Sep 13, 2021 | RESEARCH
Article by The WAGER.
Read original article on The BASIS website.
Editor’s Note: Today’s review is part of our month-long Special Series on Managing Addiction during COVID-19. Throughout September, The BASIS is highlighting how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted people managing addiction. This Special Series is generously sponsored by the Greater Boston Council on Alcoholism.
The COVID-19 pandemic has permeated just about every area of our society, causing massive changes in our world. Some changes—like working remotely and staying home instead of going to sporting events, bars, and casinos—might outlast the virus. Certainly during the first year of the pandemic, people couldn’t gamble in land-based venues even if they wanted to. It’s important to understand how people’s relationship with gambling changed during COVID because some of these changes might be long lasting. Therefore, this week, as part of our Special Series on Managing Addiction during COVID, The WAGER reviews a study by David Hodgins and Rhys Stevens on the impact of COVID-19 on gambling and gambling-related problems.
What was the research question?
How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted gambling behavior and gambling-related problems?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers searched several online databases for peer-reviewed scientific articles and other relevant published works (e.g., research reports) that examined changes in gambling and risk factors for gambling-related problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their criteria for selecting articles in the study included: (1) the examination of individual gamblers, (2) assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on gambling, and (3) publication in English after March 2020. Seventeen distinct articles were located that fit these inclusion criteria.
Author’s notes, Dr. David Hodgins: “I was very surprised at the number of studies that have addressed this issue, given that it is still emergent. Sometimes as researchers we struggle to generate evidence in a timeline that allows it to impact policy and practice in a meaningful way. With this issue, the evidence points to the group of individuals that are particularly vulnerable to increasing gambling and gambling-related harm.” (We thank Dr. Hodgins for sharing his personal thoughts about the article.)
What did they find?
The articles were limited geographically to middle- and upper-income Western countries, though they included a variety of recruitment methods and recruited participants from a variety of different population groups within those countries. Most (65%) of the studies were cross-sectional and 35% were longitudinal, and all of the studies used online surveys as one of the data collection approaches. While changes in participants’ gambling behavior varied across studies, all 17 studies showed an overall decrease in gambling behavior, measured as reduced gambling frequency and/or money spent on gambling. Though only two studies investigated the causes behind this decline, the most common in descending order were: (1) financial reasons, (2) absence of live sports, (3) not wanting to gamble around family, (4) thinking they were gambling too much, and (5) shopping less overall.
On the other hand, some individuals increased their gambling behavior, which can lead to increased risk of gambling-related problems. Several risk factors were associated with increased gambling behavior (See Figure).
Figure. Number of studies that found certain characteristics and behaviors (i.e., risk factors) of subgroups of individuals who increased their gambling during the pandemic. The total number of studies included was n = 17.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings are important because they indicate that gambling trends during the current COVID-19 pandemic situation are complicated and may be worsening for some individuals as a result of psychological and financial stress. Online gambling—which appeared to have increased in popularity in some subgroups—might be especially problematic for some gamblers due to its relative lack of constraints (e.g., 24/7/365 availability) and the wide variety of gambling products available. For these reasons, it is important that anyone who gambles uses safe gambling habits and is aware of educational and help resources that can help them manage their gambling, such as self-limitation and self-exclusion tools offered by many gambling operators.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
Many of the studies in the literature review had their own limitations such as the sampling methodology, including using convenience samples in online surveys, which might not be representative of their target population. Additionally, this study only provides a snapshot of where we currently are, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not provide any data on post-COVID-19 trends in the US or internationally.
For more information:
Individuals who are struggling with problem gambling may find support at the Massachusetts Office of Problem Gambling Services or the National Council on Problem Gambling. Additional resources can be found at the BASIS Addiction Resources page.
— John Slabczynski
Jul 27, 2021 | PROFESSIONALS, RESEARCH
Read the original article from The BASIS website.
Written by: Taylor Lee
Various in-person and online games allow players to purchase randomized packs of rewards, such as collectible card packs and virtual items. Some places are imposing regulations on video games offering loot boxes—purchasable virtual containers with randomized items—as they seem to fit traditional definitions of gambling. Indeed, people who report more problem gambling symptoms tend to spend more on loot boxes. Due to some similarities with loot boxes, collectible card game ‘booster packs’ have come under scrutiny as well. Collectible card games (CCGs) allow for the purchasing of physical booster packs containing cards that are sealed and random in game value. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by David Zendle and colleagues that examined the association between problem gambling symptoms and the amount of money spent on physical booster packs of trading cards.
What was the research question?
What is the relationship between the severity of problem gambling symptoms and the quantity of money spent on collectible card game booster packs in real-world and digital stores?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers used a cross-sectional survey advertised on the online message board Reddit, and obtained 726 usable responses from participants 18 and older. About 60% of respondents were from the U.S., but many different countries were represented. The survey asked participants about CCG physical booster pack spending in (1) real-world stores and (2) digital stores within the past month. It also assessed problem gambling using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The researchers used PGSI scores to classify respondents as non-problem gamblers (n = 429), low-risk gamblers (n = 244), moderate-risk gamblers (n = 35), and people experiencing gambling problems (n = 18). They then used Kruskal–Wallis tests to examine if respondents in different PGSI groups differed in terms of how much money they spent on physical booster packs in real-world stores and digital stores.1
What did they find?
Zendle and colleagues did not find evidence for an association between problem gambling and quantity spent on booster packs in real-world stores (see Figure). Even though there was a statistically significant relationship for problem gambling and the quantity of money spent on booster packs in digital stores, the effect was too small to be considered clinically significant. There was also no significant difference in quantity spent on booster packs between people with and without gambling problems.
Figure. Problem gambling severity and spending (in US dollars) on booster packs in real-world stores among survey respondents (total n = 726). Although the authors performed their statistical tests on mean ranks, we provide medians to illustrate the trends across PGSI categories. The interquartile range (IQR) around each median was $39 for people without gambling problems (n = 429), $50 for low-risk gamblers (n = 244), $69 for moderate-risk gamblers (n = 35), and $119 for people experiencing gambling problems (n = 18).
Why do these findings matter?
This study suggests that while booster packs in collectible card games may appear similar to gambling in some ways, users do not seem to engage with them in ways comparable to traditional gambling activities. Thus, regulations—like those developed for loot boxes—might not be necessary for booster packs. This suggests that there is likely a difference in the ways that players interact with physical booster packs and digital loot boxes. Ultimately, the findings were cross-sectional, so the researchers could not establish causality; additional longitudinal and/or experimental research would help better illuminate the specific factor that accounts for the difference in loot box and booster packs’ relationship with problem gambling symptoms.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
Participants were recruited from Reddit’s online message boards targeting fervent players of collectible card games. An over-representation of enthusiastic players in the study’s sample may lead to findings that are not representative of more casual players. Social desirability bias through self-reporting may also contribute to participants misrepresenting their true spending or gambling behaviors. The most severe PGSI category had only 18 people in it, which likely limited the chances that the authors would statistically detect a difference among groups.
For more information:
Do you think you or someone you know has a gambling problem? Visit the National Council on Problem Gambling for screening tools and resources. For additional resources, including gambling and self-help tools, please visit The BASIS Addiction Resources page.
— Taylor Lee
______________
[1] The authors used rank transformations and Kruskal–Wallis tests to replicate past research in this area, and because they could not be sure if their spending data would meet the normality distribution assumptions of ANOVA.
Jun 18, 2021 | RESEARCH
Read the original article on The BASIS website.
Gambling can result in serious financial, emotional, social, and health problems for some people who gamble. Better understanding the extent and timing of the relationship between gambling and negative outcomes can help us improve interventions designed to reduce gambling-related harm. However, most past work is confined to self-report surveys and small-scale studies, which might have limitations due to inaccurate reporting or memory lapses. This week, the WAGER reviews a study by Naomi Muggleton and colleagues that was one of the first to examine gambling and gambling-related harms in a large sample using actual financial data measured across time.
What was the research question?
What is the association between gambling (as measured through gambling transactions) and financial, lifestyle/leisure, and health-related outcomes (as measured through financial transactions related to these domains)?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers used financial data from two samples of customers of a large UK bank: a random sample of 102,195 customers who were active (i.e., had active bank accounts) in 2018 (Sample 1); and all 6,515,557 customers who were active in 2013 (Sample 2). They measured how much of customers’ spending in a given month was spent on gambling transactions. Next, they created all of their outcome variables from information about customers’ transactions (e.g., whether they take a payday loan in a given month, or how much they spend on fitness-related activities and products). In Sample 1, they used regression models to look at the relationship between gambling spend in one month and measures of financial distress, financial planning/inclusion, lifestyle spending, health and well-being spending, and leisure and interests spending one month later during 2018. In Sample 2, they used logistic regression models and survival analysis to look at the relationship between spending on gambling in 2013 and measures of disability, unemployment, and mortality from 2014-2019.
What did they find?
In Sample 1, people who spent a greater percent of their money on gambling transactions in one month were more likely to experience financial distress (e.g., using an overdraft, missing a credit card, loan, or mortgage payment), less likely to engage in financial planning and inclusion (e.g., holding a mortgage or having savings, paying down a mortgage or loan), less likely to spend on health or well-being (e.g., transactions related to fitness or self-care), and less likely to spend on other leisure and interests (e.g., transactions related to education or social activities) in the next month. These associations were non-linear; as the Figure shows, most relationships were much stronger at high levels of gambling. Gambling spend did not demonstrate a consistent relationship with lifestyle spending (e.g., spending on gaming or tobacco).
In Sample 2, people who spent a greater percent of their money on gambling transactions in 2013 were more likely to experience unemployment or disability (as measured by unemployment and disability payments) in 2014-2019, and had higher mortality (as measured by a flag placed on a customer’s account following that customer’s death) in those same years.
Figure. Common associations between spending on gambling transactions and financial, health, and leisure & interests. In these graphs, the x-axis shows percentile of gambling spend (e.g., 1% includes individuals in the sample who were in the lowest 1% in terms of how much of their spending was on gambling; 99% includes individuals in the sample who were in the 99th percentile in terms of how much of their spending was on gambling). The y-axis measures either the level of the outcome (e.g., how many pounds [£] an individual has in savings), or the percent of customers who had that outcome (e.g., the percent who missed a mortgage payment). The charts do not depict actual data from the study, but representative curves for each set of outcomes. Adapted from Muggleton et al. (2021).
Why do these findings matter?
This study confirmed that gambling is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes, using objective, representative data based on millions of banking records. It is one of the largest studies ever conducted on gambling transactions and how they relate to other financial transactions. However, the study also showed that in most cases, these relationships are much stronger at higher levels of gambling. The results of these studies can be used to guide interventions and prevention efforts. For example, banks could develop messaging to send to customers whose spend on gambling in relation to the rest of their spending exceeded a certain level providing information about gambling and its risks or helpful tools and resources. This would be similar to current efforts to determine lower-risk thresholds for gambling and raise awareness of those thresholds among gamblers. All messaging efforts should be tested to ensure they have the intended effects.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
This study staggered measurements of gambling spend and outcomes in time, but this approach does not definitively establish causality. It is possible that both high levels of gambling and high levels of these negative outcomes reflect other underlying factors that drive both the gambling behavior and other behaviors.
For more information:
Do you think you or someone you know has a gambling problem? Visit the National Council on Problem Gambling for screening tools and resources. For additional resources, including gambling and self-help tools, please visit The BASIS Addiction Resources page.
— Sarah Nelson, Ph.D.
Aug 17, 2020 | PROFESSIONALS, RESEARCH, SPORTS BETTING
The following is taken from the National Council on Problem Gambling:
This report on recent research suggests that gambling problems may increase as sports gambling grows explosively at the same time that mobile and online technologies evolve to create seemingly unlimited types of wagering opportunities. Here are important highlights from a special review of more than 140 studies and reports on the connections between sports betting and gambling addiction.
Sports Betting and Online Gambling: A Potentially Volatile Mix
The rate of gambling problems among sports bettors is at least twice as high as among gamblers in general. When sports gambling is conducted online, the rate of problems is even higher, with one study of online sports gamblers indicating that 16% met clinical criteria for gambling disorder and another 13% showed some signs of gambling problems.
Concerns About Modern Sports Gambling
Nearly half of American adults have bet on a sporting event. More and more are betting online, with 45% of sports wagering now taking place on the internet. Today’s online sports betting is particularly concerning for several reasons:
- Access: internet gambling is available virtually all the time.
– It’s more convenient and provides more privacy.
– Early research shows that those who bet using mobile devices have higher rates of problem gambling.
- Live “In-Play” Betting: today’s sports gamblers can bet on much more than just the winner of a game.
– Sports gamblers can bet — during the game — on hundreds and potentially thousands of discrete events. Any aspect of a team or player’s performance or activity that can be measured is now a potential wager.
– This shortens the lag between bet and reward, increasing the speed and frequency of gambling, which increases the risk of problematic behavior.
Professional Athletes Frequently Gamble on Sports
Sports gambling is widespread among professional athletes. While no study of gambling among U.S. professional athletes is publicly available, such studies have been conducted elsewhere. One recent European report showed that 57% of professional athletes surveyed gambled on sports in the previous year, with 8% exhibiting problem gambling behavior, roughly three times greater than the general population.
Youth are at Higher Risk
Data from 2018 shows that more than 75% of students gambled. This is a big concern given the risk-taking behavior that takes place in adolescence and young adulthood, along with gambling being more socially acceptable and glamorized. More than 13% of adolescents wagered money on sports teams according to a study in 2017. Students most often bet on professional football and college basketball. Youth gamblers have higher rates of gambling problems than adults. Males are far more likely than females to both gamble on sports and to experience gambling problems.
Popularity and Growth of Fantasy Sports Gambling
From 2004 to 2018, participation in fantasy sports gambling quadrupled — from 14 million to 57 million. Higher fantasy game participation is associated with significant increases in problem gambling severity.
The Profile of a Sports Bettor
Heavy sports bettors who meet the criteria for clinical gambling disorder are typically male, young (up to age 35), single, fully employed, and have a high level of education. They think sports gambling is more skill than luck, suggesting they’re prone to distortions in thinking. They affiliate with others who favor sports betting, frequently taking advantage of different types of promotions, and are generally highly impulsive.
Marketing Inhibits Ability to Stop Gambling
Aggressive promotions in all forms of marketing and advertising make it more difficult for sports bettors who are trying to curtail their gambling. Ads that emphasize ‘free play,’ tout the ease of placing a bet, or offer risk-free bonuses are particularly problematic.
Looking Ahead
Sports gambling is growing rapidly with significant potential to create or worsen gambling problems. Twenty-three states to date have legalized sports betting. Moreover, it’s clear that substantial prevention and treatment efforts need to be developed and targeted to those most vulnerable to developing an addiction through sports gambling.
The review was conducted by Jeffrey Derevensky, PhD, and Ken Winters, PhD in the autumn of 2018. The full report, A Comprehensive Review of Sports Wagering and Gambling Addiction, is available here.
Apr 24, 2020 | HEALTHY PLAY, PROFESSIONALS, RESEARCH
By Susan Sheridan Tucker
In early March 2020, I attended the annual New Horizons Conference on Responsible Gambling. It’s a conference that always provides great insights and this year did not disappoint.
The theme was Future-Proofing the Gambling Industry, an aspirational goal where a gambling operator no longer makes money from those exhibiting problem gambling. This may seem like pie-in-the-sky, but several countries are taking steps through advancements in technology that enable them to better identify customers taking too many gambling risks and to engage them in conversations about risks and potential financial harm. We are seeing a subtle shift in the goals of responsible gambling from providing safeguards and prevention initiatives to supporting safer gambling for all, including reinforcing “ideal” consumer behaviors.
“Future-Proofing the Industry: Player Safeguards and Prevention”
There was much discussion about a paper by Judith Glynn of Strategic Science titled, “Future Proofing the Industry: Player Safeguards and Prevention.” The paper sparked conversation about the role of responsible gambling tools, how to make those tools more efficient and effective, and determining ways in which the risks can be identified and addressed. The paper called for greater cooperation between regulators, operators and players, recognizing each has an important role in determining the best ways to minimize the harms associated with gambling.
Some highlights of the paper include:
- Establish the objective as making gambling safer for all players through education and awareness resources. This includes limit-setting tools, self-assessment tools and revising policies for on-site access to personal credit (ATMs, credit cards and limits on house credit, which ensures that the operator has ownership in the process).
- Operators must take a direct role in keeping their players safe. They see firsthand the risky behavior in their customers and have the ability to understand their players’ playing activities and payment practices.
- Operators can respond to a customer exhibiting risky behavior through well-designed messages and personal intervention with trained staff on the floor intervening when a customer escalates their risk levels.
- Success in “future-proofing” will require cooperative efforts from operators, regulators and customers.
The issue that remains with responsible gambling programs is evidence showing that reliable and effective changes ensue in a customer’s behavior. While there is some evidence showing that responsible gambling tools create positive changes in behavior and reduce risk, the adoption rate of such tools is still too low. More work needs to be done to provide messaging that stimulates self-evaluation and personal relevance. Players need to receive messaging that instills autonomy and assists the player in their decision making.
Additionally, self-assessment tools must provide immediate results with personalized and actionable feedback. It’s equally important to respond to the risk as much as just identifying it. While self-assessment tools provide a window to communicate with players, more research is needed to evaluate its effectiveness on actual behavioral change.
Apr 24, 2020 | PROFESSIONALS, RESEARCH
Youth gambling behavior, as reflected in the Minnesota Student Survey (MSS), has been analyzed periodically since 1992. Information from the 2019 survey was recently analyzed by Randy Stinchfield, Ph.D., retired gambling researcher at the University of Minnesota Medical School.
Some of the more significant trends and findings from the latest survey data include:
- For the majority of students, gambling participation has decreased significantly. When gambling items were first included in the MSS in 1992, youth gambling participation rates were 70%. However, now 70% represents the portion of youth who do not gamble.
- The rate of problem gambling remains essentially unchanged from the last survey in 2016 (0.5%; an additional 2% report problems associated with their gambling).
- Boys gamble more than girls (38.5% vs. 21.1%) and gamble more frequently than girls (9.7% vs. 3.4%).
- Fewer students were gambling in 2019 than were gambling in 1992 (84% of boys in 1992 vs. 39% in 2019; 62% of girls in 1992 vs. 21% in 2019).
- Fewer students were gambling frequently in 2019 than were gambling frequently in 1992 (23% of boys in 1992 vs. 10% in 2019; 6% of girls in 1992 vs. 3% in 2019).
- Fewer underage students reported buying lottery products in 2019 than in 1992 (43% of boys in 1992 vs. 8% in 2019; 38% of girls in 1992 vs. 7% in 2019). A fact sheet highlighting the study findings and the full research study can be viewed here.
Q&A WITH DR. STINCHFIELD
We asked Dr. Stinchfield about the results of his analysis, what the findings suggest about youth gambling in Minnesota, and what future studies might entail.
Q: Why do you think that youth gambling, in general, has dropped so much?
A: It’s hard to know for sure as nobody has really studied this phenomenon. It’s probably due partially to prevention efforts in school but may also be a matter of changing interests over time. Back in 1992, gambling was new in Minnesota and may have been trendier among youth.
Q: What does the data suggest about future youth prevention efforts?
A: While prevention efforts have hopefully played a role in the decline, I think that future youth gambling prevention messaging can be focused on teaching youth about all aspects of gambling, including the odds involved and to dispel the myth of luck. I think the data also suggests that messaging should be focused on boys and certain minorities, including Native Americans, Hispanics and African Americans.
Q: Are we asking the right questions given the shift to electronic games and embedded gambling elements?
A: Yes and no. We want to continue to ask about common forms of gambling so that we can look at trends over time, but we should add new items that capture new forms of electronic gambling on smart phones.
Q: What do you think would be “best practices” from a survey perspective next time?
A: I’d like there to be more gambling items on the survey. We have tried to do this in the past but there are so many interests represented in the survey that there is limited space. The last survey included three questions related to problem gambling and four questions on participation. I would like there to be more questions about smart phone use, social media, e-sports and other items that some would consider gambling.
Page 10 of 11« First«...7891011»
