Sep 5, 2025 | PROBLEM GAMBLING, RESEARCH
Two newly published reports, commissioned by GambleAware and developed in collaboration with IFF Research, have highlighted a concerning connection between neurodivergence and gambling harms. Conducted by Dr. Amy Sweet of the University of Bristol and Dr. Tim Morris of University College London and the University of Bristol, the studies indicate that neurodivergent individuals—those with conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia or dyscalculia—are more vulnerable to experiencing gambling-related harm, despite not gambling more frequently than neurotypical individuals.
The first report explored the availability and effectiveness of support for neurodivergent gamblers. It found that individuals with conditions like autism or ADHD often struggle with impulsivity and financial management, which can intensify the risks associated with gambling. For many, gambling becomes a “coping mechanism,” offering temporary relief from feelings of social isolation, marginalization or unmet mental stimulation needs. However, these strategies often lead to serious consequences, including financial hardship, damaged relationships and setbacks in education or employment.
The report emphasized the need for tailored treatment approaches that consider specific traits like attention difficulties. Early intervention is crucial, as many individuals only seek help after facing significant harm. The study also called for streamlined, accessible support services and greater use of peer networks to offer non-judgmental spaces for those hesitant to engage with formal treatment systems.
The second report pointed to a significant knowledge gap in the understanding of how gambling affects neurodivergent people. It noted that the intersection of gambling harm and neurodiversity remains under-researched, and encouraged further studies to explore how factors such as age, gender and ethnicity may influence these experiences. This lack of data presents both a challenge and an opportunity to improve future prevention and support strategies.
In response to the findings, Haroon Chowdry, GambleAware’s director of evidence and insights, stressed the need for improved public awareness around gambling risks, including mandatory health warnings and clearer support pathways. Clare Palmer of IFF Research added that their next phase will involve developing practical tools in partnership with Ara Recovery 4 All and lived experience experts to enhance future service delivery.
Overall, the reports underscore the urgent need for more inclusive, responsive gambling support systems tailored to the unique challenges faced by neurodivergent individuals.
Sep 4, 2025 | RESEARCH
Read the Original Article on The Basis HERE.
By Matthew Tom, Ph.D.
Drug use disorders, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping, and other similar mental health problems were once thought of as separate and disconnected phenomena. According to the Syndrome Model of Addiction, advanced by Dr. Howard Shaffer and colleagues, risk factors for addiction – whether chemical and behavioral – include common themes and life circumstances. Researchers are continuing to look for these “primary causes” and mechanisms that can cut across different expressions of addiction. This week, as part of our Special Series in Honor of Dr. Howard Shaffer, The WAGER reviews a study by Sophie G. Coelho and colleagues that examined the perceived causes of several different expressions of addiction.
What was the research question?
From the perspective of people with lived experience, are the perceived causes of addiction similar across different forms of addiction?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers used data from the Quinte Longitudinal Study of Gambling and Problem Gambling. This prospective survey solicited people 18 years or older living within 70 miles of Belleville, Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2011. The 4,122 participants were a 74%/26% mix of people recruited randomly and a group overly selected for higher levels of gambling. A total of 1,473 participants reported problematic substance abuse, gambling, or other behavior. The researchers asked participants which behaviors led to “significant negative consequences” (e.g., financial difficulties, relationship issues). For each mentioned behavior, the researchers asked, “What was the main cause of [your problem with the substance/behavior]?” Participants’ responses were open-ended text, and the researchers used content analysis to classify responses. They classified participants’ types of addiction into three categories (substance use versus gambling versus other behavioral addictions), and then counted how many participants in each class gave each main cause. They used a chi-square test to determine if there was a difference in the three classes’ distributions of main causes.
What did they find?
Out of 25 main causes the researchers gleaned from the participants’ responses, 10 were common to all three classes. The most common cause was coping (see Figure), either with other mental health issues like depression, physical ailments such as nausea, or other life stressors such as family problems. Other main causes common to the three classes of addiction include enhancement (e.g., gambling for excitement), poor self-control, and the addictive properties of the substances or activities themselves. Main causes that were unique to certain classes included [chemical] withdrawal (specific to substance use disorders), money and trying to “win” (specific to gambling), and hunger (specific to eating, as another behavioral addiction). The researchers did find differences in the distributions of main causes. For example, participants were more likely to mention inherently addictive properties as a main cause of their addiction when discussing substance use disorders (e.g., “Tobacco is highly addictive”), while enhancement and excitement were more common in gambling and in other behavioral addictions.
Figure. Six of the eight most common main causes of addictive behavior and the categories of addictive behavior they led to. The two of the eight not shown are “Unclear” and “Unsure of cause.” Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
Understanding the etiology of addiction is important, even if certain causes are more common for particular addictions than they are for others. For instance, researchers and clinicians can explore whether combining treatment seekers into support groups by main causes, rather than by current problems, might yield better treatment outcomes faster. To illustrate, people who all started engaging in addictive behaviors as a way of coping with depression and loneliness might be able to empathize with each other, even if some have problems with alcohol while others have problems with gambling. Treatment providers might find ways to think beyond the common practice of promoting services for one specific type of addiction, and find themselves able to serve much wider client bases than they originally envisioned.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
The participant pool resided completely within a single province in Canada, so the results might not be generalizable to other populations. The researchers grouped the different types of addiction into three broad classes, combining drugs with very different properties into one class, the many different forms of gambling into another, and a wide range of behavioral addictions into a third. Grouping participants or types of addiction this way might have kept the researchers from pinpointing specific main causes unique to specific substances, gambling games, or behaviors.
Aug 13, 2025 | RESEARCH
Read the Original Article on The Basis HERE.
By John Slabczynski
Gambling policy in the U.S. is driven by a combination of federal, state, and municipal regulations. This patchwork approach allows for the spread of relatively unregulated gambling opportunities, particularly online. These unregulated online operators often present unique risks to consumers, such as deposit insecurity—as evident during ‘Black Friday’, the 2011 federal shutdown of major online poker sites. As the U.S. moves towards a safer and more regulated market, it is important to understand how such regulation influences the consumer experience. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Kahlil Philander and Bradley Wimmer that explored how online poker players value government regulation.
What was the research question?
How much are online poker players willing to pay for government-regulated online poker?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers recruited 783 U.S. and Canadian online poker players (21 years and older) from poker-related websites and on social media. The participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE)1. Each participant was presented with two hypothetical online poker sites that varied on five features (see Figure), and were asked to choose the operator they preferred. Participants completed this task eight times, with a different combination of opposing operator features each time. They also indicated their attitudes and beliefs towards government regulation. The researchers estimated the dollar value participants were willing to pay for government-regulated poker gambling and whether this differed based on a player’s preferred stake size.
What did they find?
On average, online poker players were willing to pay an additional $1.83/hour to play on government-regulated sites, though this varied based on factors like a player’s preferred stake size. For example, at micro-stakes,2 participants were willing to pay an average of $0.88 compared to $5.35 at middle-stakes. Furthermore, attitudes appear to be an important factor in a consumer’s price point insofar as those who held negative attitudes towards government regulation were less willing to pay more for government regulation, and at times even willing to pay more to play on an unregulated site. For example, those who played at either micro-stakes or small-stakes and believed that government regulation would lead to increased taxation showed an aversion to sites that offer such regulation.
Figure. Displays the five features involved in the DCE. The left-most column lists the specific features and the middle-left column describes each feature. The columns on the right show examples of two hypothetical online poker sites with opposing features (Option A and Option B). During the experiment, participants selected the operator who appealed more to them based on their differing features. Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
The findings from this study suggest that government-regulated poker sites are generally more appealing to online poker players compared to sites without such regulation, and so regulation might be important for the future health of the poker industry. However, it is also important to note that this study was conducted before recent changes to U.S. federal gambling regulations. For example, bettors can no longer deduct all of their gambling losses from their taxes. With fears of taxation a primary detractor to the value of government regulation, it is unclear how this legislation might affect the perceived value of government regulated gambling going forward.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This study focused on online poker players and thus may not be generalizable to the wider population of people who gamble. Notably, previous studies suggest that poker players may differ from other gambling populations on a number of factors. This study was also unable to acquire a representative sample (i.e., higher stakes bettors comprising an outsized proportion of the sample) that might have biased the results.
________________
1. The researchers conducted two prior qualitative studies to inform the development of the final DCE.
2. For micro-stakes games, the big blind can be as high as $0.50. Small-stakes big blinds are between $0.50 and $2.00 and middle-stakes big blinds are between $2.00 and $10.00.
Jun 16, 2025 | RESEARCH
Read the original article on the BASIS HERE.
By Nakita Sconsoni, MSW
Stigma occurs when someone is viewed negatively based on specific characteristics, like having an addiction. Stigma can lead to psychosocial impairments and may deter people from accessing treatment or recovery resources. Gambling disorder, in particular, is a highly stigmatized addiction that can perpetuate feelings of shame/embarrassment and lead to isolation. Despite these consequences, there is a lack of research on stigma related to gambling. Online support forums create spaces for gamblers to anonymously share their perspectives, which can help researchers and clinicians understand gamblers’ experiences with stigma. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Katy Penfold and colleagues that investigated the experiences of stigma among gamblers who used online support forums.
What was the research question?
What experiences with stigma and discrimination do gamblers who have experienced gambling harm describe on online peer support forums?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers identified three UK-based public online support forums for gambling harm. Twenty-seven threads (389 posts) across these forums included content from someone with lived experience with gambling harm, discussing their experiences with stigma or discrimination, or obstacles to seeking help. The researchers used thematic analyses to identify themes relating to experiences of stigma. These interpretations were reviewed for accuracy by the research team and a gambling lived experience panel.
What did they find?
Participants’ discussions about stigma centered around five themes: (1) beliefs about gambling and how it can become an addiction, (2) self-stigma, (3) anticipating stigma from others, (4) stigmatizing others who experience gambling harm, and (5) experiencing stigma and discrimination (see Figure). Most participants viewed addiction as a disease and compared their experiences to drug dependence. Their perceptions of gambling appeared to influence how they viewed their own gambling behavior, often leading to self-stigma. Participants criticized themselves and often felt ashamed of their behavior. They anticipated that others would hold similar negative views and judge them for their addiction, discouraging help-seeking. Participants rarely stigmatized one another, but when they did, they seemed to make generalizations about all gamblers based on their own negative self-views. Some participants experienced discrimination by family/friends or others. These experiences ranged from non-hostile discrimination, like having a partner take control of the finances, to hostile discrimination, like being disrespected by casino employees.
Figure. Quotes from participants on their experiences with stigma, separated into five themes: (1) beliefs about gambling and how it can become an addiction, (2) self-stigma, (3) anticipating stigma from others, (4) stigmatizing others who experience gambling harm, and (5) experiencing stigma and discrimination. Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings can be used to inform stigma-reduction campaigns. Efforts to reduce stigma should challenge negative stereotypes and reframe gambling as a health-related issue—not a personal failing. There should also be efforts to educate families and communities on how to respond supportively when someone discloses their gambling. Although initiatives like these should be promoted year-round, there are high-risk times when public health organizations should increase outreach and other efforts (e.g., Problem Gambling Awareness Month, which occurs during March Madness and its sports betting season).
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
While discussion forums allow for real-world insights into the experiences of people with gambling problems, participants might feel uncomfortable disclosing their true feelings, particularly their views on other gamblers’ behaviors. Although the researchers received feedback on their interpretation of the forum discussions, they are still subject to personal biases, which might have altered their understanding.
May 30, 2025 | RESEARCH
Read the original article on the BASIS HERE.
By Annette Siu
Lower-risk gambling guidelines are recommended limits on gambling behaviors to help minimize gambling-related harm. The guidelines include participating in no more than two types of gambling, gambling no more than four times a month, and gambling less than 1% of one’s household income. While gambling participation and problem gambling are linked, the extent to which low-risk gambling participation actually predicts future gambling-related harm is less clear, as both concepts are typically measured at the same time. This week, as part of our Special Series on Education to Promote Lower-risk Drinking, Gambling, and Substance Use, The WAGER reviews a study by Nolan Gooding and colleagues that examined this relationship longitudinally among Canadian adults.
What was the research question?
What levels of gambling participation are associated with an increased risk of future gambling-related harm?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers used data from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute’s National Project online panel survey. Participants were Canadian adults who had gambled at least once monthly during the past year. They completed a baseline and follow-up survey that assessed gambling participation (number of gambling types, number of gambling days per month, and percent of household income spent gambling) and gambling-related harm (e.g., financial and emotional harm). The researchers calculated the relative risk of gambling-related harm, collected at follow-up, based on levels of gambling participation collected at baseline.1
What did they find?
Participating in more types of gambling at baseline was associated with an increased relative risk of experiencing financial and emotional harm at follow-up (see Figure). For example, people who participated in at least five types of gambling were 8.54 times more likely to experience emotional harm compared to those who participated in one type of gambling. Similarly, as the number of days per month spent gambling increased, the relative risk of experiencing harm also increased. Finally, a higher percent of household income spent on gambling was associated with a greater relative risk of experiencing gambling-related harm.
Figure. Relative risk of financial and emotional harm based on gambling participation levels. Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
Participating in more types of gambling, gambling more frequently, and spending more on gambling are associated with a greater risk of experiencing harm. These findings are mostly consistent with the quantitative limits established through the lower-risk gambling guidelines, which suggests that following the guidelines can help reduce the risk of gambling-related harm. To further support harm reduction, gambling interventions should focus on responsible gambling strategies, such as using lower-risk gambling guidelines to set time and money limits.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This study used self-report measures, which are subject to social desirability and recall bias. The sample only included Canadian adults, so the results might not generalize to other geographic areas with different gambling environments. Additionally, there was attrition: around half of the baseline respondents completed the follow-up survey. This contributed to non-random missing data and likely affected the results.
For more information:
Individuals who are concerned about their gambling behaviors or simply want to know more about problem gambling may benefit from visiting the National Council on Problem Gambling or Gamblers Anonymous. Additional resources can be found at the BASIS Addiction Resources page.
— Annette Siu
1. The researchers also conducted receiver operating characteristic analyses to determine optimal low-risk limits for each measure of gambling participation. However, we are not covering those analyses in this review.
Apr 17, 2025 | RESEARCH
Read the original article on the BASIS HERE.
By Timothy Edson, Ph.D.
Growing evidence suggests that gambling and gaming are closely intertwined. Many gambling products are becoming increasingly gamified, while gambling and gambling-adjacent features and mechanics within modern video games have received increased attention. Escapism, or using entertainment to escape from everyday life, is a common motivation for problematic gambling and gaming. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Hannu Jouhki and colleagues that assessed how basic psychological needs affect the relationship between escapism and problematic gambling and gaming.
What were the research questions?
Which psychological needs are associated with motivations to gamble or play video games to escape daily life? To what extent do psychological needs influence the relationship between escapism and experiencing problems with video games or gambling?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers analyzed longitudinal survey data from 1,095 Finnish adults. Participants were assessed for problem gambling, problem gaming, and escapism (e.g., how often they gamed or gambled to avoid real-life social encounters or situations). They also reported their levels of frustration in achieving the psychological needs of autonomy (control of their decisions), competence (ability to complete tasks) and relatedness (meaningful relationships with others) in their daily life. Accounting for demographics (e.g., gender, income) and personality (e.g., impulsivity, openness), the researchers used random effects count modeling to understand: (1) the effects of psychological needs on escapism, and (2) the effects of escapism and psychological needs on problem gambling and gaming, including moderation effects.
What did they find?
Participants who felt greater frustration with autonomy and competence (but not relatedness) were more likely to report increased levels of gambling or gaming to escape. Other predictors of escapism included younger age, impulsivity, and having a significant other experiencing gambling problems (see Figure). Those who indicated increased levels of escapism were more likely to also report increased levels of problematic gambling and/or gaming. The relationship between escapism and problem gambling was stronger for those reporting increased competence frustration, while the relationship between escapism and problem gaming was stronger for those with increased competence and autonomy frustration.
Figure. Variables that significantly predict gambling and/or gaming to escape daily life among Finnish adults (N = 1095). The numbers at the end of each bar are standardized coefficients from a random effects negative binomial regression model. Positive numbers (in blue) represent variables associated with increased gambling and/or gaming to escape (e.g., competence frustration) while negative numbers (in green) represent variables associated with decreased escapism (e.g., older age). The larger the number, the larger the effect the variable has on escapism.
Why do the findings matter?
People who have trouble living life on their own terms (autonomy frustration) or handling life’s challenges (competence frustration) might be more likely to gamble or play video games to escape. Those experiencing competence frustration, in particular, could be at greater risk of this escapism translating into problematic gambling and gaming. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may help individuals reduce competence frustrations by helping them understand and evaluate these feelings. Broader society changes, like universal basic income, might also reduce competence frustrations by relieving the pressure to continually perform and be productive to just get by. By reducing competence frustration in diverse ways, we can perhaps begin to thrive in the real world and feel less need to escape from it.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This study took place in a single country, Finland. It is unclear if we would see the same findings were this study to be replicated in other countries. The study also excluded youth, a sizable demographic in the video game community for whom gamblified gaming can often lead to problems.
— Timothy Edson, Ph.D.
Page 1 of 1012345...10...»Last »
