The dangers of conflating gambling-related harm with disordered gambling

In their critical review of the prevention paradox (PP) applied to gambling-related harm, Delfabbro and King (2017) raise a number of concerns regarding specific assumptions, methods, and findings as well as the general conceptual approach. Besides discussing the PP, the review also considers the merits of considering a “continuum of harm,” as opposed to the more traditional categorical approach to classifying problem gamblers. Their critique is carefully modulated and balanced, and starts a useful dialogue in the context of a public health approach to gambling. Unfortunately, some of Delfabbro and King’s (2017) arguments rest on the treatment of gambling harm as a binary state and conflates gambling-related harm with disordered gambling. In this reply, we argue that the application of PP logic to gambling harm has not yet been addressed by us, and is only indirectly related to the more important objective of understanding how gambling can reduce ones’ quality of life

Session 2-3-G: The Consumption Screen for Problem Gambling (CSPG): Why a Penchant for Big Macs May Predict Appetites for Gambling

Evidence for a common underlying trait: “Consumptiveness” Consumptiveness: “A persistent orientation towards acquiring and using resources in excess of a proper accounting of their costs and benefits - resulting in harm.” simple behaviors that result in immediate, sensation-oriented rewards alcohol, caffeine, smoking, illicit drugs, energy-rich foods (including salt) Gamblin

Risks of using taxation as a public health measure to reduce gambling-related harms

Taxation can be used to increase the prices of and reduce the consumption and harms arising from public health concerns related to tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks.1 Gambling is another public health concern,2, 3, 4 and some authors have therefore made the analogous recommendation that gambling-related harms might also be reduced via increases in taxation.2, 5 However, this recommendation neglects the fact that it is largely excessive gambling losses, rather than the act of gambling itself, that produces gambling-related harm.6 Gambling taxes can have negative effects on gambling-related harm via this channel of increasing the losses of gamblers

Differential Effects of Reward Drive and Rash Impulsivity on the Consumption of a Range of Hedonic Stimuli

Background and aims Impulsivity has consistently been associated with over-consumption and addiction. Recent research has reconceptualized impulsivity as a two-dimensional construct (Dawe, Gullo, & Loxton, 2004). This study explores the relationship of the two components of impulsivity, reward drive (RD) and rash impulsivity (RI), on a broad group of 23 hedonic consumption behaviors (e.g., gambling, substance use, eating, and media use). We tentatively grouped the behaviors into three descriptive classes: entertainment, foodstuffs, and illicit activities and substances. Results RD and RI positively predicted elevated levels of consumption in a community sample (N=5,391; 51% female), for the vast majority of the behaviors considered. However, the effect sizes for RD and RI varied significantly depending on the behavior; a pattern that appeared to be at least partially attributable to the class of consumption. Results support the view that RD is related more strongly to the consumption of products that provide social engagement or a sense of increased status; whereas RI better reflects an approach toward illicit or restricted products that are intensely rewarding with clear negative consequences. Discussion and conclusion Results support the utility of the two-factor model of impulsivity in explaining individual differences in patterns of hedonic consumption in the general population. We discuss findings in terms of strengthening current conceptualizations of RI and RD as having distinct implications with respect to health-related behaviors

Prevalence of gambling-related harm provides evidence for the prevention paradox

Background The prevention paradox (PP) describes a situation in which a greater number of cases of a disease-state come from low-risk members of a population, because they are more prevalent than high-risk members. Past research has provided only tangential and disputed evidence to support the application of the PP to gambling-related harm. Aims To assess whether the PP applies to gambling, the prevalence of a large set (72) of diverse harmful consequences from gambling was examined across four risk categories for problem gambling, including no-risk, low-risk, moderate-risk, and problem-gambling. Methods Respondents who had gambled on non-lottery forms in the past 6 months completed an online survey (N = 1,524, 49.4% male). The data were weighted to the known prevalence of gambling problems in the Victorian community. Results The prevalence of gambling harms, including severe harms, was generally higher in the combined categories of lower risk categories compared to the high-risk problem-gambling category. There were some notable exceptions, however, for some severe and rare harms. Nevertheless, the majority of harms in the 72-item list, including serious harms such as needing temporary accommodation, emergency welfare assistance, experiencing separation or end of a relationship, loss of a job, needing to sell personal items, and experiencing domestic violence from gambling, were more commonly associated with lower risk gamblers. Conclusion Many significant harms are concentrated outside the ranks of gamblers with a severe mental health condition, which supports a public-health approach to ameliorating gambling-related harm

‘Chances are you’re about to lose’:new independent Australian safer gambling messages tested in UK and USA bettor samples

Current industry-developed safer gambling messages such as ‘Take time to think’ and ‘Gamble responsibly’ have been criticized as ineffective slogans. As a result, Australia has recently introduced seven independently-developed safer gambling messages. The UK Government intends to introduce independently-developed messages from 2024 onwards, and this measure could be similarly appropriate for the US states where sports betting has been legalized and gambling advertising has become pervasive. Given this context, the current study recruited race and sports bettors from the UK and USA to elicit their perceptions of the seven Australian safer gambling messages. Participants (N = 1865) rated on a Likert-scale seven newly introduced messages and two existing ones (‘Take time to think’ and ‘Gamble responsibly’) using seven evaluative statements. Participants also reported their levels of problem gambling severity. For most statements in both jurisdictions, the new messages performed significantly better than the existing ones. Specifically, the new messages were deemed more attention grabbing, applicable on a personal level, helpful to gamblers, and more likely to encourage cutbacks in gambling. The message that included a specific call to action (‘What are you prepared to lose today? Set a deposit limit’) was one of the best performing messages. Interaction effects observed in relation to jurisdiction, age, gender, and problem gambling severity were generally small enough to counteract the argument that different populations might benefit from substantially different messages. These findings add to previous research on the independent design of effective safer gambling messages

Training Gamblers to Re-Think Their Gambling Choices: How Contextual Analytical Thinking May Be Useful in Promoting Safer Gambling

Background and aims: Harmful gambling has been associated with the endorsement of fallacious cognitions that promote excessive consumption. These types of beliefs stem from intuitively derived assumptions about gambling that are fostered by fast-thinking and a lack of objective, critical thought. The current paper details an experiment designed to test whether a four-week online intervention to strengthen contextual analytical thinking in gamblers is effective in changing gamblers cognitions and encouraging safer gambling consumption. Methods: Ninety-four regular gamblers who reported experiencing gambling-related harm were randomly allocated to either an experimental (n = 46) or control condition (n = 48), including 45 males, ranging from 19 to 65 years of age (M = 36.61; SD = 9.76). Following baseline measurement of gambling beliefs and prior week gambling consumption, participants in the experimental condition were required to complete an adaption of the Gamblers Fallacy Questionnaire designed to promote analytical thinking by educating participants on common judgement errors specific to gambling once a week for four weeks. Post-intervention measures of beliefs and gambling consumption were captured in week five. Results: The experimental condition reported significantly fewer erroneous cognitions, greater endorsement of protective cognitions, and reduced time spent gambling post-intervention compared to baseline. The control group also reported a reduction in cognitions relating to predicting and controlling gambling outcomes. Conclusion: Cognitive interventions that encourage gamblers to challenge gambling beliefs by reflecting on gambling involvement and promoting critical thinking may be an effective tool for reducing the time people invest in gambling activities

Situational features of smartphone betting are linked to sports betting harm:An ecological momentary assessment study

Background and aimsSmartphones extend the situational characteristics of sports betting beyond those available with land-based and computer platforms. This study examined 1) the role of situational features and betting platforms in harmful betting behaviours and short-term betting harm, and 2) whether people with more gambling problems have preferred situational features, engage more in harmful betting behaviours, and experience more severe short-term betting harm.MethodsAn ecological momentary assessment analysed 1,378 betting sessions on sports, esports or daily fantasy sports, reported by 267 respondents (18–29 years; 50.9% male) over 10 weeks.ResultsFactor analysis revealed five situational features of betting sessions: 1) quick, easy access from home, 2) ability to bet anywhere anytime, 3) privacy while betting, 4) greater access to promotions and betting options, and 5) ability to use electronic financial transactions. Regression models underpinned the analyses. Greater short-term betting harm was significantly associated with the ability to bet anywhere anytime, privacy when betting, and greater access to promotions and betting options. Betting sessions when these features were prioritised were more likely to involve impulsive betting, use of betting inducements, and betting with more operators. Respondents with more gambling problems were more likely to prioritise privacy and the ability to bet anywhere anytime; and to bet on in-game events, use promotional inducements, bet with more operators, and report greater betting harm.Discussion and conclusionsCertain situational features of sports betting are empirically associated with engagement and subsequent harm. Only smartphone betting combines all three features associated with betting harm

Feature preferences of sports betting platforms:A discrete choice experiment shows why young bettors prefer smartphones

Background and aimsSmartphone, computer and land-based betting platforms each have distinctive features. This study examined 1) preferred features of sports betting platforms amongst young adults and 2) whether feature preferences vary with gambling severity.MethodsThe study surveyed 616 Australians aged 18–29 years who bet at-least monthly on sports, esports and/or daily fantasy sports. Participants provided a simple rating of the importance of 24 features of betting platforms and then completed a discrete choice experiment to indicate their preferences amongst different groups of features.ResultsSmartphones were the only platform providing all preferred features. The most important feature was ability to bet instantly 24/7 from any location, followed by electronic financial transactions. Less important features were ability to access betting information online and to bet with multiple operators. Social and privacy features, and access to promotions, did not significantly predict platform choice. The experiment found no significant differences in preferred features by gambling severity group or by gender. The non-experimental descriptive data, however, indicated that participants in the moderate risk/problem gambling categories placed significantly more importance on privacy, ability to place in-play bets, bet with cash, bet with a credit card, see frequent promotions, and bet with multiple operators.Discussion and conclusionsMost features that bettors prefer can intensify betting. Curtailment of betting promotions, in-play betting, and credit card betting are measures that can assist higher-risk gamblers without unduly affecting other gamblers. Consumer protection tools, including mandatory pre-commitment, need strengthening to help counter the unique risks of smartphone betting