In the summer of 2014 I was commissioned to review problem gambling in Great Britain (the fall out of which I wrote about in detail in a previous blog). Earlier last year, a detailed report by Heather Wardle and her colleagues examined gambling behaviour in England and Scotland by combining the 2012 data from the Health Survey for England (HSE; n=8,291 aged 16 years and over) and the 2012 Scottish Health Survey (SHeS; n=4,815). To be included in the final data analysis, participants had to have completed at least one of the gambling participation questions. This resulted in a total sample of 11,774 participants. So what did the research find? Here is a brief summary of the main results:
- Two-thirds of the sample (65%) had gambled in the past year, with men (68%) gambling more than women (62%). As with the British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS), past year participation was greatly influenced by the playing of the bi-weekly National Lottery (lotto) game. Removal of those individuals that only played the National Lottery meant that 43% had gambled during the past year (46% males and 40% females).
- Gambling was more likely to be carried out by younger people (50% among those aged 16-24 years and 52% among those aged 25-34 years).
- The findings were similar to the previous BGPS reports and showed that the most popular forms of gambling were playing the National Lottery (52%; 56% males and 49% females), scratchcards (19%; 19% males and 20% females), other lottery games (14%; 14% both males and females), horse race betting (10%; 12% males and 8% females), machines in a bookmaker (3%; 5% males and 1% females), slot machines (7%; 10% males and 4% females), online betting with a bookmaker (5%; 8% males and 2% females), offline sports betting (5%; 8% males and 1% females), private betting (5%; 8% males and 2% females), casino table games (3%; 5% males and 1% females), offline dog race betting (3%; 4% males and 2% females), online casino, slots and/or bing (3%; 4% males and 2% females), betting exchanges (1%; males 2% and females 0%), poker in pubs and clubs (1%; 2% males and 0% females), spread betting (1%; 1% males and 0% females).
- The only form of gambling (excluding lottery games) where females were more likely to gamble was playing bingo (5%; 7% females and 3% males).
- Most participants gambled on one or two different activities a year (1.7 mean average across the total sample).
- Problem gambling assessed using the Problem Gambling Severity (PGSI) criteria was reported to be 0.4%, with males (0.7%) being significantly more likely to be problem gamblers than females (0.1%). This equates to approximately 180,200 British adults aged 16 years and over.
- Problem gambling assessed using the criteria of the fourth Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) was reported to be 0.5%, with males (0.8%) being significantly more likely to be problem gamblers than females (0.1%). This equates to approximately 224,100 British adults aged 16 years and over.
- Using the PGSI screen, problem gambling rates were highest among young men aged 16-24 years (1.7%) and lowest among men aged 65-74 years (0.4%). Using the DSM-IV screen, problem gambling rates were highest among young men aged 16-24 years (2.1%) and lowest among men aged over 74 years (0.4%).
- Problem gambling rates were also examined by type of gambling activity. Results showed that among past year gamblers, problem gambling was highest among spread betting (20.9%), played poker in pubs or clubs (13.2%), bet on other events with a bookmaker (12.9%), bet with a betting exchange (10.6%) and played machines in bookmakers (7.2%).
- The activities with the lowest rates of problem gambling were playing the National Lottery (0.9%) and scratchcards (1.7%).
- Problem gambling rates were highest among individuals that had participated in seven or more activities in the past year (8.6%) and lowest among those that had participated in a single activity (0.1%).
The authors also carried out a latent class analysis and identified seven different types of gambler among both males and females. The male groups comprised:
- Cluster A: non-gamblers (33%)
- Cluster B: National Lottery only gamblers (22%)
- Cluster C: National Lottery and scratchcard gamblers only (20%)
- Cluster D: Minimal, no National Lottery [gambling on 1-2 activities] (9%)
- Cluster E: Moderate [gambling on 3-6 activities] (12%)
- Cluster F: Multiple [gambling on 6-10 activities] (3%)
- Cluster G: multiple, high [gambling on at least 11 activities] (1%).
The female groups comprised:
- Cluster A: non-gamblers (40%)
- Cluster B: National Lottery only gamblers (21%)
- Cluster C: National Lottery and scratchcard gamblers only (7%)
- Cluster D: Minimal, no National Lottery (8%)
- Cluster E: moderate, less varied [2-3 gambling activities, mainly lottery-related] (8%)
- Cluster F: moderate, more varied [2-3 gambling activities but wider range of activities] (6%)
- Cluster G: multiple [gambling on at least four activities] (6%)
Using these groupings, the prevalence of male problem gambling was highest among those in Cluster G: multiple high group (25.0%) followed by Cluster F: multiple group (3.3%) and Cluster E: moderate group (2.6%). The prevalence of problem gambling was lowest among those in the Cluster B; National Lottery Draw only group (0.1%) followed by Cluster C: minimal – lotteries and scratchcards group (0.7%). The prevalence of female problem gambling was highest among those in the Cluster G: multiple group (1.8%) followed by those in Cluster F: moderate – more varied group (0.6%). The number of female gamblers was too low to carry out any further analysis. The report also examined problem gambling (either DSM-IV or PGSI) by gambling activity type.
- The prevalence of problem gambling was highest among spread-bettors (20.9%), poker players in pubs or clubs (13.2%), bettors on events other than sports or horse/dog races (12.9%), betting exchange users (10.6%) and those that played machines in bookmakers (7.2%).
- The lowest problem gambling prevalence rates were among those that played the National Lottery (0.9%) and scratchcards (1.7%).
- These figures are very similar to those found in the 2010 BGPS study although problem gambling among those that played machines in bookmakers was lower (7.2%) than in the 2010 BGPS study (8.8%).
- As with the BGPS 2010 study, the prevalence of problem gambling was highest among those who had participated in seven or more activities in the past year (8.6%) and lowest among those who had taken part in just one activity (0.1%). Furthermore, problem gamblers participated in an average 6.6 activities in the past year.
Given that the same instruments were used to assess problem gambling, the results of the most recent surveys using data combined from the Health Survey for England (HSE) and Scottish Health Survey (SHeS) compared with the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) do seem to suggest that problem gambling in Great Britain has decreased over the last few years (from 0.9% to 0.5%). However, Seabury and Wardle again urged caution and noted:
“Comparisons of the combined HSE/SHeS data with the BGPS estimates should be made with caution. While the methods and questions used in each survey were the same, the survey vehicle was not. HSE and SHeS are general population health surveys, whereas the BGPS series was specifically designed to understand gambling behaviour and attitudes to gambling in greater detail. It is widely acknowledged that different survey vehicles can generate different estimates using the same measures because they can appeal to different types of people, with varying patterns of behaviour…Overall, problem gambling rates in Britain appear to be relatively stable, though we caution readers against viewing the combined health survey results as a continuation of the BGPS time series”.
There are other important caveats to take into account including the differences between the two screen tools used in the BGPS, HSE and SHeS studies. Although highly correlated, evidence from all the British surveys suggests that the PGSI and DSM-IV screens capture slightly different groups of problem gamblers. For instance, a 2010 study that I co-authored with Jim Orford, Heather Wardle, and others (in the journal International Gambling Studies) using data from the 2007 BGPS showed that the PGSI may under-estimate certain forms of gambling-related harm (particularly by women) that are more likely to be picked up by some of the DSM-IV items. Our analysis also suggested that the DSM-IV appears to measure two different factors (i.e., gambling-related harm and gambling dependence) rather than a single one. Another important distinction is that the two screens were developed for very different purposes (even though they are attempting to assess the same construct). The PGSI was specifically developed for use in population surveys whereas the DSM-IV was developed with clinical populations in mind. Given these differences, it is therefore unsurprising that national surveys that utilize the screens end up with slightly different results comprising slightly different groups of people.
It also needs stressing (as noted by the authors of most of the national gambling surveys in Great Britain) that the absolute number of problem gamblers identified in any of the surveys published to date has equated to approximately 60 people. To detect any significant differences statistically between any of the studies carried out to date requires very large sample sizes. Given the very low numbers of problem gamblers and the tiny number of pathological gamblers, it is hard to assess with complete accuracy whether there have been any significant changes in problem and pathological gambling between all the published studies over time. Wardle and her colleagues concluded that:
“Overall, based on this evidence, it appears that problem gambling rates in England and Scotland are broadly stable. Whilst problem gambling rates according to either the DSM-IV or the PGSI were higher in 2010, the estimate between 2007 and the health surveys data were similar. Likewise, problem gambling rates according to the DSM-IV and the PGSI individually did not vary statistically between surveys, meaning that they were relatively similar” (p.130).
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Griffiths, M.D. (2014). Problem gambling in Great Britain: A brief review. London: Association of British Bookmakers.
Orford, J., Wardle, H., Griffiths, M.D., Sproston, K. & Erens, B. (2010). PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey: Reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement. International Gambling Studies, 10, 31-44.
Seabury, C. & Wardle, H. (2014). Gambling behaviour in England and Scotland. Birmingham: Gambling Commission.
Wardle, H. (2013). Gambling Behaviour. In Rutherford, L., Hinchliffe S., Sharp, C. (Eds.), The Scottish Health Survey: Vol 1: Main report. Edinburgh.
Wardle, H., Moody. A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M.D., Hussey, D. & Dobbie, F. (2011). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.
Wardle, H., & Seabury, C. (2013). Gambling Behaviour. In Craig, R., Mindell, J. (Eds.) Health Survey for England 2012 [Vol 1]. Health, social care and lifestyles. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre.
Wardle, H., Seabury, C., Ahmed, H., Payne, C., Byron, C., Corbett, J. & Sutton, R. (2014). Gambling behaviour in England and Scotland: Findings from the Health Survey for England 2012 and Scottish Health Survey 2012. London: NatCen.
Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M. D., Constantine, R., & Pigott, S. (2007). The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. London: National Centre for Social Research.
Wardle, H., Sutton, R., Philo, D., Hussey, D. & Nass, L. (2013). Examining Machine Gambling in the British Gambling Prevalence Survey. Report by NatCen to the Gambling Commission, Birmingham.
Today’s blog is the second part of a two-part article (the first of which can be found here). The previous blog briefly examined risk factors in adolescent gamblers and signs of problem gambling in adolescents. The three lists below highlight some early warning signs of a possible gambling problem, some definite signs and a thumbnail profile of a problem gambler. This is followed by some (hopefully) helpful tips and hints.
Early warning signs of a gambling addiction
- Unexplained absences from home
- Continual lying about day-to-day movements
- Constant shortage of money
- General increase in secretiveness
- Neglect of studies, family, friends, health and appearance
- Agitation (if unable to gamble)
- Mood swings
- Loss of friends and social life
- Gambling seen as a legitimate way of making money
Signs of a definite gambling problem
- Large debts (which are always explained away)
- Trouble at school or college about non-attendance
- Unexplained borrowing from family and friends
- Unwillingness to repay borrowed money
- Total preoccupation with gambling and spending money on gambling
- Gambling alone for long periods
- Constantly chasing losses in an attempt to win money back
- Constantly gambling until all money is gone
- Complete alienation and rejection from family and friends
- Lying about the extent of their gambling to family and friends
- Committing crimes as a way of getting money for gambling or paying off debts
- Gambling overriding all other interests and obligations
Profile of the problem adolescent gambler
- Unwilling to accept reality and has a lack of responsibility for gambling
- Gambles to escape deeper problems (and the gambling environment may even be a substitute for parental affection)
- Insecure and feels inferior to parents and elders
- Wants good things without making an effort and loves games of chance
- Likes to be a ‘big shot’ and feels it’s important to win (gambling offers them status and a way of defining achievement)
- Likes to compete
- Feels guilty with losses acting as a punishing behaviour
- May be depressed
- Low self-esteem and confidence
- Other compulsive and/or addictive traits
Finally it is worth noting some of the ‘trigger’ situations and circumstances that a gambling problem might first come to light. Paul Bellringer has highlighted an array of situations that provide an opportunity to help the gambler focus on their need to change. These are:
- Acceptance by the gambler that control has been lost: This is the step before they ask for help.
- Asking for help: Having realised for themselves that gambling has taken control over their life, they may reach out to those closest to them
- Observation of too much time spent in a gambling environment: Such observations by friends or family may provoke discussion as to how this is affecting the life of a gambler.
- Getting in to financial trouble/Accumulation of debts: This might be a crisis point at which problem gambling might raise its head for the first time.
- Uncovered lies: Realization that the gambler has been caught lying may lead to admissions about their gambling problems
- Dwindling social circles/Losing close relationships: These observation may again lead to problem gambling being discovered by family or friends.
- Discovered crime: This is usually a real crisis point that the family may discover the truth for the first time.
- Homelessness: Being thrown out of the family home may be the trigger for problem gamblers to be honest for the first time about the mess they are in.
Discovering that you are the parent of an adolescent problem gambler can be highly stressful – particularly as it is often a problem that parents feel they have to face on their own. Before getting involved with their children parents have to understand the problem as well as the process of problem gambling. By the time a young gambler acknowledges they have a problem, the family may have already gone through a lot of emotional turmoil including feelings of anger, sadness, puzzlement and guilt. Parents should try and get in touch with a helping agency as soon as possible. The following points are appropriate for parents either during or as a follow-up to their initial contact with a helping agency.
- Remember that you are not the only family facing this problem.
- You may be able to help your child by talking the problem through but it is probably better if a skilled person outside the family is also involved.
- Keep in mind that it is a serious matter and that the gambler cannot “just give up”.
- Take a firm stand; whilst it might feel easier to give in to demands and to believe everything they say, this allows your child to avoid facing the problem.
- Remember that your child likes to gamble and is getting something from the activity quite apart from money.
- Do not forget that gamblers are good at lying – to themselves as well as you
- Let your child know that you believe it is a problem even though they may not admit it.
- Encourage your child all the time as they have to be motivated to change
- Be prepared to accept that your child may not be motivated to change until they are faced with an acute crisis.
- Leave the responsibility for gambling and its consequences with the gambler, but also help them to face up to it and to work at overcoming the dependency.
- Do not condemn them, as it is likely to be unhelpful and may drive them further into gambling.
- Setting firm and fair boundaries for your child’s behaviour is appropriate and is likely to be constructive in providing a framework with which to address the dependency.
- Despite what your child may have done it is important to let them know that you still love them. This should be done even if you have to make a ‘tough love’ decision such as asking them to leave home.
- Do not trust them with money until the dependency has been broken. If they are agreeable it is a helpful strategy for a defined short period of time to manage their money for them. In addition, help develop their financial management skills.
- Encourage other alternative activities. Try to identify other activities that the child is good at and encourage them in that.
- Give praise for any achievements (however small) although don’t go over the top.
- Provide opportunities to contribute to the family or the running of the house to develop responsibility.
- Try to listen with understanding and look at them with pleasure. Communication channels between child and parent can easily be blocked so simple measures can pay big dividends.
- Bear in mind that as a parent you will need support too through this long process of helping the child. You will need the support of your family and may also need additional support from a helping agency.
Having successfully broken a dependency on gambling, it is important to put in place measures that will help prevent gambling relapses. Useful strategies include the following:
- Place a limit on future gambling, or avoid gambling altogether.
- Internalise learning and avoid reverting to ingrained reactions to difficult or stressful situations.
- Watch for situations and circumstances that trigger the urge to gamble and be ready to face them.
- Nurture self-esteem – work at feeling good about yourself.
- Develop a range of interests that, preferably, meet similar needs to those that were previously being met by gambling.
- Spend time and energy working at building good human relationships.
- Reassess the significance of money and endeavour to reduce its importance in your life.
- Continue to explore, on occasion, reasons why gambling became so significant in your life.
Other more general steps that gamblers should be encouraged to do include:
- Be honest with themselves and others
- Deal with all outstanding debts
- Accept responsibility for their gambling
- Abstain from gambling while trying to break the dependency
- Talk about how gambling makes them feel
- Take one day at a time
- Keep a record of ‘gambling-free’ days
- Be positive and not give up after a ‘slip’ or a ‘lapse’
- Reward themselves after a gambling-free period
- Develop alternative interests
Parents and practitioners should also be aware that problems are likely to be avoided when the young gambler keeps in control of the situation and ensures that their gambling remains a social activity. The following brief guide is aimed particularly for working with young gamblers but applicable to everyone. It will help ensure that gambling remains an enjoyable and problem-free experience. It is wise to remember that:
- When you are gambling you are buying entertainment, not investing money
- You are unlikely to make money from gambling
- The gaming industry and the government are the real winners
- You should only gamble with money that you can afford to lose
- You should set strict limits on how much you will gamble
- To make profit from gambling you should quit when ahead
- Gambling should only take up a small amount of your time and interest
- Problems will arise if you become preoccupied with gambling
- Gambling within your means is a fun and exciting activity
- Gambling outside your means is likely to create serious problems
- You should not gamble to escape from worries or pressures
- The feeling of being powerful and in control when gambling is a delusion
- A gambling dependency is as damaging as other addictions
- Always gamble responsibly
Hopefully the two parts of this blog have highlighted a potential danger among children and adolescence. It covered risk factors, warning signs to look for, and strategies to help those with a problem. Through education and awareness, it is hoped that gambling problems will be viewed no differently from other potentially addictive substances and that schools will take the issue seriously.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Bellringer, P. (1999). Understanding Problem Gamblers. London : Free Association Books.
Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Adolescent Gambling. London: Routledge.
Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence. Leicester: British Psychological Society/Blackwells.
Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Adolescent gambling: Risk factors and implications for prevention, intervention, and treatment. In D. Romer (Ed.), Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward An Integrated Approach (pp. 223-238). London: Sage.
Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Adolescent gambling in Great Britain. Education Today: Quarterly Journal of the College of Teachers. 58(1), 7-11.
Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Adolescent gambling. In B. Bradford Brown & Mitch Prinstein (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence (Volume 3) (pp.11-20). San Diego: Academic Press.
Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Adolescent gambling via social networking sites: A brief overview. Education and Health, 31, 84-87.
Griffiths, M.D. & Linsey, A. (2006). Adolescent gambling: Still a cause for concern? Education and Health, 24, 9-11.
Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2010). Adolescent gambling on the Internet: A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 22, 59-75.
Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2000). Risk factors in adolescence: The case of gambling, video-game playing and the internet. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 199-225.
Throughout my career, I have constantly pointed out that I met very few people that are genuinely addicted to playing weekly or bi-weekly Lotto games. When stating this, some people counter my assertion that they know people who spend far too much money on buying Lotto tickets and that it is areal problem in their life. However, this is a classic instance of confusing ‘problem gambling’ with ‘gambling addiction’. These two terms are not inter-changeable. When I give lectures on gambling addiction I always point out that “all gambling addicts are problem gamblers but not all problem gamblers are gambling addicts”.
Nowhere is this more relevant than in the print and broadcast media. For instance, I have been one of the co-authors on the last two British Gambling Prevalence Surveys (published in 2007 and 2011). In these surveys we assessed the rate of problem gambling using two different problem gambling screens. Neither of these screens assesses ‘gambling addiction’ and problem gambling is operationally defined according to the number of criteria endorsed on each screen. For instance, in both studies we used the criteria of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) to estimate the prevalence of problem gambling. Anyone that endorsed three or more items (out of ten) was classed as a problem gambler. Anyone that endorsed five or more items was classed as a pathological gambler. Pathological gambling is more akin to gambling addiction but we found only a tiny percentage of our national participants could be classed as such. What we did report was that 0.9% of our sample were problem gamblers (i.e., they scored three or more on the DSM-IV criteria).
What we didn’t say (and never have said) was that 0.9% of British adults (approximately 500,000 people) are addicted to gambling. However, many stories in the British media when they talk about problem gambling will claim ‘half a million adults in Great Britain are gambling addicts’ (or words to that effect). I am not trying to downplay the issue of gambling addiction. I know only too well the pain and suffering it can bring to individuals and their families. Also, just because I may not define a problem gambler as being genuinely addicted (by my own criteria as outlined in a previous blog), that doesn’t mean that their problem gambling might not be impacting in major negatively detrimental ways on their life (e.g., relationship problems, financial problems, work problems, etc.).
However, returning to the issue of being ‘addicted’ to Lotto games I have always stated in many of my published papers on both addiction and (more specifically) gambling addiction, that addictions rely on constant rewards. A person cannot be genuinely addicted unless they are receiving constant rewards (i.e., their behaviour being reinforced). Playing a Lotto game in which the result of the gamble is only given once or twice a week is not something that can provide constant rewards. A person can only be rewarded (i.e., reinforced) once or twice a week. Basically, Lotto games are discontinuous and have a very low event frequency (once or twice a week). Continuous gambling activities (like the playing of a slot machine) have very high event frequencies (e.g., a typical pub slot machine in the UK has an event frequency of 10-12 times a minute). Gambling activities with high event frequencies tend to have higher associations with problem gambling, and are more likely to be associated with genuine gambling addictions.
That doesn’t mean people can’t spend too much money buying lottery tickets. Buying ticket after ticket can indeed lead people to have a gambling problem with Lotto. However, I know of no addiction criterion that relates to the amount of money spent engaging in an activity. Obviously the lack of money can lead to some signs of problematic and/or addictive behaviour (such as committing criminal activity in order to get money the person hasn’t got to gamble) but this is a consequence of the behaviour not a criterion in itself. In most of the behavioural addictions that I carry out research into (exercise addiction, sex addiction, video game addiction, etc.), there is little money spent but some of these behaviours for a small minority of people are genuinely addictions.
One of the reasons I felt the need to write this article was a press release I saw the other day from the Salvation Army in New Zealand. The story basically said that for some people, playing Lotto was an addictive activity. Here are some of the things the press release said:
“The Salvation Army Problem Gambling service is seeing an increase in the number of clients for whom Lotto products has become a problem for them and their families. ‘When it becomes an addiction, gambling creates havoc in people’s lives’, says Commissioner Alistair Herring, National Director of Addiction Services. ‘The gambling of some of our clients has led to criminal offending, domestic violence, loss of the family home, and – most commonly – children going without food and other basic needs. Regrettably, some people are unable to buy a simple product like a Lotto ticket without it leading to harm for themselves and others. A Lotto ticket can seem harmless but once their purchase becomes an addiction the results can be devastating’…In the past year, The Salvation Army problem gambling programme assisted over 1400 clients most of whom used Lotto. Fifty-seven clients said Lotto was the most significant aspect of their gambling problem. ‘This sort of sales promotion without fully understanding the damage the product can have on an individual and their family is irresponsible. New Zealand is moving toward food labelling that identifies additives dangerous to health. Yet Lotto tickets are sold without any warning that they can lead to health dangers through addiction’. One of the results of Lotteries Commission activity is that Countdown supermarkets recently started selling Lotto tickets at the checkout”.
Many of you reading this may think I am being a little pedantic but while I don’t doubt that buying too many Lotto tickets can be problematic if the person buying them simply can’t afford it, the resulting behaviour is ‘problem gambling’ not ‘gambling addiction’. In relation to my own criteria for addiction, the only way someone could be addicted to Lotto was if they were actually addicted to the buying of the tickets rather than the outcome of the gamble itself. This is not as bizarre as it sounds as some research that I carried out in the late 1990s and early 2000s with Dr. Richard Wood appeared to show that a small proportion of adolescents (aged 11 to 15 years) were addicted to playing both Lotto and scratchcard lottery games.
While it is theoretically possible for kids to be hooked on lottery scratchcards (as you can play again and again and again if you have the time, money, and opportunity), we found it strange that adolescents should have ‘addiction’ problems with Lotto. However, in follow-up qualitative focus groups, some adolescents reported that they actually got a buzz from the buying of Lotto tickets and scratchcards because it was an illegal activity for them (i.e., only those aged 16 years or older can play lottery games in the UK so the buying of tickets below this age is a criminal offence). Basically, there was a small minority of kids that were getting a buzz or high from the illegality of buying a lottery ticket rather than the gambling itself.
Along with Michael Auer, I published a paper in the journal Frontiers in Psychology where we argued game type was actually irrelevant in the development of gambling problems. We provided two examples that demonstrate that it is the structural characteristics rather than the game type that is critical in the acquisition, development and maintenance of problem and pathological gambling for those who are vulnerable and/or susceptible. A ‘safe’ slot machine could be designed in which no-one would ever develop a gambling problem. The simplest way to do this would be to ensure that whoever was playing the machine could not press the ‘play button’ or pull the lever more than once a week. An enforced structural characteristic of an event frequency of once a week would almost guarantee that players could not develop a gambling problem. Alternatively, a risky form of lottery game could be designed where instead of the draw taking place weekly, bi-weekly or daily, it would be designed to take place once every few minutes. Such an example is not hypothetical and resembles lottery games that already exist in the form of rapid-draw lottery games like keno.
Although many people (including those that work in the print media) may still use the terms ‘problem gambling’ and ‘gambling addiction’ interchangeably, hopefully I have demonstrated in this article that there is a need to think of these terms as being on a continuum in which ‘gambling addiction’ is at the extreme end of the scale and that ‘problem gambling’ (while still of major concern) doesn’t necessarily lead to problems in every area of a person’s life.
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Griffiths, M.D. & Auer, M. (2013). The irrelevancy of game-type in the acquisition, development and maintenance of problem gambling. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 621. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00621.
Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2001). The psychology of lottery gambling. International Gambling Studies, 1, 27-44.
Leino, T., Torsheim, T., Blaszczynski, A., Griffiths, M.D., Mentzoni, R., Pallesen, S. & Molde, H. (2014). The relationship between structural characteristics and gambling behavior: A population based study. Journal of Gambling Studies, in press.
McCormack, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). A scoping study of the structural and situational characteristics of internet gambling. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(1), 29-49.
Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). The psychology of the fruit machine: The role of structural characteristics (revisited). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 151-179.
Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and Measurement Issues in Gambling Studies (pp.211-243). New York: Elsevier.
Salvation Army (2014). Buying Lotto…Winning a gambling addiction. July 2. Located at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1407/S00032/buying-lotto-winning-a-gambling-addiction.htm
Wardle, H., Moody. A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M.D., Hussey, D. & Dobbie, F. (2011). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.
Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M.D., Constantine, R. & Pigott, S. (2007). The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.
Wood, R.T.A. & Griffiths, M.D. (1998). The acquisition, development and maintenance of lottery and scratchcard gambling in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 265-273.
Wood, R.T.A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Adolescent perceptions of the National Lottery and scratchcards: A qualitative study using group interviews. Journal of Adolescence, 25/6, 655 – 668.
Wood, R.T.A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Adolescent lottery and scratchcard players: Do their attitudes influence their gambling behaviour? Journal of Adolescence, 27, 467-475.