Aug 15, 2023 | RESEARCH, YOUTH GAMBLING
By Kira Landauer, MPH
See original article on The BASIS HERE.
Gambling is a common activity among adolescents. Most adolescents gamble without consequences but some experience gambling-related problems and associated harms, including disrupted social relationships, academic challenges, delinquency, and criminal behavior. Their gambling behavior might be influenced by the gambling attitudes and behaviors of their family and friends. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Megan Freund and colleagues that investigated whether exposure to other people’s gambling is associated with the gambling behavior of Australian secondary students.
What was the research question?
Is exposure to other people’s gambling associated with past-month gambling, types of gambling activities, and at-risk or problem gambling among a sample of Australian adolescents?
What did the researchers do?
Students (n = 6,377) from 93 secondary schools in the Australian states of Victoria and Queensland participated in the Australian Secondary Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey. Participants reported whether they had ever gambled and their past-month gambling behaviors, including the types of gambling activities they engaged in (i.e., hard or soft1). Students who reported ever gambling were screened for problem gambling. Participants were also asked whether their parent/caregiver, brother/sister, best friend, or other relative had gambled in the past month. The researchers assessed the associations between other people’s gambling and students’ past-month gambling, types of gambling activities, and at-risk or problem gambling.
What did they find?
Thirty-one percent of students in the sample reported ever gambling and six percent had gambled in the past month. Ten percent of students who ever gambled were classified as either experiencing at-risk (8%) or problem gambling (2%). One in five students reported that someone in their household gambled in the past month. Most frequently, students reported past-month gambling among fathers (16%), followed by other relatives (14%). Students were more likely to have gambled in the past month, played any hard gambling activity, and be classified as an at-risk or problem gambler if they had a parent/caregiver, brother/sister, best friend, or other relative who had gambled in the past month. Past-month gambling and at-risk/problem gambling were most likely among students whose parent/caregiver or best friend had gambled (see Figure).
Figure. Odds ratios of the association between other people’s gambling (parent/caregiver, brother/sister, best friend, other relative/someone else) and past-month gambling and at-risk/problem gambling among a sample of Australian secondary students (n = 6,377).
Why do these findings matter?
These findings confirm the association between exposure to gambling in family and friends and gambling behaviors among adolescents. Young people with a parent/caregiver or close friend who gambled were most likely to have gambled recently, engaged in hard gambling activities, and to have experienced at-risk or problem gambling. These findings should inform future problem gambling prevention and education initiatives for young people, such as family-focused initiatives. Successful initiatives might also include skill development for young people, such as how to resist peer pressure to gamble.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
Data were self-reported, so the results might be subject to recall bias and social desirability bias. Because the study was based on a sample of adolescents and was conducted in Australia, the findings might not be generalizable to people in other places with different gambling landscapes.
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, visit our Addiction Resources page.
— Kira Landauer, MPH
1. Hard gambling activities are generally defined as having higher stakes or a more rapid pace of play (e.g., poker, casino games, sports betting) compared to soft gambling activities (e.g., lottery tickets, scratch cards).
Aug 14, 2023 | RESEARCH
For the past three years, since the start of the pandemic, NCPG has offered virtual workshops prior to its regularly scheduled annual conference. This year NCPG presented a range of speakers and topics over the course of two afternoons. One advantage of online workshops is the ability to host international speakers, who might not ordinarily be able to travel. It’s also helpful for those who cannot travel to the NCPG annual conference, providing access to excellent resources from the comfort of their computers.
Several of the presenters were from the United Kingdom, where they have been dealing with the backlash from the 2005 policies that blew the door open on gambling accessibility and are now feverishly working to increase treatment services, prevention and research. Attendees benefited from listening to the lessons learned and hopefully can apply those lessons in their own backyards.
Several researchers presented on their most recent studies looking at the effectiveness of self-exclusion programs, the links between gambling and problem debt, the ever-evolving changes in gambling and responsible gambling language, and the value of providing peer support groups for women. We heard from clinicians and their experiences treating gambling as a co-occurring disorder and about a fairly new integrative treatment model called Congruence Couple Therapy (CCT), which has been shown to have a relative advantage over individual treatment for reducing addictive and mental health symptoms and improving emotional regulation among couples. There was also a panel discussion advocating for gambling policies to move into the national spotlight. With no federal funding, and the increased opportunities to gamble, the field of gambling disorder is behind in workforce development, research and programs regulating gambling harm.
See the full Summer 2023 Northern Light Newsletter (PDF).
Jun 27, 2023 | RESEARCH, SPORTS BETTING
Read the original article on The Basis HERE.
By John Slabczynski.
Video games have drawn the attention of activists and public health advocates since as early as the 1970’s. Many of these activists have focused on the intense depictions of violence in video games and suggest that these depictions may lead to real-life violence. One area that is often neglected, however, are depictions of substance use and gambling in video games. Although regulators have begun to investigate loot boxes and their relationship with problem gambling, other forms of gambling in video games have received less attention. For example, skin betting (i.e., exchanging virtual goods for digital gambling currency) — which was first popularized by the game Counter-Strike: Global Offensive — has evolved from betting on in-game matches to skins being used as currency in other games of chance such as roulette. Many of those involved in these underground gambling networks are adolescents who are unable to engage in traditional gambling. This week, the WAGER reviews a study by Nancy Greer and colleagues that examined links between esports, skin betting, and problem gambling.
What was the research question?
How does esports and skin betting relate to other forms of gambling and gambling harms?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers recruited participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk and social media posts in online gaming communities to participate in an online survey. All participants reported either esports cash or skin betting, or gambling skins on games of chance in the past 6 months. In total, 737 participants completed the survey. The survey itself focused on four broad categories: (1) video game involvement, (2) video game-related gambling (including betting on esports), (3) traditional gambling, and (4) problem gambling and gambling-related harms. The researchers used ordinal logistic regression to test the hypothesis that video game involvement increases the likelihood of engaging in video game-related gambling, which in turn increases the likelihood of engaging in traditional gambling and experiencing gambling harms.
What did they find?
Though video game involvement related to video game-related gambling, video game-related gambling was only slightly related to traditional gambling. Consider three different video game-related types of gambling: esports cash betting, esports skin betting, and skin betting on other games of chance. Of these, only esports cash betting frequency significantly predicted involvement in traditional gambling activities. Interestingly, although the sample overall reported high rates of problem gambling and gambling harms, neither esports cash betting nor esports skin betting significantly predicted problem gambling or gambling harms. When controlling for other forms of traditional gambling, only skin gambling on games of chance was predictive of problem gambling and gambling harms (see Figure).
Figure. This figure displays the odds of experiencing problem gambling and gambling harms based on video game-related gambling behaviors. Odds ratios above 1.00 indicate that for every one unit increase in the predictor variable (video game-related gambling behaviors) the odds of being one category higher in the outcome variable (problem gambling or gambling harms) increases by X times. An odds ratio below 1.00 indicates that the odds decrease by X times. For example, a one unit increase in esports cash betting frequency would mean a participant is 1.033 times as likely to experience a one unit increase in their problem gambling severity. Only skin betting on games of chance was significantly associated with either outcome variable.
Why do these findings matter?
These findings suggest that buying skins and esports gambling are not risk factors for problem gambling in and of themselves. Rather, skin gambling on games of chance appears to increase the risk of gambling harms. It remains unclear whether individuals who gamble skins on games of chance do so because they have exhausted other financial resources, or if skin gambling on games of chance directly increases the risk of problem gambling and other gambling harms. Regardless, these findings suggest that regulatory bodies should consider focusing on gambling operators who facilitate skin gambling on games of chance, rather than other more traditional esports focused operators.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This study has significant limitations in terms of its generalizability. Participants were required to have gambled either on esports or via using skins in the past six months, so the results likely do not represent video game players as a whole. The study also failed to include anyone under the age of 18 despite the fact that many people who gamble using skins are adolescents. Additionally, due to the study’s limited sample size, the researchers were unable to conduct path analysis, an analytical technique that allows for estimating causal effects instead of only statistical associations.
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. Others who want to learn more about video game addiction can find information via the Cleveland Clinic. Additional resources can be found at the BASIS Addiction Resources page.
Figure. Reasons for gambling in Asian communities in the Greater Boston area, by percentage of respondents who identified each reason for gambling (n = 40).
Why do these findings matter?
These findings illustrate the complex and systemic issues that contribute to gambling in Asian communities in the United States, including social and cultural isolation due to challenges integrating into American society, and struggles working low-wage and stressful jobs. Asian CARES (
Figure. Key points from 
Figure 1. Gambling Pathways Questionnaire (GPQ) subscales that differentiate Class 2 from Classes 1 and 3. The total possible range for each GPQ subscale varies and is calculated by summing the responses within each subscale.
Figure 2. Gambling Pathways Questionnaire (GPQ) subscales that differentiate Class 3 from Classes 1 and 2. The total possible range for each GPQ subscale varies and is calculated by summing the responses within each subscale.
Why do these findings matter?
Recognizing the heterogeneity of pathways to problem gambling within this population is important because it allows treatment professionals to focus on the most salient risk factors for gambling problems rather than more tangential issues. For example, impulsivity is considered an important risk factor for Gambling Disorder and some interventions focus on modulating impulsivity. However, because only a subset of participants experienced heightened impulsivity, it is possible that significantly more people who experience gambling problems would instead benefit from safer product design that disrupts the conditioning aspects of gambling, such as mandatory breaks or the use of self-limit features (e.g., limiting time or amount wagered per gambling session).
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
This study only included individuals who were seeking treatment for Gambling Disorder, so the findings might not apply to non-treatment seeking individuals experiencing gambling problems. Additionally, the GPQ measures pre-gambling anxiety/depression by asking participants to retrospectively recall their feelings though research suggests