for free, they open up and realize what an issue it is for them,” says Amy.
Access to financial counseling has received positive feedback. “I’m so delighted that my clients can go to them for counseling,” says Amy. “So much of the struggle and stress patients have is around the financial part. It’s great that we can provide these added benefits and that they don’t have to pay for them.”
“The dedication of these financial resources speaks to our larger effort to wanting to provide the best services to our stakeholders, in this case our counselors,” says Susan Sheridan Tucker, executive director of MNAPG. “Counselors lack financial training, but we feel it’s essential that gamblers have access to financial literacy services that can help them in their recovery. When counselors work in concert with the financial advisor, it’s a more comprehensive approach to a person’s overall recovery.”
