Worldwide, many young people gamble before they reach legal gambling age, with a portion experiencing gambling-related problems. To reduce the potential for harm, we need to understand the factors that shape adolescents’ gambling attitudes and behaviors as they grow up. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Nerilee Hing and colleagues that examined the gambling trajectories of Australian adolescents at different levels of gambling risk, and what influenced these trajectories during various stages of development.
What were the research questions?
What are the gambling trajectories of Australian adolescents at different levels of gambling risk? What influences these trajectories during different developmental stages?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers recruited 89 adolescents from New South Wales, Australia in 2022. They participated in interviews and online discussion communities, where they recounted their gambling experiences chronologically from childhood to present time. Participants were grouped by level of gambling risk based on a validated screen for gambling-related problems: (1) non-gambler (NG), (2) non-problem gambler (NPG), and (3) at-risk gambling or problems with gambling (ARPG). The authors performed thematic analyses to explore the gambling trajectories and their influences for each group during three developmental stages: (1) childhood, (2) early adolescence, and (3) later adolescence.
What did they find?
Childhood
Many participants were first exposed to gambling in childhood (see Figure). Most ARPGs and NPGs were introduced to gambling through their parents, and sometimes passively included in gambling (e.g., gifted scratch tickets). ARPGs, in particular, had positive memories of gambling and remembered it being a fun family activity. Parental gambling was less common for NGs, who became aware of gambling through other sources such as ads.
Early Adolescence
Participants became more aware of gambling options and opportunities during early adolescence through friends, family, ads, and mass media. NGs refrained from gambling, typically because of age restrictions or parental disapproval. Conversely, many ARPGs and NPGs began participating in gambling activities—usually betting privately with friends. Many participants became interested in sports-related betting during this time.
Later Adolescence
The gambling trajectories further diverged in later adolescence. NGs continued to refrain from gambling, and NPGs’ gambling involvement remained consistent or declined. However, ARPGs began to participate in an even wider array of gambling activities, including some high-risk activities like sports betting and skin gambling. They saw gambling as a way to bond with peers—friends often taught and encouraged gambling. Some ARPGs viewed gambling as a way to make money or to demonstrate their skill, unlike most NGs and NPGs.
Figure. Sources influencing the gambling trajectories of Australian adolescents (n = 89) at different levels of gambling risk and during different developmental stages: (1) childhood, (2) early adolescence, and (3) later adolescence. Themes pertaining to a specific risk level are indicated as such. Adapted from Hing et al. 2024. Click image to enlarge.
Why do these findings matter?
Young people’s gambling behaviors evolve as they grow up. This evolution is shaped by multiple interacting sources of influence, including parents, friends, advertisements, and sports. Youth gambling prevention should focus on specific sources of influence at different developmental stages. Educational initiatives, like the Gift Responsibly Campaign, should inform parents of the potential risks of involving their children in gambling activities (e.g., via scratch tickets). Adolescents may also benefit from initiatives that focus on the development of social skills, like resisting peer pressure to gamble.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
Findings from this study might not be generalizable to adolescents in other Australian states or countries, where the gambling landscape and norms are different. This study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias.
In today’s digital age, the allure of online gaming and gambling platforms can be enticing, often leading to harmful consequences for our youth. To help build awareness of these risks, MNAPG has created a toolkit specially designed to help schools raise awareness to students. The dynamic, easy-to-use toolkit helps schools communicate gambling and gaming information in a way that promotes safety and understanding.
The kit is free and includes materials for staff and parents (brochures and handouts, video links, PA announcements and content for parents) and materials for students (handouts, posters, bookmarks, and social media images and content).
Support is provided to participants at no cost, and includes MNAPG staff support and in-person speaker presentations. The kits benefit students, teachers, school counselors, coaches, PTA members and parents. If you’re interested in learning more about the toolkit, please contact Sonja Mertz at smertz@mnapg.org or visit https://school-toolkit.mnapg.org.
Editor’s note: This month’s WAGER was written by Kiran Chokshi, a high school senior from New York who’s interested in research about sports betting.
Many of us participated in team sports when we were younger, and some still play. Gambling has become increasingly present in sports in recent years as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision, which expanded sports betting in the U.S. Researchers have begun to examine gambling behaviors among athletes themselves, and an open question is whether adolescent team sport participation might make one more likely to gamble later in life as a young adult. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Brendan Duggan and Gretta Mohan which examined the associations between young people’s gambling behaviors and participation in team sports.
What were the research questions?
(1) Does exposure to a team sports environment in late adolescence lead to a greater likelihood of engagement in gambling as a young adult? (2) Are there gender differences in this relationship?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers collected data from Growing Up in Ireland (GUI), a longitudinal study with 2 waves of data for 5,190 participants born in 1998. Participants were asked in both waves (at age 17 or 18 in 2015 – 2016, and at age 20 in 2018 – 2019) if they participated in team sports, and also if and how often they participated in gambling activities online or in person. Participants who reported gambling once a month or more were considered to be regular gamblers.
What did they find?
The researchers found that about one-third of participants took part in team sports, and males were more likely than females to play team sports and gamble at both waves. For both males and females, team sport participation significantly predicted future gambling engagement, both in terms of online gambling and regular gambling behavior. Participants who took part in team sports at both ages 17/18 and at age 20 had 2.44 higher odds of engaging in online gambling and 2.99 higher odds of being a regular gambler at age 20, when compared to participants who did not engage in team sports at either wave. When looking at the sample of males only, these relationships were stronger; males who participated in team sports at both waves had 3.8 higher odds of online gambling and 4.02 higher odds of gambling regularly, when compared to males who did not play team sports in both waves.
Figure. Figure shows the percentage of participants engaging in online or regular gambling based on their participation in team sports. Total N = 5,190. Adapted from Duggan & Mohan (2022).
Why do these findings matter?
Many professional sports teams and leagues are embracing betting and collaborating with sportsbooks, with some going so far as to sign sponsorship deals. Although gambling is prohibited to some extent among athletes at most levels of competition, problem gambling is a potential risk among amateur and professional athletes. The results from this study highlight how adolescent team sport participation predicts future online and land-based gambling, which could potentially lead to Gambling Disorder. Interestingly, many prevention groups, such as the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports, recommend participation in team sports, clubs, and community groups as a positive outlet; however, this research suggests that kids who are playing sports might benefit from targeted public health programs about problem gambling. Future research should test the effectiveness of these prevention programs among amateur and elite athletes alike.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations in this study?
Although the sample size in this study was large, all of the participants were from Ireland, so it’s unclear if these findings are generalizable to people in other countries with different gambling practices. The data in this study was also self-reported, so might under- or over-report actual gambling behaviors. A more specific limitation of the study is that it did not track the amount of gambling spending per person, so the authors were unable to determine how much money each participant spent or lost while gambling.
For more information:
If you or anyone you know has a gambling problem, visit the National Council on Problem Gambling for tools and resources to help. Resources for preventing underage gambling are also accessible through YouthDecide. For additional resources, including gambling and self-help tools, visit our Addiction Resources page.
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). Click image to enlarge.
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).
Gaming disorder (GD) is characterized by impaired control over playing video games and a continuation or escalation of gaming despite negative consequences. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a popular approach for quickly identifying and addressing substance use disorders, and it may also be beneficial for gaming problems. This week, The WAGER reviews a study by Jennifer J. Park and colleagues that examined clinician attitudes toward and approaches to screening, treatment, and referral for GD in addiction and youth service settings.
What were the research questions?
What are clinician attitudes toward screening for GD in addiction and youth service settings? Which behavioral change techniques would clinicians use to treat GD, and how confident are clinicians in using each technique?
What did the researchers do?
The researchers surveyed 88 experienced clinicians (e.g., counselors, psychologists, social workers) who provide SBIRT to adolescents or adults from 35 gambling, substance use disorder, and youth service programs across New Zealand. They reported their average monthly caseload of clients with GD and completed questionnaires that assessed their attitudes toward screening for GD and the actions they would take if GD was detected in a client. Participants also reported the types of behavioral change techniques1 they would use to treat GD and their level of confidence with each technique. The researchers calculated frequencies, averages, and percentages for the survey items.
What did they find?
Most clinicians had at least one consultation in the past year with someone with gaming-related problems (84.1%) and reported a mean monthly caseload of 4.1 individuals experiencing gaming problems. The majority of clinicians felt somewhat comfortable or very comfortable with screening for GD. Barriers to screening included lack of clinician awareness of available screening tools and the perception that people accessing services would not want to be screened for GD (see Figure). Nearly one-fifth of participants felt that screening and referral for GD is not a part of their job.
Figure. Clinician attitudes toward screening for GD in addiction and youth service programs, with the percentage of clinicians (n = 88) who agreed/strongly agreed, felt neutral, or disagreed/strongly disagreed with each statement. Click image to enlarge.
Most clinicians agreed that if a client disclosed a gaming problem they would administer a screen, conduct further assessment, or help address immediate gaming-related harms. About one-third of clinicians indicated they often or always refer the client to another agency. Clinicians reported they generally felt confident in delivering behavioral change techniques, including motivational interviewing, relapse prevention, problem-solving, and skill-building. They felt less confident in using behavioral change techniques that require gaming-specific knowledge, such as exposure therapy, social comparison, and imaginal desensitization. Finally, 58% of clinicians had attended a general information session about GD, yet few reported receiving training on screening or treatment for GD.
Why do these findings matter?
This study found that clinicians in addiction and youth service settings were largely supportive of providing SBIRT for gaming-related problems, but that challenges and barriers exist. Challenges, including lack of awareness of appropriate screening tools and low-to-moderate confidence in applying treatment techniques that require gaming-specific knowledge, might be addressed through training. Clinicians might benefit from increased education around gaming, such as the 15-hour Foundations in Gaming Disorder course. The low referral rate to external treatment or support potentially reflects the absence of referral pathways and specialized gaming treatment options in New Zealand. This finding points to the need for a comprehensive healthcare approach to support individuals with gaming-related problems.
Every study has limitations. What are the limitations of this study?
The actual prevalence of gaming-related problems in addiction and youth services cannot be determined from this study because this study only included clinicians who had provided care to at least one individual with an internet-enabled addiction. Findings from this study might not be generalizable to other types of clinical settings (e.g., primary care) and geographic locations outside of New Zealand.
For more information:
Do you think you or someone you know has a problem with gaming? Visit this webpage hosted by the Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling for treatment and support services for gaming disorder and internet addiction.
Simply put, it’s a bad idea. What may seem like a fun and harmless gift for a young person can lead many to a gambling addiction as they get older. Why? Years of research around the globe have shown that children don’t have the cognitive brain development to understand the potential risks of gambling, especially if they experience a big win early on.
Youth Gambling Poses Significant Risk for Gambling Addiction
Gambling among youth can be more than an innocent, recreational endeavor. According to the American Psychiatric Association, 10 to 15% of young people have significant gambling problems compared to fewer than 4% of adults.
Youth gambling is particularly concerning because researchers have established a link between the age at which a person first gambles and the occurrence of excessive or problem gambling later in life. Problem gamblers say they began gambling as early as 10 years of age, on average.
It can be difficult to know if a young person is gambling and on the verge of developing a gambling disorder, but there are risk factors and signs to be aware of. Some of these include:
· History of problem gambling in the family – children of parents who gamble are nearly twice as likely to be weekly or daily gamblers
· Easy access to gambling. With smart phones, it’s not that difficult for youth to sidestep age checks, especially on unregulated sites.
· Trouble concentrating on homework because of preoccupation with gambling
· Thinking that gambling is an easy way to make money
· Feeling the need to bet more and more money
· Becoming more isolated from family and friends and choosing to spend more time gambling (often in secret).
Today’s youth have more access to gambling and gambling-like games than any previous generation. One concern is the way in which virtual casinos cater to youth, effectively making them “gamblers in training.” Another cause for alarm are loot boxes, an increasingly popular aspect of video games that can produce the same dynamics of traditional gambling. Read more on the convergence of gambling and gaming.
Studies have also shown that many adolescents gamble by purchasing lottery products, particularly scratch tickets, which often serve as an introduction to gambling. For this reason, the Minnesota Lottery and Minnesota Alliance on Problem Gambling (MNAPG) participate in Gift Responsibly, an international responsible gambling campaign to raise awareness about the risks of underage lottery play
Parents who are concerned about the gambling behavior of their children can take several steps. Some of these include:
· Learn about the risks associated with gambling activities
· Educate your child about the difference between responsible gambling and excessive gambling
· Monitor internet use
· Be alert for unusual changes in your child’s behavior
Interested in reading more about youth gambling in Minnesota? Click here to read the analysis of the 2019 Minnesota Student Survey by Dr. Randy Stinchfield.
If you feel your child may have a gambling problem, call the Minnesota Problem Helpline at (800) 333-HOPE (4673). Counseling for Minnesotans with a gambling disorder is provided by the state of Minnesota at no cost — for both the gambler and their families. MNAPG website also offers helpful resources.
