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). Click image to enlarge.
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.
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). Click image to enlarge.
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.
What do you think? Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.
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.
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.
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 at 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.
While much of the emphasis of problem gambling programs is on making sure that people with disordered gambling are able to find the help they need, it’s also important to understand the attitudes and beliefs of those who play responsibly.
Such insights can help inform policies and practices designed to prevent and reduce potential harms associated with gambling.
One of the ways to objectively identify and measure the extent of responsible play within a sample of players is through the positive play scale (PPS). The PPS looks at a gambler’s beliefs and behaviors and can be used by those in the gambling industry to assess the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategies, identify specific areas for future focus, and examine the potential value of new responsible gambling initiatives aimed at promoting healthy patterns of gambling.
With this in mind, NPGA commissioned Richard Wood, PhD, noted gambling researcher, to study the level of responsible gambling in Minnesota starting in September 2019. The study, which sampled 1,517 Minnesota players, will provide a benchmark so that future changes in responsible gambling behavior, as measured by the PPS, can be noted over time in response to prevention messaging targeted to players’ behaviors and beliefs.
BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS MEASURED The study measured two sets of beliefs: personal responsibility (the extent to which a player believes they should take ownership of their gambling behavior) and gambling literacy (the extent to which a player has an accurate understanding about the nature of gambling.) The survey also measured two sets of behaviors: honesty and control (extent to which players are honest with others about their gambling behavior and feel in control of their behavior) and pre-commitment (extent to which a player considers how much money and time they should spend gambling).
INITITAL FINDINGS
Most Minnesota players scored highest on personal responsibility, followed by honesty and control. However, more than half of all players scored medium or low on gambling literacy and pre-commitment. In fact, Minnesota’s pre-commitment scores were lower than those from three other states and Canada (which has invested more funds than the United States in responsible gambling initiatives over the last 10-plus years).
There were no significant differences in beliefs and behaviors based on gender. However, there were marked differences in PPS scores by age. While it’s not known why positive play increases systematically with age, it may have to do with overall exposure to responsible gambling messaging or that messaging is tailored to older people. The results show that the literacy rates are quite low among those aged 18-44, suggesting that better messaging can be developed for younger players.
As it relates to the various games people played, it was clear that those who limited themselves to lottery games had higher (better) PPS scores. Those who played a variety of games exhibited a lower PPS score, particularly for gambling literacy. It’s not clear if exposure to a range of games leads to decrements in positive play or whether those who do not hold positive play beliefs or engage in positive play behaviors are more apt to play multiple games more frequently.
Another key measurement was the relationship between positive play and satisfaction with gambling. Players were more satisfied with the gambling experience when they accepted personal responsibility for their gambling, were honest and in control about their gambling, and set limits on time and money spent. Surprisingly, gambling literacy did not correlate with player satisfaction. This was an unexpected finding and is something to be explored as we develop strategies. The results also suggest that segmentation is critical to understanding the responsible gambling needs of different players.
SURVEY IMPLICATIONS The insights provided by this study will help us design and target prevention messaging to specific kinds of players, including by age or type of play. If we are to succeed in reducing the overall harm that gambling can have on individuals and families, it makes sense to develop multiple strategies that help build knowledge around the risks involved.
