Learn About New Research On Gambling – Virtual Poster Session

Learn about New Research on Gambling! ICRG Virtual Conference Poster Session on Oct. 4-7, 2021

The International Center for Responsible Gaming is excited to announce its 2021 Virtual Conference Poster Session. Due to the ongoing pandemic, we are unable to host our yearly conference in person, but we will be bringing you the poster session to your computer!

Poster presenters will submit a virtual poster and video submission that will act as a presentation of the poster. Posters and presentations will be judged for merit and awarded accordingly. We are excited to share these posters with you and hope you will join us October 4-7thvirtually to learn more about the new and exciting research in the field of gambling disorder and responsible gaming, including topics ranging from behavioral characteristics of gamblers seeking help, to medicinal treatment of problem gambling behaviors. This year’s presenters include researchers from McGill University, UNLV, and Swansea University to name a few.

We invite you to join the fun and subscribe to the ICRG Poster Session YouTube channel athttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-7db3FayYuhR7uxMcPPH0A. Poster videos will go live at 12 PM EST on October 4th.

Please visithttps://www.icrg.org/public-education-and-outreach/ncrg-conference-gambling-and-addiction/poster-sessionfor any updates on the poster session.

ICRG staffConference on Gambling and AddictionResponsible Gaming Research

/by

The Impact Of Covid-19 On Gambling And Gambling Disorder: Emerging Data

The Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown has had many effects on society and various industries including the gambling industry. Many commercial gambling establishments were forced to close, while online venues continued to operate. In addition to the varying availability of the different types of gambling, the social and economic impacts of the pandemic may affect an individual’s desire to gamble.

Aim:

(Hodgins & Stevens, 2021) completed a literature review to identify and describe data and findings that examined the effect of Covid-19 on individual gambling and gambling disorder. Researchers completed database searches to identify peer-reviewed articles and other relevant research reports that examine changes in individuals’ gambling behaviors during the pandemic. To be included in the study, articles must have a collection of data on individual gamblers, be published post March 2020, and have Covid effect assessed in English.

What did they find?

Researchers narrowed their literature review to seventeen online self-report surveys. Seven articles were peer reviewed, three were re-prints, and seven were online reports. Eleven of these were cross-sectional, while six were longitudinal in nature. Results showed both an increase and reduction in individual gamblers. An overall reduction in gambling frequency and expenditure was reported in all seventeen articles. Common reasons for gambling less included financial reasons, not wanting to gamble in front of family, someone suggesting they gamble less, no live sports, and cancellation of sporting events.

A handful of studies estimated the increase in gambling. Characteristics of gamblers who reported increased gambling included younger and older age, being male, being female, full-time employment, higher income, anxiety, depression, alcohol consumption, and non-smokers. Reasons for increasing gambling included boredom, need for relaxation, financial pressure, and desire to earn money.A consistent correlate to increased gambling was higher problem gambling severity.

Three studies included in this paper looked at gambling post-lockdown. It was found that 48% of individuals maintained or increased gambling activities. This increase was associated with ethnic background, lower education, non-student status, and smoking.

Limitations

No study is without limitations. This literature review includes only seven peer-reviewed studies, and all are self-report. This self-report methodology is vulnerable to bias as respondents report their own behavior. Additionally, studies are not generalizable to the entire population of the world, as study groups were specific to regions.

Hodgins, D., & Stevens, R. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on gambling and gambling disorder: Emerging data.Current Opinion in Psychiatry,34(4), 332–343.

ICRG staffResponsible GamingCOVID-19gambling disorder

/by

Examining Player Engagement With And Attitudes Toward A Gambling Play Management System

Gambling play management systems are preventative tools used to keep patrons within set budget limits. PlayMyWay is the first used within a casino setting with the US, described as “innovative budgeting tool designed to allow customers the ability to monitor the amount of money they spend on electronic gaming machines, and to inform their decision to continue or stop play” (Tom et al., 2017).

Dr. Timothy Edson and fellow researchers set out to examine gambling patrons’ attitudes toward PlayMyWay, the gambling play management system deployed at Plainridge Casino in Massachusetts (Edson et al., 2021).

Aim

Dr. Edson and his team examined patrons’ reported use of PlayMyWay and attitudes toward the system. They surveyed a sample of Marquee Rewards cardholders, which included demographics, questions based on the PlayMyWay system and gambling behaviors. Participants were labeled as “enrolled”, “un-enrolled”, and “never enrolled”. Enrolled and un-enrolled participants were further classified in to one group “ever-enrolled”. Ever-enrolled participants, either currently enrolled or previously enrolled, were asked to report their personal response to notification sent by the system, possible emotions they may have felt upon receiving notifications, and whether they would recommend PlayMyWay to others. Additionally, they were asked to complete a Systems Usability Scale to measure ease of use of the program. Gambling behaviors were also assessed, including how often the patrons’ visited the casino and the results of a Brief Biosocial Gambling Scale (BBGS) (Gebauer et al., 2010) screening to assess any possible gambling issues.

Why is this Important?

Play management systems, such as PlayMyWay have the potential to be a necessary responsible gambling tool within casinos, but there is a dearth of research that examines users’ attitudes towards it. At the time of publication, studies that examined play management systems reported mixed results on efficacy of reducing play time and gambling limits when at the casino. Additionally, the attitudes of users towards these systems remain unknown. This study seeks to fill these gaps in research by assessing user’s attitudes toward PlayMyWay and hopes to use these results to improve the system.

What did they find?

The researchers were able to extract some important findings from their survey, despite a majority of the participants having never used PlayMyWay. They found that users not enrolled despite knowing about the PlayMyWay system, reported that they did not believe they needed the reminders and warnings. Generally, users of the system found it easy to use, but reported that they paid little attention to the notifications and tended to react negatively to them. Finally, users who screened positive on the BBGS were more likely to un-enroll, less likely to report that they needed the notification from the program, and were more likely to respond negatively to notifications than those that tested negative on the BBGS scale.

Limitations

Authors of this study reported low generalizability, as only 1.5% of the survey population participated in this study after being contacted. Additionally, these patrons are only a small sample from one casino and the results should be taken to represent only this one small population and not all casino patrons. Additionally, responses from users are subject to biases caused by falsification of responses, recall bias, faulty memory, and other miscomprehension.

Edson, T., Tom, M. A., & LaPlante, D. (2021). Examining player engagement with and attitudes toward a gambling play management system.Journal of Gambling Studies, Epub: ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10002-9

Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,55(2), 82–90.

Tom, M., Singh, P., Edson, T., LaPlante, D., & Shaffer, H. (2017).Preliminary study of patrons’ use of the PlayMyWay play management System at Plainridge Park Casino: June 8, 2016-January 31, 2017. Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance.

ICRG staffResponsible GamingGambling Play Managementgambling researchresponsible gaming

/by

The Efficacy Of Personalized Feedback Interventions Delivered Via Smartphone

Brief motivational interviews,“a widely disseminated clinical approach that uses a directive, client-centered counseling style for eliciting behavior change by helping clients to explore and resolve ambivalence about changing the addictive behavior” (Miller & Rose, 2009)have been used to reduce gambling-related behaviors, especially when they incorporate personalized feedback. Personalized feedback will typically include pieces of information relating specifically to the issues one is facing, such as difficulties that have occurred due to the problem, and comparisons to social norms. This is used as a catalyst for motivating one to change their behavior.

A new study (McAfee et al., 2020), funded by an ICRG Large Grant, set out to look at whether brief motivational interviews with personalized feedback delivered via smartphone to college students would be helpful in reducing gambling related harms.

Hypotheses

Researchers examined the efficacy of personalized feedback based interventions delivered via smartphone and text message with college-aged gamblers. They wished to test three separate hypotheses within the sample. First, they hypothesized that students that received motivational interviews would report lower gambling norms than the control group that received no motivational interview or text messages. Second, they hypothesized that students that received personalized feedback via text during the trial period (PFB-TXT) would report fewer gambling-related cognitive distortions at the one month follow up, and subsequently less gambling and fewer gambling problems at the six-month follow-up than the study group that received general education information about gambling, rather than personalized feedback (PFB-EDU). Lastly, they hypothesized that students in the PFB-TXT group would report use of gambling protective strategies at the one-month follow-up and subsequently less gambling and problems at the six-month follow up than the PFB-EDU group.

Why is this important?

College students, on average, engage in at-risk gambling at a higher rate than the general population. This is concerning because evidence shows that disordered gambling often co-occurs with other health related problems such as alcohol abuse, drug use, and tobacco use. Previous interventions that incorporate personalized feedback have been effective at reducing gambling problems. Most importantly, addressing cognitive distortions about gambling and offering protective behaviors related to gambling may be useful in treatment of gambling problems in college students.

What did they do?

Researchers completed a clinical trial of college students that had gambled in the last 60 days and successfully scheduled an enrollment meeting to participate in the trial. These students, recruited through email announcements and that met the screening threshold, were assigned randomly to one of three study groups. Eighty students were assigned to the Personalized Feedback plus Text group, 68 students assigned to the personalized feedback, no text message group, and 93 were assigned to the control group, which received no personalized feedback or text messages. All participants completed self-report questionnaires at baseline, one month and six months.

  • Screening was completed using SOGS (Lesieur & Blume, 1987) and BBGS (Gebauer et al., 2010) to screen for at-risk gambling
  • Gambling Frequency was measured by asking participants to indicate days they gambled on a calendar and how much they gambled
  • Gambling Problems were measured using the CPGI nine-item measure (Ferris & Wynne, 2001) developed to assess the degree to which participants experienced any consequences related to gambling
  • Gambling norms were assessed by asking participants how many times they believe a typical student gambles within a month
  • Cognitive distortions were measured using the GRCS gambling related cognitions scale (Raylu & Oei, 2004) to assess cognitions related to gambling.
  • Protective strategies were measured via a gambling protective behavior scale

The PBS-TXT group received 12 targeted text messages with a link to personalized feedback including the number of times they gambled per month compared to other college students and a summary of self-reported negative consequences they associated with their gambling.

The PBS-EDU group received personalized feedback identical to the first group, but instead of targeted information, they received generic educational information in texts.

The control group completed the same assessments as the first two groups but received no feedback or texts.

At the completion of the study, researchers conducted three sets of analyses using the PROCESS program, which tests for indirect, direct, and total effects of an intervention condition.

Results

Researchers found that personalized feedback conditions did not have a direct effect compared to the control condition on variables measured at the six-month follow-up. However, they found a significant effect of gambling norms answers at the one-month follow-up. Additionally, they found no differences between the two different PFB conditions in terms of indirect or direct effects at the six-month follow-up, which suggests personalized feedback did not provide greater efficacy in changing gambling -related outcomes throughout the trial. Although the main hypothesis could not be substantiated within this study, researchers had a few significant findings.

  • Participants in both of the PFB groups reported less perceived gambling among students at one month, which correlated fewer gambling problems at month 6.
  • Participants that received the targeted PFB messages, rather than the generic messages, did not report a significantly greater usage of protective behavioral strategies at one-month follow-up
  • Participants in both of the PFB groups reported that the typical student gambled less than the students in the control group reported

Limitations

Although a clinical trial with a control group, this study was not without limitations. Researchers report that they believe the intervention did not work well with the sample chosen, as many of the student gamblers engaged in gambling outside of traditional establishments and the interventions and messages were written for traditional methods of gambling. Researchers also reported generalizability is low, because the sample group is one set of students at one University. Additionally, assessments utilized retrospective self-report, which is prone to bias.

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001).The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: User’s Manual. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA).

Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,55(2), 82–90.

Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.American Journal of Psychiatry,144(9), 1184–1188.

McAfee, N., Martens, M. P., Herring, T., Takamatsu, S. K., & Foss, J. (2020). The efficacy of personalized feedback interventions delivered via smartphone among at-risk college student gamblers.Journal of Gambling Issues,45, 39–63.

Miller, W., & Rose, G. (2009). Toward a theory of motivational interviewing.American Psychologist,64(4), 527–537.

Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2004). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): Development, confirmatory factor validation and psychometric properties.Addiction,99(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00753.x

ICRG staffResearch Updategambling researchcollege gambling

/by

Screening For Gambling Disorder In Va Primary Care

Dr.Shane Kraus and fellow researchers(Kraus et al., 2020)completed a pilot study to assess the prevalence of gamblingdisorderwithin a sample of US veterans at a primary care VA hospital. Veterans, as a group, are an often over-looked at-risk group for gambling disorder due to the high prevalence of comorbid mental health issues such as PTSD. These researchers hoped to assess whether a simple screen at a primary care visit could be helpful in finding veterans with gambling problems.

Aim

Researchers set out to evaluate the proportion ofveterans meeting full or sub-threshold DSM-5 criteria forgamblingdisorder(GD). They also aimed to estimate the co-occurrence of other medical or mental health problems withgamblingdisorder among veterans. The researchers hypothesized that veterans with GD, including those at sub-threshold, would more frequently report psychiatric disorders and medical conditions than those without GD.

Why is this Important?

This study is important because it has been established that GD is associated with many other mental health and substance abuse disorders, including PTSD. PTSD is prevalent in theveteran community, and may be an important risk factor forgamblingdisorder among veterans. Research done on veterans is scarce despite growing evidence that they maybeparticularly vulnerable to developing gambling problems. Researchers hope that routine gambling disorder screenings among veterans at VA hospitals will become commonplace.

What did they do?

Researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records forveterans seenfor their first appointmentin the Bedford VA Hospitalbetween Nov.1, 2017 andSept.15, 2018.Two-hundred and sixtyveterans, 88.9% male, 84.6% Caucasian with a median age of 53.7,were screened with the Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS)(Gebauer et al., 2010).Information was also collected onsociodemographics, psychiatric history, substance use, PTSD, depression and anxiety disorder. The BBGS was used to evaluate three features of problem gambling: withdrawal, lying, and borrowing money. Patients that endorsed any of the three were considered positive and received further assessment. Further assessment included a 9-question yes/no questionnaire for GD criteria. Researchers then used chi-square and mean comparisons to assess associations.

What did they find?

Researchers found that 32.7% of the sample reported gambling within the last 12 months. They found no significant differences between gambling and non-gambling veterans on demographics, medical, or mental health conditions.Nearly six percent of theveterans screenedpositive for at risk/problem gambling and 1.9%werecategorized as problem gambling after further assessment.Researchersreportedthatresultssuggest that self-disclosure of problem gamblingand outreach efforts by VAhealthcare providers could increase veteran’s participation in treatment services. They also found that adding the screening to routine check-ups was not burdensome and could easily be implemented in all appointments.

Limitations

This pilot study was not without clear limitations. The low endorsement of gambling behaviors doesnotallowresearchers to assess the reliability of the BBGS as a screening tool. This needs to be addressed in future studies by perhaps using busier settings. Additionally, the study was retrospective in behavior, and as a result researchers were unable to pinpoint any specific reasons for the underreporting ofgambling issues within the sample.

Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,55(2), 82–90.

Kraus, S., Potenza, M., Ngo, T., Pugh, K., Bernice, K., & Shirk, S. (2020). Screening for gambling disorder in VA primary care behavioral health: A pilot study.Issues in Mental Health Nursing. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20813.69601

ICRG staffResearch Updategambling disorderveteransVA Hospital

/by

Avoiding Use Of Stigmatizing Descriptors In Gambling Studies

Recently,(Blaszczynski et al., 2020)published an Editorial note in thejournal, InternationalGamblingStudies, highlighting the importance ofusing carefullanguage when discussing mental health disorders or physical impairments. Often, shorthand is used to describe someone with a disorder, such as: “a schizophrenic” or “a disordered gambler”. The researchers highlight how the negative connotations of these descriptors can impact thesufferers of these conditions.

This editorial notespecificallyconcentrates on gambling disorder. Often, the behaviors of those with gambling disorder are perceived as core traitsof the individualand are judgedas such. These core traits include, character or moral weakness, lack of self-control, and self-centeredness. These stigmas can adversely affect the sufferer by lowering the readiness of a sufferer to disclose the problem and seek treatment.

In the past, the term “pathological gambler” was used and recently, “disordered gambler”and “problem gambler” havebeen used to refer to someone meeting diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder.At this time, a phrasesuch as “problemgambler” isnot seen as inappropriate, but may become so in the future, such as “pathological gambler” hasin recent years.

The main goal of this editor’s note is to make authors aware of the damage certain terms can have, and to ask authors to actively employ language that promotesrespect and dignity for the target subjects. The authors recommend the following terms be avoided:problem gambler’, ‘disordered gambler’, ‘disordered gambling’, ‘pathological gambler’, ‘pathological gambling’, ‘addicted gambler’, ‘impaired gambler’, ‘compulsive gambler’, or ‘self-excluded gambler’. The authors note, however,that many of these terms may be used whencitingexact text of previous literature.

These suggestions are simply to encourage members of the gambling studies community to use careful consideration intheuse of stigmatizing phrases when publishing works. It is their long-term goal that this consideration will lead to a shift in perspective that promotes recovery. The journal of International Gambling Studies recognizes that word-counts may increase as a result of eliminating shorthand descriptors and will take this into consideration by the editorial team.

Blaszczynski, A., Swanton, T., & Gainsbury, S. (2020).

Avoiding use of stigmatising descriptors in gambling studies.International Gambling Studies.

ICRG staffResearch Updategambling disorders

/by

Feasibility Of Brief Screening For At-risk Gambling In Consumer Credit Counseling

Gambling disorder can manifest in different ways, including financial distress. As an attempt to find those that may be suffering from at-risk gambling problems, Dr. Sacco, an ICRG Large grant recipient, and his team set out to test the feasibility of finding at risk gamblers that are seeking credit counseling. The hope is that gambling screenings could become a part of credit counseling protocol in the future to help identify gambling problems within respondents.

What is the aim?

Dr. Sacco and his team set out to examine the feasibility of implementing a brief screening for gambling problems during consumer credit counseling screenings. They aimed to quantify the prevalence of at-risk gambling in credit counseling samples compared to national estimates. They also compared the at-risk gamblers within the sample to low-risk gamblers in the same sample to attempt to find any significant differences. Finally, the most important goal of this study was to assess the overall feasibility of integrating a gambling screen into credit counseling.

What did researchers do?

Sacco et al., 2019 collaborated with a non-profit consumer credit counseling organization to implement a routine screening for gambling participation and at risk gambling. Credit counselors were trained on how to administer the Brief Biosocial Gambling Survey (Gebauer et al., 2010) and it became a part of the standard procedure for credit counseling. All callers between March 2017 and February 2018 were screened using the BBGS. Demographic information was collected as part of the standard credit counseling assessment. In addition to implementing this screen into the standard procedure, two focus groups and three key informant interviews were completed to gauge the acceptability and feasibility of this gambling screen.

Why is this Important?

This study is important because credit counseling may serve as a potential setting for detecting at-risk gambling, as it may manifest as financial distress and/or bankruptcy. Additionally, credit counseling has not yet been considered a setting for detecting at risk gamblers and this serves as a pilot study.

What did they find?

Researchers found a study group of 68% female, average age 48 years old with 20% of respondents reporting gambling behaviors. Among those that reported gambling behavior, they found higher rates of gambling problems in this sample than the general U.S. population. Additionally, they found that low risk gamblers were slightly younger than non-gamblers. Focus groups were completed and found that credit counselors and program administers that took part in administering the gambling screen saw a benefit in integrating this screening permanently. Overall, researchers confirmed that a gambling screening during credit counseling is reasonable and acceptable.

Limitations

This study was a pilot study that contained limitations. This sample is not generalizable to a national sample and analyses did not control for socio-demographic differences within the sample. As a pilot study, they were able to conclude that a gambling screen within a credit counseling call is reasonable, but further research must be done to fully understand any benefits.

Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,55(2), 82–90.

Sacco, P., Jacobson, J., Callahan, C., Hochheimer, M., Imboden, R., & Hyde, D. (2019). Feasability of brief screening for at-risk gambling in consumer credit counseling.Journal of Gambling Studies,35(4), 1423–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09836-1.

ICRG staffResearch UpdateAt-risk gamblingConsumer Credit Counseling

/by

Gambling Research And Funding Biases

The gambling industry is often scrutinized for its influence on gambling research studies. This scrutiny is based upon the belief that industry funders have an agenda that seeks to influence the research that it funds. A previous study by Ladouceur et al., 2018 found that there are no significant differences between gambling research funded by the industry and those supported by non-industry sources. In an attempt to expand upon these findings and make them more applicable, Shaffer and his colleagues completed a large-scale systematic review to look at the differences in hypothesis confirmation and rejection between industry funded and non-industry funded sources.

What is the aim?

The aim of this study by Shaffer et al., 2019 was to determine the extent to which funding sources may influence characteristics of research design and outcomes. A recent study completed for the same outcomes found that there were no differences between gambling industry and non-industry funded research. This current study expanded upon this prior research to determine the generalizability of these findings. More specifically, this study expanded from “responsible gambling” research to all “gambling-related” research findings.

What did the researchers do?

Researchers completed a comprehensive review of 18 data bases that examined gambling studies from June 2008 to August 2018. The sample included 720 studies from four gambling journals and 14 addiction journals and were all quantitative with clear gambling hypotheses. Researchers used hypothesis confirmation and funding source information contained within the publications to determine the presence or absence of funding biases. Industry-funded studies were defined as studies funded by gambling industry operators, excluding federally operated programs. Statistical analyses were completed to determine if there were any significant differences between studies that were industry funded and those that were not.

Why is this important?

This study Is important because the role of research funding, especially industry funding, is a source of considerable debate. The nature of the concern of bias due to funding source warrants close consideration. Prior to this study, only one study had explored the effect of industry funding on gambling research outcomes, and this study aimed to expand and generalize those findings.

What did they find?

Researchers found that within the 720 studies in the sample, gambling industry-funded studies were no more likely to report confirmed or rejected hypotheses than non-industry funded. Additionally, studies funded by the industry were more likely to include a Conflict of Interest Statement within the publication. More than 30 percent of studies within the sample included no funding source, 49.7% failed to include any COIs, and only 6.4% of the studies were industry-funded. The researchers concluded that this study helps highlight the necessity of transparency and disclosure when it comes to research publications, especially those regarding gambling disorder.

Limitations

Although this study builds upon and strengthens previous findings on the effect of industry funding on gambling research, there are still some notable weaknesses. This is still a beginning effort, with a coding system that was chosen by the researchers and which others may not agree with. Additionally, researchers reported that each study was limited to one hypothesis, and, therefore, secondary hypotheses were not examined within the sample.

Ladouceur, R., Shaffer, H., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2018). Responsible gambling research and industry funding biases.Journal of Gambling Studies,25(3), 725–730.

Shaffer, P., Ladouceur, R., Williams, P., Wiley, R., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H. (2019). Gambling research and funding biases.Journal of Gambling Studies,35(3), 875–886.

NCRG staffResearch Updategambling researchfunding

/by

Gambling Disorder Screening Day

This year’s Gambling Disorder Screening Day is Tuesday, March 10, 2020. Sponsored by the Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, the event offers free resources to make hosting Screening Day easier than ever. Any provider or organization can host. Registration is not required to use these free resources. To learn more about the Toolkit and how to navigate it, visitwww.divisiononaddiction.org. The ICRG participates in Screening Day by making available the Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS) available in magnet form. Contact Lisa Cohen (lcohen@icrg.org) to request your free magnets.

ICRG staffResponsible Gaminggambling disorders

/by

Does Pareto Rule Internet Gambling?

Internet gambling has grown substantially over the past decade and with this growth, comes the risk of gambling problems among participants. In order to study the economic tendencies of online gambling subscribers, Tom, et al. (2019). tested the Pareto Principle using Internet Gambling subscriber data. The ‘Pareto Principle’ claims that about 20% of customers (“vital few”), make up 80% of the gambling activity within the sample.

What is the aim?

The aim of this study by Tom, et al. (2019), was to perform the very first study that analyzes gambling activity and losses with respect to gambling clinical status. Researchers sought to use actual expenditure information to better understand gambling revenue distribution. More specifically, researchers hope to determine whether internet gambling fit the Pareto Principle that 20% of customers would constitute 80% of gambling revenue while also examining the proportions of individuals that screened positive for gambling problems in these same groups. Researchers hypothesized that the level of gambling activity will be higher among those players that screened positive for gambling-related problems and the percentage of the ‘vital few’ who have gambling problems will be higher in comparison to the percentage that have gambling problems that are in the other ‘trivial many’ group.

What did the researchers do?

Researchers used a pool of online gambling subscribers (n=1384,) from bwin.party. Inclusion criteria included: restricting the study to seven products for which wagering data was available, must have demonstrated six months of activity prior to enrollment in study, and all gambling records used must have occurred with 365 days of gambling problems being screened using the Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS) (Gebauer, LaBrie, & Shaffer, 2010). The researchers distributed a web-based version of BBGS which measured withdrawal symptoms, lying, and the borrowing of money. The researchers pulled the subsequent daily betting data from bwin.party, which included various demographics, gambling product types, amount of money wagered, the net loss of betting activities, and the total number of bets.

Why is this important

This study is important because it is the first of its kind to look at actual gambling activity and losses with respect to clinical status (gambling problems). Additionally, it looks at gambling activities related to the internet, which has increased exponentially over the last 15 years. Researchers emphasize the importance of finding that internet gamblers loosely fit the Pareto Principle, but that the expected ratio is smaller than the original 1%-20%. This could indicate that a smaller percentage of the customer base can be influencing the internet gambling service. This study has the potential to further the study of online gambling and potential to advance prevention, treatments, and inform public policies.

What did they find?

Researchers found that the “vital few” of internet gamblers were between 4.6%-17.8%, slightly lower than the 20% that the Pareto Principle suggests. Additionally, 38%-67% of the “vital few” screened positive for gambling-related problems, while only 24%-35% of the “trivial many” screened positive. They were able to confirm that, although it is not a perfect fit, the notion of internet gambling following the Pareto Rule does indeed apply and that a higher percentage of the “vital few” tested positive for gambling problems than the “trivial many”. They stress the need for future research to further this finding.

Limitations

No study goes without limitations. This study utilized data from bwin.party but they were unable to confirm that account sharing did not occur between multiple individuals. If multiple individuals were to have shared a single account, this could misclassify participants into the wrong “trivial many” or “vital few” category. Additionally, the online survey did not include a control question to verify the accuracy of the participants’ responses, which also could have swayed data due to inattention. Furthermore, the authors point out that the BBGS is not a clinical diagnosis, so participants may also have been incorrectly assigned to a problem gambling group and vice/versa. Finally, a low response rate may affect the representativeness of the sample as well.

References

Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,55(2), 82–90.

Tom, M., LaPlante, D., & Shaffer, H. (2014). Does Pareto Rule Internet Gambling? Problems among the “Vital Few” and “Trivial Many.”The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics,8(1), 73–100.

NCRG staffResearch Update

/by