|
 |
Introduction
Gambling is one of the few
activities that cuts across all barriers of race, class and culture. Although
almost all surveys into gambling on a national level have concluded that
there are more gamblers than non-gamblers (e.g., Blaszczynski, Walker,
Sagris & Dickerson, 1997; Cornish, 1978; Kallick, Suits, Dielman &
Hybels, 1979; Volberg & Steadman, 1992), most participants gamble
infrequently. Estimates based upon survey data indicate that between 80%
and 94% of British adults (Cornish, 1978), between 24% and 68% of American
adults (Culleton, 1985; Culleton & Lang, 1985; Kallick et al.,1979)
and between 81% and 92% of Australian adults (Grichting, 1986; McMillen,
1995) have gambled at some time in their life.
The introduction of national
lotteries, proliferation of gaming machines and construction of casinos
has greatly increased the accessibility and popularity of gambling worldwide,
and as a result, the number of people seeking assistance for gambling-related
problems (McMillen, 1996). Therefore, it is not surprising that there
has been a large increase in research into gambling, and more specifically,
into the underlying mechanisms and motivations to gamble and the differences
between non-gamblers, "normal" gamblers and problem gamblers. Much of
this literature has been summarised in a number of recent reviews (Dickerson,
1989; Lesieur & Rosenthal, 1991; Walker, 1992; Griffiths, 1996), all
of which applaud the many useful findings yielded by recent gambling research.
However, what is also evident is that considerable pessimism has been
expressed regarding the extent to which researchers have adequately addressed
many fundamental issues of gambling. These include the factors or characteristics
which distinguish normal from problem gambling, how to classify and identify
problem gamblers, and the mechanisms underlying each level of gambling
involvement. Although most reviewers commonly attribute the failure to
address these issues to the methodological limitations of many existing
studies (e.g., sample size, lack of ecological validity, poor design)
and lack of clarity in the theories, concepts and arguments advanced to
explain gambling.
A more serious problem is the
fragmented, insular nature of research programmes. Despite token recognition
of the complexity of gambling behaviour, most research has been rigidly
confined to narrow areas of specialisation. Singular theoretical perspectives
(e.g., behaviourism, cognitivism, addiction theory) have been assiduously
pursued with few attempts to establish links or contrast them with other
research programmes. This assumes that a single explanation or theory
is sufficient to explain every aspect of gambling behaviour and that rival
perspectives are thereby misguided. Yet, as Brown (1986) and Griffiths
(1995) recently asserted, this may not be so.
Gambling is a multifaceted
rather than unitary phenomenon. Consequently, many factors may come into
play in various ways and at different levels of analysis (e.g., biological,
social or psychological). Theories may be complementary rather than mutually
exclusive, which suggests that limitations of individual theories might
be overcome through the combination of ideas from different perspectives.
This has often been discussed before in terms of recommendations for an
"eclectic" approach to gambling (Brown, 1986) or a distinction between
proximal and distal influences upon gambling (Walker, 1992). However,
for the most part, such discussions have been descriptive rather than
analytical, and so far, few attempts have been made to explain why an
adherence to singular perspectives is untenable. Accordingly, the aim
of this paper is to highlight limitations of existing theories of gambling
at three increasingly specific levels of analysis: social, psychological
and biological.
Central to this view, no single
level of analysis is considered sufficient to explain either the etiology
or maintenance of gambling behaviour. Moreover, this view asserts that
all research is context-bound and should be analysed from a combined,
or biopsychosocial, perspective. Variations in the motivations and characteristics
of gamblers and in gambling activities themselves mean that findings obtained
in one context are unlikely to be relevant or valid in another (Dickerson,
1993, 1995). In each of the following sections, broad details of each
level of analysis are provided, followed by discussions of the limitations
and interdependence of each theoretical approach and the implications
for research and clinical interventions. They begin with a discussion
of distal factors thought to influence gambling involvement (Walker, 1992)
and continue with an analysis of the limitations of theories of ongoing
behaviour.
Explanations of gambling involvement
According to economic theory,
gambling is considered merely another commodity, which provides utility
to the consumer in the form of entertainment, excitement and the opportunity
to win money (Eadington, 1995). Therefore, to determine how many people
gamble in a given society it is necessary to consider the success of the
gambling industry in distributing and promoting its products (Brown, 1986).
Research has consistently shown a positive relationship between the availability
of gambling and both regular and problem gambling (Custer, 1982; Dickerson,
1989, 1995; Dielman, 1979; Kallick-Kaufmann, 1979; McMillen, 1995; Marcum
& Rowen, 1974; Skolnick, 1978; Weinstein & Deitch, 1974). Whenever
new forms of gambling are introduced, or existing forms become more readily
available, there is an increase in gambling, suggesting that the demand
for gambling products is closely linked to their supply. The more gambling
industry infrastructure that is established (e.g., new venues), the larger
the range of gambling products (e.g., through the application of new technologies),
and the greater the industry's marketing efforts, the more likely people
will be to gamble in the first place. For example, these factors have
been critical to the success of the UK National Lottery. Not only is the
lottery heavily advertised on billboards, television and in national newspapers
but also accessibility is so widespread that it is difficult to avoid
in most shops (Griffiths, 1997). Similar trends have emerged in Australia
where slot machines have been introduced in shopping malls, hotels and
suburban clubs in nearly every state (McMillen, 1995).
But why is gambling so popular?
According to sociologists, gambling is an inherent component of human
society (Goffman, 1967) and human beings have a natural penchant for play,
risk and competition. Gambling, they argue, fits easily with cultural
values, virtues and lifestyles (Abt, Smith & McGurrin, 1985), so that
when gambling becomes more accessible and socially acceptable, more people
will gamble. As a form of social interaction, gambling provides a means
by which people can escape the boredom of everyday life, adopt new roles
and enjoy the excitement of the "action"; namely, the suspense, anticipation
and social reinforcement resulting from taking risks and being rewarded
for one's daring (Abt & Smith, 1984).
Almost all surveys of gambling
(e.g., Griffiths, 1995; Kallick-Kaufmann, 1979) have shown that these
broad motivational factors are central to gambling and that attitudes
towards gambling are positively related to availability and cultural acceptability.
However, this perspective fails to take into account many key findings
and observations in gambling research. Surveys have also shown that not
everyone gambles and some people gamble more than others (e.g., pathological
gamblers). Research has also shown that people often gamble for reasons
other than broad social and economic reasons (Walker, 1992). These other
motivations may vary according to personal characteristics of the gambler
and the type of gambling activity (e.g., Chantal & Vallerand, 1996).
Finally, broad social and economic theories fail to explain why certain
gambling activities are more popular or "addictive" than others.
Demographic variations in gambling
participation have been observed since surveys were first administered
(Walker, 1992). Typically, gambling has been more popular in lower socio-economic
groups (Blaszczynski et al., 1997; Crisp et al., 2000; Dickerson, Baron
& O'Connor, 1994; Dickerson et al., 1996; Dickerson, Walker &
Baron, 1994; Downes, Davies, Davis & Stone, 1976; Frey, 1984; Volberg
& Steadman, 1992; Walker, 1992), in Catholics rather than Protestants
(Grichting, 1986; Kallick-Kaufmann, 1979), among unmarried people (Lesieur,
1984; Delfabbro & Winefield, 1996; Dielman, 1979; Downes et al., 1976;
Sommers, 1988), in younger age groups (Mok & Hraba, 1991; Griffiths,
1995; Morgan Research, 1997) and in men (Abbott & Volberg, 1996; Dickerson
et al., 1996; Mark & Lesieur, 1992; Volberg & Steadman, 1992).
In addition, there are significant demographic variations in gambling
activities. Older people and women are significantly less likely than
younger men to gamble on (and develop problems with) casino games and
racing activities (Hraba & Lee, 1995; Mok & Hraba, 1991), but
they are just as likely to gamble on lotteries and slot machines. On the
other hand, lottery participation is higher in lower socio-economic groups
and in older and middle-aged people (Delfabbro & Winefield, 1996;
Dickerson, Walker et al., 1994; Dickerson, 1995). These variations suggest
that overall increases in gambling participation (and the incidence of
gambling-related problems) are not evenly distributed across demographic
groups. Not all gambling activities are accessible or appealing to certain
groups.
Consistent with trends observed
in overall participation rates, Australian research (e.g., Blaszczynski
et al., 1997; Crisp et al., 2000; Delfabbro & Winefield, 1996; Dickerson,
Baron et al., 1994; Dickerson, Walker et al., 1994; Dickerson et al.,
1996) has found that the incidence of gambling-related problems is considerably
higher in lower socio-economic groups and in younger people, and it is
more likely to be associated with slot machines, one of the few activities
which attract similar numbers of men and women. Accordingly, understanding
demographic variations in overall participation is vital if one is to
estimate the likely social effects of expansion or product changes in
existing gambling markets. For example, in the future, Internet gambling
and new sports betting facilities are likely to attract relatively more
younger men, whereas an increase in slot machines or lotteries will have
a significant effect upon the number of women gambling (Griffiths, 1999a).
These variations exist because not all people hold the same attitudes
towards gambling nor do they have the same motivations for gambling. For
example, Protestants are more likely than Catholics to regard gambling
as a waste of money (Grichting, 1986), whereas people in lower socio-economic
groups (regardless of religious background) are more apt to view gambling
positively as a way of escaping from the drudgery of uninteresting, routine
work and a way to elevate one's living standards (Furnham & Lewis,
1986). By contrast, older people gamble less than younger people; they
are less concerned with elevating their position in society (Mok &
Hraba, 1991) and more interested in the opportunities for socialisation
and relaxation that gambling provides (Morgan Research, 1997).
Variations in gambling preferences
are thought to result from both differences in accessibility and motivation.
Older people tend to choose activities that minimise the need for complex
decision-making or concentration (e.g., bingo, slot machines), whereas
gender differences have been attributed to a number of factors, including
variations in sex-role socialisation (Abt & Smith, 1984), cultural
differences (Walker, 1992) and theories of motivation (Delfabbro, 2000).
Specifically, the underrepresentation of women in casino games, racing
and sports betting has been explained in terms of the long association
between these activities and male subcultures; for example, boys' childhood
and adolescent games and male gambling venues. Alternatively, as suggested
by recent Australian research, it may be that women have different motivations
for gambling (Loughnan, Pierce & Sagris, 1997); namely, a greater
desire for relaxation and escape from worries (Crisp et al., 2000). Research
by Chantal and Vallerand (1996) suggests that such motivations are more
likely to be satisfied by participation in chance activities, such as
lotteries, rather than more skilled activities, such as racing.
Variations in motivation are
also frequently observed among people who participate in the same gambling
activity (Dickerson, Walker, Legg England & Hinchy, 1990; Dumont &
Ladouceur, 1990; Fabian, 1995; Griffiths, 1993). For example, slot machine
and video poker players may gamble to win money, for enjoyment and excitement,
to socialise and to escape negative feelings (Dumont & Ladouceur,
1990; Griffiths, 1995). Some people gamble for one reason only, whereas
others gamble for a variety of reasons (e.g., Lesieur, 1984; Moran, 1970).
A further complexity is that people's motivations for gambling have a
strong temporal dimension; that is, they do not remain stable over time.
As people progress from social to regular and finally to excessive gambling,
there are often significant changes in their reasons for gambling. Whereas
a person might have initially gambled to obtain enjoyment, excitement
and socialisation, the progression to problem gambling is almost always
accompanied by an increased preoccupation with winning money and chasing
losses (Lesieur, 1984).
The importance of the structural
characteristics of activities
Another factor central to understanding
gambling behaviour is the structure of gambling activities. As shown by
Weinstein and Deitch (1974) and Griffiths (1993), gambling activities
vary considerably in their structural characteristics, including the probability
of winning, the amount of gambler involvement, the amount of skill that
can be applied, the length of the interval between stake and outcome and
the magnitude of potential winnings. Structural variations are also observed
within certain classes of activities such as slot machines, where differences
in reinforcement frequency, colours, sound effects and machines' features
can influence the profitability and attractiveness of machines significantly
(Griffiths, 1993). Each of these structural features may (and almost certainly
does) have implications for gamblers' motivations and the potential "addictiveness"
of gambling activities.
For example, skilful activities
that offer players the opportunity to use complex systems, study the odds
and apply skill and concentration appeal to many gamblers because their
actions can influence the outcomes. Such characteristics attract people
who enjoy a challenge when gambling. They may also contribute to excessive
gambling if people overestimate the effectiveness of their gambling systems
and strategies (see discussion of cognitive theories below). Chantal and
Vallerand (1996) have argued that people who gamble on these activities
(e.g., racing punters) tend to be more intrinsically motivated than lottery
gamblers in that they gamble for self-determination (i.e. to display their
competence and to improve their performance).
People who gamble on chance
activities, such as lotteries, usually do so for external reasons (i.e.
to win money or escape from problems). This was confirmed by Loughman
et al. (1996) in a clinical survey of problem gamblers wherein racing
punters emphasised the importance of skill and control considerably more
than slot machine players. Although many slot machine players also overestimate
the amount of skill involved in their gambling (e.g., Walker, 1992), other
motivational factors (such as the desire to escape worries or to relax)
tend to predominate (Walker, 1985). Thus, excessive gambling on slot machines
may be more likely to result from people becoming conditioned to the tranquilising
effect brought about by playing rather than just the pursuit of money.
On the other hand, racing punters tend to be more likely to gamble for
excitement (Blaszczynski, McConaghy & Winter, 1986). This has important
implications for the psychological study of ongoing gambling behaviour.
Another vital structural characteristic
of gambling is the continuity of the activity; namely, the length of the
interval between stake and outcome. In nearly all studies, it has been
found that continuous activities (e.g., racing, slot machines, casino
games) with a more rapid play-rate are more likely to be associated with
gambling problems (Dickerson, 1989; Dickerson, 1995; Dickerson et al.,
1996; Griffiths, 1995; Walker, 1992; Walker & Dickerson, 1996). The
ability to make repeated stakes in short time intervals increases the
amount of money which can be lost and also increases the likelihood that
gamblers will be unable to control spending (O'Connor, Dickerson &
Phillips, 1995). Such problems are rarely observed in non-continuous activities,
such as lotteries, in which gambling is undertaken less frequently and
where outcomes are often unknown for days. Consequently, it is important
to recognise that the overall social and economic impact of expansion
of the gambling industry will be considerably greater if the expanded
activities are continuous rather than non-continuous.
Theories of gambling behaviour
Although sociological, situational
and demographic factors can explain why some people are more likely to
gamble than others, these theories cannot explain why some people gamble
more than others or what factors contribute to behaviour maintenance in
gambling. Psychological theories become important at this level. Research
in this area is remarkably diverse. Almost every major branch of psychology
(e.g., cognitivism, behaviourism, Freudian theory, addiction theory),
has been utilised in an attempt to understand gambling. Despite this,
it is possible to distinguish two broad, general perspectives: first,
theories that attribute ongoing behaviour and excessive gambling to habitual
processes which are the consequences of gambling; second, theories that
state that variations in behaviour result from variations in the characteristics,
or "make-up," of individual gamblers. In other words, whereas the first
places a stronger emphasis upon psychological determinants of gambling,
the second emphasises biological differences between individuals.
Central to psychological explanations
is the idea that every person who gambles has the potential to become
a problem gambler. This is because gambling activities are difficult to
resist by their very nature: excitement, risk-taking and the possibility
of monetary gains. The more a person gambles, the more difficult it becomes
to resist the temptation to commence a gambling session or stop once gambling
has commenced (Dickerson, 1989). Accordingly, it has been suggested that
there is no neat distinction between problem gambling and normal gambling;
rather there is a continuum from social gambling to "regular" gambling
to problem gambling.
People who gamble regularly
may display many of the same behaviours as people with gambling problems,
although to a lesser degree. This view gives rise to conceptualisations
of problem gambling that emphasise the developmental and habitual nature
of problem gambling behaviour rather than individual pathology. This perspective
avoids terms such compulsive, addiction or pathology in preference for
terms such as impaired control (O'Connor et al., 1995). Although researchers'
views differ concerning the psychological mechanisms behind loss of control,
three general classes of theory will be used to illustrate the limitations
of psychological accounts. They are behaviourist theories that explain
persistent gambling as a conditioned process; need-state models that see
gambling as a form of psychological or physiological dependence; and cognitive
theories that attribute excessive gambling to erroneous beliefs about
the potential profitability of gambling.
Behaviourist Approaches
Both classical and operant
conditioning principles have been applied to the study of gambling. In
operant explanations for problem gambling (e.g., Delfabbro & Winefield,
1999a, 1999b; Dickerson, Hinchy, Legg England, Fabre & Cunningham,
1992), persistent gambling is seen as a conditioned behaviour maintained
by intermittent schedules of reinforcement, most likely a variable-ratio
schedule. This involves the provision of infrequent rewards after varying
numbers of responses. On the other hand, proponents of classical conditioning
models (e.g., Anderson & Brown, 1984) argue that people continue to
gamble as a result of becoming conditioned to the excitement or arousal
associated with gambling, so that they feel bored, unstimulated and restless
when they are not gambling. Both the classical and operant perspectives
have been central to the development of measures of "impaired control"
over gambling (Baron, Dickerson & Blaszczynski, 1995) and clinical
interventions using desensitization, aversive conditioning and satiation
techniques (see Griffiths, 1995, for a review). In each of these examples,
it is assumed that the more a person gambles, the more his or her behaviour
is dictated by factors beyond the person's control.
Despite evidence supporting
both theories (see Griffiths, 1995; Walker, 1992), neither is entirely
satisfactory on its own. Classical conditioning theory seems useful to
explain people's motivation to commence a gambling session, but appears
less useful to explain persistent gambling behaviour. Conversely, while
operant conditioning might explain ongoing behaviour, it appears less
useful in explaining why people commence gambling or recommence gambling
after a prolonged period of abstinence (Walker, 1992). Researchers have
also raised questions about the extent to which gambling behaviour adheres
to operant theory at all, since gamblers lose more than they win and because
reinforcement magnitudes are not independent of player responses, e.g.,
stake sizes (Delfabbro & Winefield, 1999a; Griffiths, 1999b). Nevertheless,
the importance of subtle variations in machine characteristics upon behaviour
(Griffiths, 1993) reinforces the role of operant conditioning in the maintenance
of behaviour, although perhaps in more subtle ways than was envisaged.
It is important to recognise
that these theories cannot stand in isolation. As with other psychological
theories, conditioning theories cannot explain why people exposed to similar
stimuli respond differently; why some gamble whereas others do not or
why some people gamble more than others. In addition, the effectiveness,
or strength of the conditioning effect may be a function of motivational
factors and type of activity. Some, but not all, people gamble for excitement
or relaxation, and as discussed above, people satisfy these needs by different
activities (Blaszczynski, McConaghy et al., 1986). Thus, it is unlikely
that classical conditioning will affect all types of gambling or gamblers.
Similar difficulties plague attempts to develop general operant theories
of gambling. Some activities appear to suit this form of explanation more
than others. Examples include slot machines and scratch tickets where
there is a short time interval between stake and outcome, and where outcomes
are entirely determined by chance. It seems more difficult to apply these
principles to skilled gambling games such as blackjack, poker and sports
betting, where player decisions can significantly influence outcomes.
Need-State Models and Theories
of Addiction
Much of the discussion relating
to classical conditioning also applies to need-state theories of gambling,
which assume that people gamble to escape unpleasant feeling states such
as anxiety, depression and boredom. These perspectives have been applied
to all facets of gambling, including involvement, ongoing behaviour and
excessive gambling. They are incorporated into the DSM-IV classification
for pathological gambling (i.e. gambled as a way of escaping from problems
or intolerable feeling states). Although not all researchers agree that
these motivations signify the existence of a physiological addiction (Walker,
1989), most agree that people can become psychologically addicted to gambling.
The concept of arousal has
been studied most extensively (e.g., Anderson & Brown, 1984, 1987;
Brown, 1986; Dickerson et al., 1992; Griffiths, 1995) but results have
not been consistent. Arousal increases have been observed in some studies,
but not in others (see Griffiths, 1995, for a review), and most increases
have been relatively small. Variations in arousal have neither co-varied
reliably with the persistence of behaviour (Dickerson et al., 1992) nor
the onset of gambling sessions. Furthermore, Walker (1992) questioned
the explanatory value of arousal theories arguing that the excitement
of gambling is unlikely to be independent of people's desire to win money.
Similar problems have plagued
attempts to associate gambling with anxiety and depression. While a considerable
number of studies (e.g., Bergler, 1957; Blaszczynski & McConaghy,
1989; Blaszczynski, McConaghy & Frankova, 1990; Dickerson, Cunningham,
Legg England & Hinchy, 1991; 1992; Greenson, 1947; McCormick, Russo,
Ramirez & Taber, 1984; Moran, 1970) have revealed that negative mood
states commonly accompany gambling or predict the duration of gambling
sessions (Dickerson et al., 1991), most analyses have been confined to
problem gamblers and high-frequency gamblers. For this reason, it is unclear
whether these mood states are also associated with less frequent gambling.
Moreover, it is not possible to determine whether mood states precede
or arise as a consequence of gambling. Indeed, as Walker (1992) points
out, it may be that gamblers become depressed as a result of losing more
money than they can afford.
Again, the temporal dimension
suggests that the role of mood states is unlikely to be independent of
the gambler's characteristics. As with arousal, it is unlikely that avoidance
of negative feeling states will be common to all activities or all gamblers.
Blaszczynski, McConaghy et al. (1986) suggested that some activities satisfy
these needs more than others; for example, slot machines appear to reduce
anxiety, whereas racing provides arousal and excitement. In addition,
variations in gambling motivation among participants involved in the same
activity suggest that not all people gamble to satisfy unfulfilled needs.
It is also unclear why some people apparently have a greater need for
arousal or relaxation than others, and whether this would be sufficient
to explain differences between normal and excessive gambling? As suggested
by McCormick et al. (1984), it is important to place behaviour in a social
context to understand how gambling compensates for, or assuages, problems
or deficits experienced in other areas of life. Alternatively, as will
be suggested later in this paper, it may be useful to look for dispositional
or biological differences to explain the varying motivations and behaviour
of individual gamblers.
Cognitive Theories
Despite the fact that the odds
of almost all activities are weighted strongly in favour of the house,
gamblers continue to believe they can win money from gambling (Walker,
1992). This observation leads to the conclusion that gambling may be maintained
by irrational or erroneous beliefs. For example, people overestimate the
extent to which they can predict or influence gambling outcomes and tend
to misjudge how much money they have won or lost. This hypothesis has
been confirmed in numerous studies (e.g., Langer, 1975; Langer & Roth,
1983) showing that people overestimate the degree of skill or control
which can be exerted in chance activities, and also, studies using the
so-called "thinking aloud" method (see Gaboury & Ladouceur, 1988),
which reveal high levels of irrationality in verbalised statements made
during gambling sessions. These findings have been confirmed not only
under laboratory conditions (e.g., roulette: Gaboury & Ladouceur,
1988; Ladouceur & Gaboury, 1988; Ladouceur, Gaboury, Dumont &
Rochette, 1988) but also in ecologically valid gambling settings, using
"regular" gamblers (video poker: Ladouceur, Gaboury, Bujold, Lachance
& Tremblay, 1991) and in various countries (e.g., slot machines in
the United Kingdom: Griffiths, 1994a; slot machines in Australia: Walker,
1992).
Based upon these findings,
it has been suggested that irrational thinking may be related to problematic
gambling behaviour (Ladouceur & Walker, 1996; Wagenaar, 1988), with
persistent behaviour thought to be the result of people's overconfidence
in their ability to win money (Griffiths, 1994a; Wagenaar, 1988; Walker,
1992). Evidence suggests that problem gamblers frequently overestimate
the amount of control and skill involved in gambling (Loughnan et al.,
1997). Unfortunately, these observations have also been made using students
with no gambling experience (e.g., Ladouceur et al., 1988, 1991) indicating
that irrational beliefs are not positively related to level of gambling
involvement. A further problem is that irrationality does not appear to
co-vary with other observable facets of gambling; for example, the level
of risk-taking (Ladouceur & Gaboury, 1988) or reinforcement frequency
(Ladouceur et al., 1988). Alternatively, where irrationality positively
relates to involvement, few differences in behaviour have been observed.
Consequently, Dickerson and Baron (2000) have concluded that irrational
thinking is probably more a reflection of demand characteristics than
a rational underlying behaviour. A lot of what people say may only result
from the difficulty of trying to come up with rational, meaningful statements
in chance-determined situations.
In additional to these conceptual
difficulties, it is also possible that contextual factors play a role
in cognitive research. For example, Griffiths (1994a) found that regular
players had greater difficulty than occasional players in verbalising
their thoughts while they were gambling. Regular players seemed capable
of gambling without attending to what they were doing, suggesting: (a)
that cognitive processes did not play a major role in the maintenance
of their behaviour, or (b) that the original justifications or rationales
for behaviour were less accessible. In either case, Griffiths' observations
suggested that temporal factors (namely, how long a person has been gambling)
appear to be important. Therefore, all other things being equal, it appears
that valid comparisons cannot be drawn between gamblers with differing
levels of gambling experience; for what holds for infrequent gamblers
might not hold for regular players, and vice versa.
Similar problems arise when
combining samples of people who may or may not have similar motivations
for gambling. Cognitive approaches assume that people overestimate their
chances of winning because obtaining money is an important motivation
for their gambling. However, as is clear from the previous discussion,
not all people gamble for this reason. Moreover, as shown by Burger and
Cooper (1979) and Burger and Smith (1985), the way in which people respond
to or interpret gambling tasks may vary according to their level of control
motivation. People who for whatever reason, are more motivated to seek
control in their lives appear more prone to overestimate the extent to
which they can influence the outcomes of chance-determined activities.
Accordingly, variations in control motivation in cognitive studies of
gambling would be an additional, and uncontrolled source of within-sample
variation, which could influence the reliability of the statistical effects
observed.
Finally, it is again important
to observe that cognitive theories need to take structural variations
in activities into account. Many cognitive processes thought to underlie
gambling behaviour (e.g., overestimations of control, biased attributions)
are more likely to be observed when activities are perceived as having
some skill component (Langer, 1975). With some activities, there is a
genuine possibility for skilful play (e.g., racing, blackjack, table poker).
The more people play or know about these activities, the greater their
awareness of the skills involved. Thus, beliefs about control and skill
are neither completely irrational nor consistent across players. Instead,
in these situations, researchers must examine the quality of play; for
example, to what extent the person adheres to optimal strategies, rather
than look for evidence of irrational thinking (e.g., Keren & Wagenaar,
1985).
Even in activities where outcomes
are chance-determined, there are likely to be variations in the extent
to which gamblers' perceive that the outcomes are solely chance-determined
(e.g., roulette and craps are probably more likely to be perceived as
skilful than Australian slot machines because of the greater complexity
of the rules and the possibility for variations in playing strategy).
Therefore, it may be ineffective to compare results across studies using
different chance activities without controlling for variations in perceived
skill.
Biological and Dispositional
Theories
Social and psychological explanations
are insufficient to explain the full complexity of gambling behaviour.
Whether ongoing behaviour is explained in terms of behaviourism, need-state
models or cognitive theories, it remains unclear why one person gambles
more heavily than another. In other words, while it seems likely that
increased involvement with gambling is likely to contribute to loss of
control over behaviour, development of irrational beliefs and greater
psychological dependence, it is important to determine what makes some
gamblers more susceptible to these factors than others. It is here that
research into biological and personality factors becomes important. Central
to this research is to ascertain whether pathological gamblers possess
qualities which would predispose them to excessive gambling. Much of this
literature was summarised by Walker (1992), so this discussion is confined
to three research areas: whether problem gamblers are particularly disposed
towards developing an addiction; whether they have a greater need for
arousal; and whether gamblers are naturally more impulsive than non-gamblers.
Studies into the first question
have been undertaken by examining overlaps between potentially addictive
and problematic behaviours with alcohol, illicit drugs and gambling. This
includes research into problem gamblers with psychoactive substance abuse
problems (e.g., Ramirez, McCormick, Russo & Taber, 1984; Linden, Pope
& Jonas, 1986; Ciarrocchi & Richardson, 1989) or those who also
have drug or alcohol use problems, or both (e.g., Lesieur, Blume &
Zoppa, 1986; Lesieur & Heineman, 1988; Griffiths, 1994b, 1994c). The
incidence of cross-addictions in populations of pathological gamblers
has been cited as evidence for the existence of an addictive personality
type (Blaszczynski, 1996). In addition, research by Comings et al. (1996),
for example, has suggested a genetic basis for gambling in some people.
They reported that a variant of the dopamine D2 receptor gene (DRD2),
which has been associated with other addictions, including alcoholism,
was found in 51% of pathological gamblers compared with only 26% of controls.
The effect of this gene was more closely associated with pathological
gambling than any other addiction. This suggested that the genetic variants
of the DRD2 gene may play a significant role in pathological gambling,
which supports the concept that variants in this gene are an important
risk factor for addictive behaviours.
Although intriguing, such evidence
does not provide convincing evidence for the existence of a biological
basis for gambling addiction. For a start, many pathological gamblers
do not have other addictions (Blaszczynski, 1996). Moreover, as Comings
et al. (1996) show, only half of the problem gamblers possessed the so-called
"gambling gene," suggesting that this gene is not a necessary factor in
the etiology of gambling addiction. Finally, researchers (e.g., Blaszczynski,
1996; Walker, 1989) have questioned the notion of physiological addiction
altogether, arguing that there is very little evidence to support the
applicability of traditional addiction models to gambling. Gamblers rarely
experience cravings, withdrawal symptoms or tolerance in the traditional
addictions sense, suggesting that excessive gambling is more likely to
arise as a result of other processes. If the term "addiction" is to be
used at all, it is better used in a general sense to denote a condition
broadly characterised as a repetitive and uncontrollable behaviour that
has undesirable consequences for individuals and those around them (Griffiths,
1995).
Secondly, attempts have been
made to associate gambling with an excessive desire for arousal or risk-taking.
For example, Brown (1986) has hypothesised that pathological gamblers
are habitually underaroused or understimulated and need gambling to reach
an optimal level of arousal. However, the available evidence offers little
support for this notion. While studies by Wolfgang (1988) and Anderson
and Brown (1984) have shown that regular gamblers tend to score higher
on measures of sensation-seeking than controls, other studies have failed
to find any associations at all (Allcock & Grace, 1988; Ladouceur
& Mayrand, 1986), or paradoxically, studies have found that problem
gamblers tend to score lower than population norms on the sensation-seeking
scale (Blaszczynski, Wilson & McConaghy, 1986; Blaszczynski et al.,
1990; Dickerson, Hinchy & Fabre, 1987). This has been attributed to
the fact that problem gamblers tend to engage in a very limited range
of activities compared with other people, which limits the number of items
endorsed (their scores) on the sensation-seeking scales. Consequently,
it seems unlikely that this variable provides a reliable basis for distinguishing
problem gamblers from other gamblers.
Thirdly, researchers have tried
to associate excessive gambling with the inability to control impulses.
This notion was central to the development of the first psychiatric definition
of gambling in the DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980), which
classified pathological gambling as a form of impulse disorder, not unlike
compulsive stealing (kleptomania) and hair-pulling (trichotillimania).
Gamblers were hypothesised to have experiences characteristic of other
recognised impulse disorders, such as, physical and psychological tension
prior to the commencement of gambling and to experience a strong sense
of pleasure or release once the activity had commenced (McGurrin, 1992).
Implicit in this explanation was the idea that gambling was unplanned,
or involuntary, and highly repetitive.
Despite the inconsistency of
psychometric evidence on this topic (Allcock & Grace, 1986), clinical
observations suggest that a loss of control is common to problem gambling
(Blaszczynski & McConaghy, 1989; Carlton & Manowitz, 1987; McCormick,
1994;). Researchers have argued that there are similarities between problem
gambling and children with attention deficit disorder (ADD) (Goldstein,
Manowitz, Nora, Swartzburg & Carlton, 1985), in that both are characterised
by limited attention spans, impulsive behaviour, inability to delay gratification
and insensitivity to punishment. Carlton et al. (1988) confirmed this
by administering a modified ADD scale to a sample of 16 problem gamblers
and found that they scored significantly higher on ADD items than a control
group. This suggested the possibility that ADD during childhood may be
an antecedent to the development of gambling problems in adulthood. Recent
psychobiological evidence suggests that such traits can be directly linked
to deficiencies in the production of certain neurotransmitters thought
to be associated with impulse control. One of these substances is serotonin
(5-hydroxtryptamine: 5-HT), which has an inhibitory effect upon the cortex
and is associated with more controlled behaviour (McGurrin, 1992). It
has been found that decreased 5-HT levels are associated with heavy alcohol
consumption (Branchy, Shaw & Leiber, 1981), whereas higher levels
increase the likely effectiveness of alcohol treatment programmes (Naranjo,
Sellers & Lawrin, 1986). McGurrin (1992) and Griffiths (1995) have
argued that this substance may also play a role in the development of
problem gambling.
The question that remains,
however, is how researchers will ascertain the direction of causality;
namely, whether decreased 5-HT levels are the result, or cause, of excessive
gambling. This problem extends to all attempts to draw associations between
dispositions and gambling behaviour. This indicates the importance of
a temporal dimension in gambling. Since gambling is likely to influence
the characteristics of gamblers, it may be unwise to assume that observations
of one sample can be generalised to other samples of gamblers with different
levels of gambling experience.
Physiological accounts assume
that such factors should override other environmental or contextual factors
and allow for the development of a general theory of gambling addiction.
However, this is clearly not so. Apart from the conceptual difficulties
associated with determining a causal relationship between characteristics
and behaviour, these theories are unable to account for the full diversity
of gambling patterns and behaviour. They fail to explain demographic differences
in the preference for activities and variations in motivation. Neither
can they explain why some activities are more "addictive" than others
and why the structural characteristics of specific activities (e.g., slot
machines) can influence behaviour. Therefore, it appears that excessive
gambling is likely to result from both dispositional and psychological
factors and the complex interaction between them. Psychological explanations
must play a role because of the obvious importance of external factors
(e.g., environmental and situational variables) in the development of
gambling habits. However, it is also clear that internal factors influence
how certain individuals respond to these situations. The implications
of this observation for the study and treatment of problem gambling are
discussed below.
Conclusions and Implications
for Research and Interventions
In summary, it seems that gamblers
are first influenced by sociological factors; for example, the availability
of gambling opportunities, attitudes and habits of parents, friends and
peer groups as well as a lack of alternative activities. During the middle
stages of development, there are many factors which heavily influence
the maintenance of gambling behaviour. Three of these factors are schedules
of reinforcement, the "escape" qualities of gambling and cognitive biases,
all of which have been summarised in this paper. While it remains unclear
exactly how some people come to gamble excessively, it is agreed that
persistent gambling eventually leads to a desperate "spiral of options"
(Lesieur, 1984) where gambling is largely maintained by the desire to
win money, recover losses and pay back debts. Gambling is thus a complex,
multidimensional activity that is unlikely to be explained by any single
theory. Instead, this research is best served by a biopsychosocial model
that stresses the individual and idiosyncratic nature of the development
of gambling problems and emphasises the role of contextual factors internal
and external to the process of gambling itself.
Recognition of this complexity
has important implications for gambling research both in terms of the
selection of samples and data analysis. Firstly, the existence of structural
variations in activities suggests that results obtained using one activity
cannot be generalised to other activities that are not structurally equivalent.
Existing research suggests that continuity and the element of skill involved
are two factors that must be similar in order for valid comparisons to
be made. Secondly, studies of gambling motivation are unlikely to be valid
unless both individual and situational factors are taken into account.
Since motivations differ across demographic groups (e.g., different genders
and ages), across activities and over time, studies must ensure that these
factors are controlled before drawing conclusions. Samples should contain
equal numbers of men and women of a similar age with similar levels of
gambling experience. Alternatively, in situations where this cannot be
achieved, gender, age and experience should be used as co-variants, or
as the first variables in regression analyses.
Thirdly, in recognition that
personality may influence the strength of experimental effects, it is
important that researchers match comparison groups in terms of these variables.
For example, cognitive experiments investigating the illusion of control
should include measures of "desirability for control" (Burger & Cooper,
1979), whereas arousal experiments should include measures of gambling
motivation. In addition, researchers should not assume that biological
differences or psychological factors will explain all gambling behaviour.
Instead, it may be useful to explore the interaction between these different
levels of analysis; for example, by examining whether variations in the
structural characteristics of activities (e.g., reinforcement frequency)
affect people with, or without, the characteristic under observation.
Implications for Prevention,
Intervention and Treatment
Since sociological factors
appear to be critical in the acquisition of gambling behaviour, prevention
needs to be aimed at the social and situational antecedents. This can
be approached from a number of levels (e.g., societal, school, family,
individual, etc.), some of which may be more practical than others. Since
problem gamblers start gambling at a significantly earlier age than non-pathological
gamblers, an obvious step would be for governments to legislate against
young people gambling (i.e. below 18 years of age). A "blanket ban" on
gambling would, in most cases, reduce acquisition until at least late
adolescence. Both parents and peers may model gambling; therefore, the
family's role in maintaining gambling behaviour should be addressed in
therapy and prevention plans should aim to increase the gambler's contact
with non-gambling peers. Also, evidence or knowledge of a gambler's own
negative thoughts or feelings about gambling behaviour, and irrational
biases may provide useful cues for behaviour modification (Stumphauzer,
1980).
These findings have led to
suggestions to enhance educational awareness of the dangers of gambling
not only amongst children and adolescents but also parents, guardians
and teachers. Although recommendations of this nature have typically tended
to focus upon the need for greater awareness of the "true" odds and the
unprofitability of gambling, we believe that this approach needs to be
applied with caution. It is quite possible for education to have the opposite
effect; namely, to increase students’ knowledge of how to gamble.
In addition, it is questionable whether knowing the true odds has a significant
effect upon dissuading people from gambling, given that many problems
gamblers are well educated and have, in some cases, some knowledge of
basic mathematics. For many, the belief that they are inherently lucky
or different from others helps maintain their interest in gambling. Accordingly,
educational campaigns that focus upon the negative consequences of gambling
and alternatives to it may have greater success. While these sorts of
campaigns are unlikely to prevent gambling in all young people, they might
reduce (a) the total number of adolescents who start to gamble and (b)
the amount of time an adolescent spends gambling.
The fact that some gamblers
are socially rewarded for gambling cannot be altered directly, but more
adaptive personal and social skills can be taught as responses to stress
(i.e. emotional antecedents); for example, relaxation, assertion and social
skills training (Stumphauzer, 1980). Alternatively, where people seek
the company of other gamblers as a way to escape from unpleasant feeling
states or life stress, the development of alternative interests, hobbies
and social networks should be afforded priority during intervention. This
approach could also be extended to people who gamble alone. An essential
aspect of treatments should be to identify and address the factors that
are antecedents to gambling, those that provide the underlying motivation
and social and cultural context in which the behaviour has developed.
Only when these are addressed can treatments be extended to more specific
psychological aspects of the behaviour itself. This is because these broader
social and structural factors influence a person’s exposure to gambling,
their opportunities to gamble and their ability to recover. Detailed analysis
of the person’s daily schedule and the nature and extent of available
social supports is essential during this phase of treatment.
Viewing problem gambling as
a biopsychosocial process recognises the diversity of psychological factors
involved in maintaining the behaviour as well as the fact that problem
gamblers are not a homogeneous group; in fact, there appear to be a number
of subtypes. This has major treatment implications. For instance, Griffiths
(1995) outlined two very different types of gamblers. The first type appeared
to be addicted to gambling itself and played to test skill, gain social
rewards and mostly, for excitement (i.e. the "buzz" or "high"). This was
termed a "primary addiction" and appears to be a mixture of Moran's (1970)
"subcultural" and "impulsive" types of gamblers. Identifying the environmental,
situational or emotional factors that precede a gambling session would
be next stage in the intervention. The use of imaginal desensitization,
counterconditioning and situational exposure are methods, which have been
used to teach people to resist the urge to gamble. Of course, therapists
differ in their view concerning the factors underlying this urge. Whereas
some emphasise the learned or conditional quality of the behaviour and
emphasise the role of stimulus-control, others may emphasise irrational
beliefs or the person’s desire to obtain physiological stimulation
from the activity.
Furthermore, as emphasized
by Griffiths (1995), a second type of gambler may gamble for the reasons
described earlier, such as escape. These gamblers are usually depressed
and socially isolated, and could be described as having a "secondary addiction"
in that the player uses gambling as an escape from a primary problem (e.g.,
broken home, relationship crisis, etc.). It seems that this type of "escape
gambler" is not confined to the United Kingdom. This type appears to be
a mixture of Moran's (1970) "neurotic" and "symptomatic" types. If the
primary problem is resolved by excessive gambling, then playing should
disappear. This distinction obviously has clinical usefulness and may
also help explain conflicting research, some of which states that gambling
is a social activity and some of which states that it is a solitary activity.
As discussed above, such gamblers are likely to benefit from any intervention
that tries to find alternative activities that take the place of gambling.
Conclusions
Examining gambling and problem
gambling as a biopsychosocial behaviour makes it evident that individual
differences and broader contextual factors must be considered and not
ignored. This paper provides evidence that a narrow focus upon one theoretical
perspective in research and clinical interventions may, in many cases,
not be justified. Such an approach fails to consider the interrelationships
between different levels of analysis. It would be of limited value to
many gamblers whose problems have a different etiology, which may be multifaceted.
As Gambino and Shaffer (1979) pointed out over two decades ago, individuals
are self-determining agents, and therefore, a taxonomy of situations must
be developed to describe the vast majority of contexts and conditions
in which people use substances or engage in habitual behaviours to alter
their perceived experience.
They also make the important
point that these behaviours are not completely self-developed or understood
by the people themselves and should be examined more broadly. This is
because, gambling becomes a habitual behaviour. Since the perceived experience
of the individual can change over time, it is possible that focusing upon
the self-reported factors currently maintaining the behaviour does not
provide insights into the factors that led to the behaviour developing.
Thus, when one takes a biopsychosocial view, it becomes possible to perceive
the individual gambling in terms of its broader social and cultural context.
This approach also suggests that different perspectives and approaches
may be beneficial, so long as they appear to apply to the particular gambler
concerned. Moreover, it indicates that a variety of treatments could be
beneficial simultaneously.
References
- Abbott, M.W. & Volberg,
R.A. (1996).
- The New Zealand survey
of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies,
12, 143–160.
- Abt, V. & Smith,
J.F. (1984).
- Gambling as play. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 474, 122–132.
- Abt, V., Smith, J.F.
& McGurrin, M.C. (1985).
- Ritual, risk, and reward:
A role analysis of race track and casino encounters. Journal of Gambling
Behavior, 1, 64–75.
- Allcock, C.C. & Grace,
D.M. (1988).
- Pathological gamblers are
neither impulsive nor sensation-seekers. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 22, 307–311.
- American Psychiatric
Association. (1980).
- Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
- American Psychiatric
Association. (1994).
- Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
- Anderson, G. & Brown,
R.I.F. (1984).
- Real and laboratory gambling,
sensation-seeking and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 75,
405–410.
- Anderson, G. & Brown,
R.I.F. (1987).
- Some applications of reversal
theory to explanations of gambling and gambling addictions. Journal
of Gambling Behavior, 3, 187–189.
- Baron, E., Dickerson,
M. & Blaszczynski, A. (1995).
- The scale of gambling choices:
Preliminary development of an instrument to measure impaired control
of gambling behaviour. In J. O'Connor (Ed.), High Stakes in the Nineties
(pp.153–167). Sixth National Conference of the National Association
for Gambling Studies, Fremantle, Western Australia.
- Bergler, E. (1957).
- The Psychology of Gambling.
New York: Hill and Wang.
- Blaszczynski, A. (1996,
November).
- Is pathological gambling
an impulse control, addictive or obsessive compulsive disorder?
Paper presented at the Seventh National Conference of the National Association
for Gambling Studies, Melbourne, Australia.
- Blaszczynski, A. &
McConaghy, N. (1989).
- Anxiety and/or depression
in the pathogenesis of addictive gambling. International Journal
of the Addictions, 24, 337–350.
- Blaszczynski, A.P., McConaghy,
N. & Frankova, A. (1990).
- Boredom proneness in pathological
gamblers. Psychological Reports, 67, 35–42.
- Blaszczynski, A., McConaghy,
N. & Winter, S.W. (1986).
- Plasma endorphin levels
in pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 14.
- Blaszczynski, A., Walker,
M., Sagris, A. & Dickerson, M. (1997).
- Psychological aspects
of gambling. Position paper prepared for the Directorate of Social
Issues, Australian Psychological Society. Available at: http://www.psychsociety.com.au/member/gambling/index.html.
- Blaszczynski, A., Wilson,
A.C. & McConaghy, N. (1986).
- Sensation seeking in pathological
gambling. British Journal of Addiction, 81, 113–117.
- Branchy, L., Shaw, S.
& Leiber, C.S. (1981).
- Ethanol impairs tryptophan
transport into the brain and depresses serotonin. Life Sciences,
29, 2751–2755.
- Brown, R.I.F. (1986).
- Arousal and sensation-seeking
components in the general explanation of gambling and gambling addictions.
International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 1001–1016.
- Burger, J.M. & Cooper,
H.M. (1979).
- The desirability of control.
Motivation and Emotion, 3, 381–393.
- Burger, J.M. & Smith,
N.G. (1985).
- Desire for control and gambling
behavior among problem gamblers. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 11, 145–152.
- Carlton, P.L. & Manowitz,
P. (1987).
- Physiological factors as
determinants of pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Behavior,
3, 274–285.
- Carlton, P.L., Manowitz,
P., McBride, H., Nora, R., Swartzburg, M. & Goldstein, L. (1988).
- Attention deficit disorder
and pathological gambling. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48,
487–488.
- Chantal, Y. & Vallerand,
R.J. (1996).
- Skill versus luck: A motivational
analysis of gambling involvement. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12,
407–418.
- Ciarrocchi, J. &
Richardson, R. (1989).
- Profile of compulsive gamblers
in treatment: Update and comparisons. Journal of Gambling Behavior,
5, 53–65.
- Comings, D.E., Rosenthal,
R.J., Lesieur, H.R., Rugle, L.J., Muhleman, D., Chie, C., Dietz, G.
& Gade, R. (1996).
- A study of dopamine D2 receptor
gene in pathological gambling. Pharmacogenetics, 6, 223–234.
- Cornish, D.B. (1978).
- Gambling: A Review of
the Literature and Its Implications for Policy and Research. London:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
- Crisp, B.R., Thomas,
S.A., Jackson, A.C., Thomason, N., Smith, S., Borrell, J., Ho, W. &
Holt, T. (2000).
- Sex differences in the treatment
needs and outcomes of problem gamblers. Research on Social Work Practice,
10, 229–242
- Culleton, R.P. (1985).
- A Survey of Pathological
Gamblers in the State of Ohio. Philadelphia, PE: Transition Planning
Associates.
- Culleton, R.P. &
Lang, M.H. (1985).
- The Prevalence Rate of
Pathological Gambling in the Delaware Valley in 1984. Report to
People Acting To Help, Philadelphia. Camden, NJ: Rutgers University,
Forum for Policy Research and Public Service.
- Custer, R.L. (1982).
- An overview of compulsive
gambling. In P. Carone, S.Yoles, S.Keiffer & L. Krinsky (Eds.),
Addictive Disorders Update (pp. 107–124). New York: Human Sciences
Press.
- Delfabbro, P.H. (2000).
- Gender differences in Australian
gambling: A critical summary of sociological and psychological research.
Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35, 145–158.
- Delfabbro, P.H. &
Winefield, A.H. (1996).
- Community Gambling Patterns
and the Prevalence of Gambling-Related Problems in South Australia (with
Particular Reference to Gaming Machines). Report commissioned by
the Department for Family and Community Services. Adelaide, SA: Department
for Family and Community Services.
- Delfabbro, P.H. &
Winefield, A.H. (1999a).
- Poker machine gambling:
An analysis of within session characteristics. British Journal of
Psychology, 90, 425–439.
- Delfabbro, P.H. &
Winefield, A.H. (1999b).
- The danger of over-explanation
in psychological research: A reply to Griffiths. British Journal
of Psychology, 90, 447–450
- Dickerson, M.G. (1989).
- Gambling: A dependence without
a drug. International Review of Psychiatry, 1, 157–172.
- Dickerson, M.G. (1993).
- Internal and external determinants
of persistent gambling: Problems in generalising from one form of gambling
to another. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 225–245.
- Dickerson, M.G. (1995).
- Problem gambling: Future
directions in research, treatment, prevention and policy initiatives.
In J. O'Connor (Ed.), High Stakes in the Nineties (pp.73–86).
Sixth National Conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies,
Fremantle, Western Australia.
- Dickerson, M.G., Allcock,
C., Blaszczynski, A., Nicholls, B., Williams, J. & Maddern, R. (1996).
- Study 2: An Examination
of the Socio-Economic Effects of Gambling on Individuals, Families and
the Community, Including Research into the Costs of Problem Gambling
in New South Wales. Report to the Casino Community Benefit Fund
Trustees. Sydney, NSW: NSW Government.
- Dickerson M.G. &
Baron, E. (2000).
- Contemporary issues and
future directions for research into pathological gambling. Addiction,
95, 1145–1159.
- Dickerson, M.G., Baron,
E. & O'Connor, J. (1994).
- Measuring the Extent
and Degree of Gambling Related Problems in Western Australia. Report
to the Department of Racing and Gaming, Perth, Western Australia.
- Dickerson, M.G., Cunningham,
R., Legg England, S. & Hinchy, J. (1991).
- On the determinants of persistent
gambling: III. Personality, prior mood, and poker machine play. International
Journal of the Addictions, 26, 531–548.
- Dickerson, M.G., Hinchey,
J. & Fabre, J. (1987).
- Chasing, arousal and sensation
seeking in off-course gamblers. British Journal of Addiction, 82,
673–680.
- Dickerson, M.G., Hinchy,
J., Legg England, S., Fabre, J. & Cunningham, R. (1992).
- On the determinants of persistent
gambling behaviour. I. High-frequency poker machine players. British
Journal of Psychology, 83, 237–248.
- Dickerson, M.G., Walker,
M. & Baron, E. (1994).
- Measuring the Extent
and Degree of Gambling Related Problems in Tasmania. Report to the
Treasury, Hobart, Tasmania.
- Dickerson, M.G, Walker,
M.B., Legg England, S. & Hinchy, J. (1990).
- Demographic, personality,
cognitive and behavioral correlates of off-course betting involvement.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 165–182.
- Dielman, T.E. (1979).
- Gambling: A social problem?
Journal of Social Issues, 35, 36–42.
- Downes, D.M., Davies,
B.P., Davis, M.E. & Stone, P. (1976).
- Gambling, Work and Leisure:
A Study Across Three Areas. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- Dumont, M. & Ladouceur,
R. (1990).
- Evaluation of motivation
among video-poker players. Psychological Reports, 66, 95–98.
- Eadington, W. (1995)
- Economic development and
the introduction of casinos: Myths and realities. Economic Development
Review, 13, 52–53.
- Fabian, T. (1995).
- Pathological gambling: A
comparison of gambling at German-style slot machines and "classical"
gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 249–263.
- Frey, J.H. (1984).
- Gambling: A sociological
review. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,
474, 107–121.
- Furnham, A. & Lewis,
A. (1986).
- The Economic Mind. London:
Harvester Press.
- Gaboury, A. & Ladouceur,
R. (1988).
- Irrational thinking and
gambling. In W.R. Eadington (Ed.), Gambling Research: Proceedings
of the Seventh International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking
(pp.142–163). Reno, NV: University of Nevada.
- Gambino, B. & Shaffer,
H. (1979).
- The concept of paradigm
and the treatment of addiction. Professional Psychology, 10, 207–223.
- Goffman, E. (1967).
- Interaction Ritual.
New York: Anchor.
- Goldstein, L., Manowitz,
P., Nora, N., Swartzburg, M. & Carlton, P.L. (1985).
- Differential EEG activation
and pathological gambling. Biological Psychiatry, 20, 1232–1234.
- Greenson, R.R. (1947).
- On gambling. American
Imago, 4, 61–77.
- Grichting, W.L. (1986).
- The impact of religion on
gambling in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38,
45–58.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1993).
- Fruit machine gambling:
The importance of structural characteristics. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 9, 101–120.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1994a).
- The role of cognitive bias
and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology,
85, 351–369.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1994b).
- Co-existent fruit machine
addiction and solvent abuse in adolescence: A cause for concern?
Journal of Adolescence, 17, 491–498.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1994c).
- An exploratory study of
gambling cross addictions. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10, 371–384.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1995).
- Adolescent Gambling.
London: Routledge.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1996).
- Pathological gambling: A
review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health
Nursing, 3, 347–353.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1997).
- The National Lottery and
scratchcards: A psychological perspective. The Psychologist: Bulletin
of the British Psychological Society, 10, 23–26.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1999a).
- Gambling technologies: Prospects
for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 265–283.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1999b).
- The psychology of the near
miss (revisited): A comment on Delfabbro and Winefield. British Journal
of Psychology, 90, 441–445.
- Hraba, J. & Lee,
G. (1995).
- Gender, gambling and problem
gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 83–101.
- Kallick, M., Suits, D.,
Dielman, D. & Hybels, J. (1979).
- A Survey of American
Gambling Attitudes and Behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,
Institute for Social Research.
- Kallick-Kaufman, M. (1979).
- The micro and macro dimensions
of gambling in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 35,
7–27.
- Keren, G. & Wagenaar,
W.A. (1985).
- On the psychology of playing
blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications
for decision theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 114,
133–158.
- Ladouceur, R. & Gaboury,
A. (1988).
- Effects of limited and unlimited
stakes on gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4,
119–126.
- Ladouceur, R., Gaboury,
A., Bujold, A., Lachance, N. & Tremblay, S. (1991).
- Ecological validity of laboratory
studies of videopoker gaming. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7,
109–116.
- Ladouceur, R., Gaboury,
A., Dumont, D. & Rochette, P. (1988).
- Gambling: Relationship between
the frequency of wins and irrational thinking. Journal of Psychology,
122, 409–414.
- Ladouceur, R. & Mayrand,
M. (1986).
- Caractéristiques
psychologiques de la prise de risque monétaire des joueurs et
des non-joueurs à la roulette. International Journal of Psychology,
21, 433–443.
- Ladouceur, R. & Walker,
M.B. (1996).
- A cognitive perspective
on gambling. In P.M. Salkovkis (Ed.), Trends in Cognitive and Behavioural
Therapies (pp. 89–120). London: John Wiley and Sons.
- Langer, E.J. (1975).
- The illusion of control.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.
- Langer, E.J. & Roth,
J. (1983).
- Heads you win, tails it's
chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes
in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 951–955.
- Lesieur, H.R. (1984).
- The Chase: Career of
the Compulsive Gambler. (2nd ed.). Rochester, Vermont: Schenkman
Books Inc.
- Lesieur, H.R., Blume,
S.B. & Zoppa, R.M. (1986).
- Alcoholism, drug abuse and
gambling. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 10, 33–38.
- Lesieur, H.R. & Heineman,
M. (1988).
- Pathological gambling among
youthful substance abusers in a therapeutic community. British Journal
of Addictions, 83, 765-771.
- Lesieur, H.R. & Rosenthal,
R.J. (1991).
- Pathological gambling: A
review of the literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7, 5–37.
- Linden, R.D., Pope, M.G.
& Jonas, J.M. (1986).
- Pathological gambling and
major affective disorder: Preliminary findings. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 47, 202–203.
- Loughnan, T., Pierce,
M. & Sagris, A. (1997, June).
- The Maroondah Assessment
Profile for Problem Gambling (G-Map™): A new direction in
problem gambling counseling. Paper presented at the Tenth International
Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking, Montreal, Canada.
- Marcum, J. & Rowen,
H. (1974).
- How many games in town?
The pros and cons of legalized gambling. Public Interest, 36,
26–52.
- Mark, M.M. & Lesieur,
H.R. (1992).
- A feminist critique of problem
gambling research. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 549–565.
- McCormick, R.A. (1994).
- The importance of coping
skill enhancement in the treatment of the pathological gambler. Journal
of Gambling Studies, 10, 77–86.
- McCormick, R.A., Russo,
A.M., Ramirez, L.F. & Taber, J.I. (1984).
- Affective disorders among
pathological gamblers seeking treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry,
141, 215–218.
- McGurrin, M.C. (1992).
- Pathological Gambling:
Conceptual, Diagnostic and Treatment Issues. Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Press.
- McMillen, J. (1995).
- Social impacts of urban
casinos: The Australian experience. In J. O'Connor (Ed.), High Stakes
in the Nineties (pp.9–23). Sixth National Conference of the
National Association for Gambling Studies. Fremantle, Western Australia.
- McMillen, J. (1996).
- Risky ventures: Casino regulation
in a changing market. In J. McMillen, M. Walker & S. Sturevska (Eds.),
Lady Luck in Australia (pp.73–98). Sydney, NSW: Sydney University,
National Association for Gambling Studies.
- Mok, W.P. & Hraba,
J. (1991).
- Age and gambling behavior:
A declining and shifting pattern of participation. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 7, 313–335.
- Moran, E. (1970).
- Varieties of pathological
gambling. British Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 593–597.
- Morgan Research (1997).
- Older People and Gambling.
Report prepared for the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority, Melbourne,
Australia.
- Naranjo, C.A., Sellers,
E.M. & Lawrin, M.O. (1986).
- Modulation of ethanol intake
by serotonin uptake inhibitors. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 47,
(Suppl 4), 16–22.
- O'Connor, J., Dickerson,
M. & Phillips. M. (1995).
- Chasing and its relationship
to impaired control over gambling. In J. O'Connor (Ed.), High Stakes
in the Nineties (pp.149–162). Sixth National Conference of
the National Association for Gambling Studies, Fremantle, Western Australia.
- Ramirez, L.F., McCormick,
R.A., Russo, A.M. & Taber, J.I. (1984).
- Patterns of substance abuse
in pathological gamblers undergoing treatment. Addictive Behaviors,
8, 425–428.
- Skolnick, J. (1978).
- House of Cards. Boston:
Little Brown.
- Sommers, I. (1988).
- Pathological gambling: Estimating
prevalence and group characteristics. International Journal of the
Addictions, 23, 477–490.
- Stumphauzer, J.S. (1980).
- Learning to drink: Adolescents
and alcohol. Addictive Behaviors, 5, 277–283.
- Volberg, R.A. & Steadman,
H.J. (1988).
- Refining prevalence estimates
of pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145,
502–505.
- Volberg, R.A. & Steadman,
H.J. (1989).
- Prevalence estimates of
pathological gambling in New Jersey and Maryland. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 146, 1618–1619.
- Volberg, R.A. & Steadman,
H.J. (1992).
- Accurately depicting pathological
gamblers: Policy and treatment implications. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 8, 401–412.
- Wagenaar, W.A. (1988).
- Paradoxes of Gambling
Behaviour. London: Erlbaum.
- Walker, M.B. (1985).
- Explanations for gambling.
In G.T. Caldwell, B. Haig, M.G. Dickerson & L. Sylvan (Eds.),
Gambling in Australia (pp.146–162). Sydney: Croom Helm.
- Walker, M.B. (1989).
- Some problems with the concept
of "gambling addiction": Should theories of addiction be generalised
to include excessive gambling? Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5,
179–200.
- Walker, M.B. (1992).
- The Psychology of Gambling.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
- Walker, M.B. & Dickerson,
M.G. (1996).
- The prevalence of problem
and pathological gambling: A critical analysis. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 12, 233–249.
- Weinstein, D. & Deitch,
L. (1974).
- The Impact of Legalised
Gambling: The Socio-Economic Consequences of Lotteries and Off-Track
Betting. New York: Praeger Publications.
- Wolfgang, A.K. (1988).
- Gambling as a function of
gender and sensation seeking. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4,
71–77.
- Wootton, R. (1995).
- The state of gambling: Victoria.
In J. O'Connor (Ed.), High Stakes in the Nineties. Sixth National
Conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies, Fremantle,
Western Australia.
This article was peer-reviewed.
Submitted: August 17,
2000
Accepted: July 5, 2001
Address for correspondence:
Mark Griffiths, PhD
Psychology Division,
Nottingham Trent University,
Burton Street,
Nottingham
NG1 4BU
Phone: +44 (0) 115 8485528
Fax: +44 (0) 115 8486826
E-mail: mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk
Mark Griffiths, PhD,
is a reader in Psychology at Nottingham Trent University and is internationally
known for his research on gambling and gaming addictions. In 1994 he
was the first recipient of the John Rosecrance Research Prize for "Outstanding
scholarly contributions to the field of gambling research." He has published
over 90 refereed research papers, numerous book chapters and over 250
other articles. His current interests are technological addictions,
especially computer games and the Internet.
Paul Delfabbro, PhD,
is a lecturer in the Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide,
South Australia, teaching statistics, social psychology, language development
and learning theory. He has numerous journal articles and conference
presentations on gambling-related topics and on adolescent adjustment,
foster-care, parenting and methodology. In addition to his gambling
prevalence research with adults and adolescents, he has conducted applied
experimental studies on irrational thinking in gambling and the application
of learning principles to real-life gambling behaviour. He has acted
as a consultant on state and federal government projects in Australia,
and has been the principal supervisor of post-graduate projects in the
area of gambling.
|
|
