My previous experience and lively interest in this subject motivated me to select “Essence of gambling and influence of gambling activities in college students” as a topic for my literature review. I had been problematic gambler for two years (gaming peers promoted tendencies to gamble) at first I started it as a means of recreation, but as a result it became major activity for me. I was spending great deal of time and money on it, without taking care of family budget or private life and it initiated real financial crisis and nervousness for me. But today, I am not gaming at all; I broke a deadlock, after loosing big sum of money, so I would like to scientifically realize the process of starting and terminating gambling by me. On the other hand, in Georgia sports betting (bookmakers) and Casino games are primary gambling activities, not only adults, but teenagers also are frequent users of these venues and I consider gambling as a large national problem. Increasing number of gambling venues (for instance: my native city Batumi looks like a big casino) and promotion of gaming directed at students makes problem even more severe and large-scale. There had been hot debates around this topic, should gambling be declared illegal? Should it be removed from urban centers? Or simply prioritized as a profitable industry which is one of the main sources of taxation revenue? I want to assess where we are, acknowledge positive and negative sides of gambling, make judgments and as a voter support conventional wisdom.
Why researchers even bother to tackle this topic? Because current developments in the world and mainly in USA makes lots of things around gambling challenging to investigate, analyze and conclude. On one hand there is profitable industry, which contributes a lot to taxation revenue, economic growth and development of services in urban centers, on the other hand – negative consequences it yields to society, like emotional distress, personal bankruptcy, psychological trauma, so it is interest for researchers weather benefits cover those disadvantages or not. And why college students? Because – “studies of other risk behaviors have reinforced the opinion, that college students are at high risk for gambling” ( LaBrie A. Richard; Shaffer J. Howard; LaPlante A. Debi; Wechsler Henry (2001) “Correlates of college student gambling in the United States”). Researchers examine different stages of gambling, when it becomes harmful, what are motives
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
And which individuals are more inclined to gamble to deathaˆ¦On the whole, “the increase in the prevalence of gambling has stimulated a considerable body of research”. (Platz Laurie and Murray Millar (1998) “Gambling in the context of other recreation activity: A quantitative comparison of casual and pathological student gamblers”.)
As a prospective economist first I reviewed article by Koo Jun et al – “Rolling the dice? Casinos, Tax revenues and the social cost of gaming”, (Journal of urban affairs. Volume 29, number 4.) Do the benefits from increased taxes and job opportunities associated with gambling outweigh those personal and social costs resulted from increased number of addicted gamblers? So three main issue worked out in this research are: 1)tax revenues and economic growth supported by these funds, 2) jobs at the casinos and improved public service, 3)possible social consequences. Wagering tax rates varies between 8.5 and 45.5% in US (Nevada, New Jerseyaˆ¦Illinois) and as a percent of tax revenue it is between 3.4 and 27.8% (Illinoisaˆ¦Nevada), in Detroit casinos are sixth largest employer (Source: Indiana Gaming Commission, 2006) rigid evidence to agree that this industry is special for state’s economic stability. Research also focused on social costs: do casinos induce higher levels of social problems? Is there a link between casinos and socially destructive behaviors like unemployment, bankruptcy fillings and crime rate? Direction of causality must be checked. Article tried to answer these questions by analyzing changes in Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Ohio; in Ohio casino-style gaming is forbidden while in others not, so researchers compared outcomes relative to social problems. Quasi experiment was carried out, unemployment rates of casino and non-casino countries in Michigan between 1991 and 2003 were compared and result was that although there was a slight decrease in the unemployment rate gap, the opening of casinos did not significantly change overall levels. Similar patterns are observed in terms of bankruptcy rates and crime levels, presence of casinos had no observable incremental effect, macro factors seem to play much significant role (Koo Jun et al, 2007).
This research also used regression models, designed to control differences in initial conditions between casino and non-casino counties and separate the effects of casinos on the social cost variables: crime rate, personal bankruptcy rate and unemployment, results showed that there might be some casino effects but they are unimportant (Koo Jun et al, 2007). We can conclude this research that gambling does not have significant and catastrophic effects on socially destructive behavior, even recognizing direct connection between them is difficult, so there is no reason to declare it unlawful and sacrifice financial benefits of it.
Now the essence of gambling must be studied. “Gambling: normal adolescent activity or pathologic addiction?” abstract by Selekman Janice 2008, explains essence of gaming. “Gambling sometimes referred as “Gaming”, is defined as the practice of playing games of chance or betting in the hope of winning money or something of value, it involves risk and uncertainty” (Verbeke and Kittrick-Nathan,2007) Most adolescent gamblers are considered as recreational, who gamble for the purposes of entertainment, but of the 80% gamblers 10-15% are at risk of development of a gambling problem and 3-8% are considered to be problem or pathological gamblers (Derevensky and Gupta, 2007) in adult population only 1.5% are problematic gamblers (Labrie and Shaffer). The median age for starting gambling is 11-13 years, when small amounts of money are readily accessible, when local environment accepts such behavior and rules of the game are understandable to a child and he/she plays to win money, gain status and respect among friends, escape stress, relieve boredom. While gambling they feel more control of the situation, more independence and self reliability (Jacobs, 2004) But at some phase recreational gambling becomes problematic, “impulse-control” disorders take place and can be characterized by following criteria suggested by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:
Preoccupied with gambling.
Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money.
Has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, stop gambling.
Is restless or irritable.
Gambles as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dystrophic mood.
“Chases” ones loses.
Lies to conceal the extent of involvement in gambling in gambling
Has committed illegal acts such as forgery, fraud, theftaˆ¦
Has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job or career opportunity because of gambling.
Relies on others to provide money to relieve a desperate financial situation.(American Psychiatric Association, 2000)
Pathological gamblers are at increased risk for use of alcohol and drugs, they have symptoms of anxiety and depression, sudden change in mood and school performance, they sell expensive possessions and are unable to count for money (Griffiths and Wood, 2005).
It is worthwhile now to scrutinize problem gambling and prediction of gambling behavior in more details. Abstract “The prediction of gambling behavior and problem gambling from attitudes and perceived norms” by Susan M, Moore is useful in this sense. In the study by Moore the aim was to test the Theory of Reasoned Action, central hypotheses were that attitudes and subjective norms would predict intentions and intention-behavior. Survey designed to measure gambling attitudes, subjective norms, gambling intention, gambling behavior and problem gambling was completed by 215 participants (mean age 22). Results showed that:
Most respondents approved of moderate gambling and hold that some gambling should be legal, but they were against too much gambling and endorsed to set limits on gambling opportunities. Realizing figure 2 we find out that family and friends have a great impact on gamblers, and gamblers are often surrounded by gaming friends and family members, and disapproval of their behavior comes from family members not from friends (Moore M. Susan; Ohtsuka Keis 1999)
As frequency of gambling behavior in the sample shows very few of the sample regularly engaged in any type of gambling, but at a low level there has been widespread engagement in gambling. Survey also showed that not all gamblers, that game more frequently than they intend, are problematic, so correlation between gambling frequency and problem gambling was, moderately high but not corresponding:
(Moore M. Susan; Ohtsuka Keis)
And finally with table five, there is expressed gambling intention, frequency and problem as independent variables and potential predictors are sex, age, attitudes to gambling, subjective norms, intention to gamble. Regression analyses showed intention to gamble was significantly predicted by attitudes and subjective norms: more positive attitudes – greater intention to gamble. Also males, people with strong intentions and positive subjective norms are more likely to engage in this activity.
(Moore M. Susan; Ohtsuka Keis, Social behavior and personality, 1999)
Gambling behavior and problem gambling is partly predicted and influenced by independent factors, but is it stable or characterized by progression? It was helpful for me to answer these questions by contemplating longitudinal studies reviewed by Debi A. Laplant et al in the abstract named: “Stability and progression of disordered gambling: lessons from longitudinal studies”. Stability – “tendency for individuals to stay at one diagnostic level opposed to moving to another improved or worsened level” (Laplante A Debi et al 2008). this review found out that in contrary to conventional wisdom individuals can recover from disordered gambling (contrary to persistence assumption), like the other one that holds that individuals who have gambling problems are not more likely to worsen than individuals without gambling problems (contrary to progression assumption), so this review demonstrates that disordered gambling is unstable and not persistent, that means that professional and conventional wisdom about problem gambling have no empirical support. This review by Laplante A Debi was based on 5 peer reviewed articles (Abbott et al, Defuentes-Merillas et al, Shaffeer and Hall, Slutske et al, and Winters et al) which used various time points, populations and measures of problem gambling:
In the above figure level 0-1 represents no gambling or gambling without problems, level 2 – subclinical gambling problems, level 3 – gambling problems. Then were developed cross tabs classification of gambling courses: improving – decreased number of gambling problems; worsening – increased number of gambling problems; stable – consistent gambling problems across all time points (there were different time points and large time span) and variable – fluctuation of gambling
problems without consistent direction.
As this figure shows Level 3 or problem gamblers who reduced their level of severity exceeded the studies corresponding margin of error, in each study proportion of level 3 gamblers improving was greater than zero. Results are similar for Level 2 gamblers, who reduced level of severity and their number exceeded corresponding margin of error. Improving was greater than zero. (Table2, Debi A. Laplante et al) it confirms that gambling behavior is not persistent, as problem gamblers reveal tendencies of improving in each study. We can conclude that these longitudinal studies with short-term and long-term periods indicate that while healthy gambling behavior appears to be stable, individuals with gambling problems experience movement from different levels of severity of gambling disorder to other more or less severe levels.
Now as we have covered main issues, structure and characteristics of gambling we should pay more attention to segment of population which is frequently involved in gambling and pathological gambling yields disastrous consequences for them. As a bottom line we can use article by Emily M. Verbeke and Karin Dittrick-Nathan-“Student gambling”. “Gambling is an addictive behavior that is often hidden but erodes students’ quality of life; it has increased significantly among adolescents, who have grown up in a society where it is legal and widely accepted.”(Emily M. Verbeke) As article points out problem or compulsive gambling is characterized by: increasing preoccupation with gambling, a need to bet more money more frequently, restlessness or irritability, increasing bets to make up previous losses and loss of control over gambling activity. Result of problem gambling can be low grades absenteeism, poor concentrationaˆ¦ (Emily M. Verbeke) (Then we will discuss this in more details). Although regulations forbid anyone under 18 to play, illegal gambling takes place out of controlled areas. There are several reasons why adolescents gamble: for recreation, to socialize, to win money, to experience thrill, to relieve depression or simply to escape from problems at home or university.
Youths who have certain personality characteristics, such as extreme impulsivity, extroversion, sensation-seeking behaviors or low self-esteem may be at higher risk of developing a gambling problem and they have higher rates of depression and suicide attempts. Prevention and intervention activities must me carried out by teachers, mental health professionals, coaches, parents to communicate to students about negative effects of gambling and change a positive attitude towards gaming as a harmless behavior (Emily M. Verbeke).
“College students’ gambling behavior: when does it become harmful?” by Jeremiah Weinstock et al is another useful abstract which gives us beneficial information about student gambling. 159 college students were interviewed, who also completed demographic questionnaire. Patterns of gambling behavior associated with pathological gambling – gambling more than 1.2 times per month, gambling more than 2.1 hours per month, intending to wager more than 6.1% of monthly income and wagering more than 10.5% of monthly income. Pathological gambling was also associated with the combination of psychological distress, gambling frequency and a history of parental gambling problems (Jeremiah Weinstock). Pathological student gamblers report poorer academic performance and greater risk taking, like alcohol consumption, nicotine use, illicit drug use and unprotected sex, than recreational or non-gamblers (Weinstock et al). Also Weinstock et al found that 50% of students who gambled at least once a month experienced problems related to their gambling. In this study 160 students were participating, 18 years or older, the sample was diverse in both demographic characteristics and gambling behavior. Study showed that the most common gambling activities were cards (58.3%), slots (48.1%), sports betting (33.1%) and games of skill (26.3%). Questionnaire filled in by participants asked for GPA, monthly income, ethnicity, sex, marital status and age, also whether their parents gambled or not. Questionnaire also included other behavioral variables like Gambling frequency, duration, Gambling Plan Adherence index and episodes when amount risked exceeded amount intended to risk.
On the basis of diagnostic interview participants were classified as pathological or non-pathological gamblers. As shown in table 1, pathological gamblers are significantly more likely to report a parent with a gambling problem history, a lower GPA, greater psychological distress than were non-pathological gamblers.
This numbers identify several strong behavioral indicators, highlighting a behavior associated with pathological gambling: risking more than 10% of monthly income, gambling more than once a month and gambling more than 2 hours per month were related to pathological gambling status in college students. As study showed demographic variables play small role in pathological gambling status, behavioral and psychological variables are more influential and such behavioral indicators can be utilized to assess, prevent and intervene in problematic gambling behavior in college students.
Pathological gambling among students is further analyzed by Randy Stinchfield… in the article “Problem and pathological gambling among college students”. Article is divided into four sections, overview of problem and pathological gambling, risk and protective factors associated with student gambling, problem gambling screening and assessment instruments, prevention and intervention approaches. Problem gambling – individual’s life is disrupted by gambling, gambling takes precedence over other activities and individual experiences adverse consequences. Pathological gambling is a psychiatric diagnosis (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-American psychiatric association). Three cardinal signs of pathological gambling are: preoccupation with gambling and obtaining money with which to gamble, loss of control of one’s gambling and continuation of gambling despite negative consequences such as losing large sums of money. Experimenting with gambling, regular gambling, excessive gambling are types of student gambling. Many college student gambles, but only small percentage becomes problem gamblers (Winters, Bengston, Dorr 1998). Rates of gambling and problem gambling remained stable over time, but there was a shift from illegal games to legalized games (Winters 1995). How many college students are problem gamblers? 9.3% of men and 2.4% of women(Shaffer, Hall 1997 SOGS),other study – 4.9%men 1%women(Winters, Bengston, Dorr 1998) another study – 8.5%men, 1.9% women (Engwall, Hunter, Steinberg 2004). What about risk and protective factors associated with gambling? Out of all possible risks, most salient is substance use, abuse, dependence. The link between alcohol, illicit drug, and tobacco use and gambling and problem gambling are strong (Clark, 2003; Engwall 2004). Heavy alcohol use was highly predictive of problem gambling, particularly size of bets made while gambling, unanticipated withdrawal of extra money at the casino and loss of more money than could be afforded (Giacopassi 1998). In terms of gender, males are more involved in gambling that women (Kveitel and Allen, 1998) males also have higher rate of problem gambling than females (Ladoucer 1994). Ethnicity, like gender is another salient risk factor, studies have shown that African-Americans and Asian-Americans tend to gamble more then European-Americans. Other important risk factors can also be listed: student’s overall level of gambling activity, general gambling veracity, tendency to minimize losses, general academic performance, typical leisure or extracurricular activities and parental or guardian history of gamblingaˆ¦(Randy Stinchfield 2006). Now briefly discuss about pathological gambling assessment instruments.
Most commonly is used the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), the content of SOGS includes items that inquire about spending more time or money on gambling than intended, hiding evidence of one’s gambling, arguing with family members about one’s gambling borrowing money. The twenty item SOGS is scored by summing the number of items endorsed, a cut score of 5 or more indicates PPG. Second item is the Gambling Behavior Interview (GBI) – 76 item instrument designed to measure signs and symptoms of problem gambling. GBI is made up of eight content domains: Gambling attitudes, Gambling frequency of different games, Time and money spent gambling, gambling frequency at different venues, SOGS, DSM diagnostic criteria, Research diagnostic items and demographics.(National Collegiate Association, 2004).
At the end of this article are recommendations for practitioners at colleges and universities:
Monitor student gambling behavior, extent of gambling, illegal gambling and problem gambling.
Develop student policies for gambling that emphasize rehabilitation not punishment.
Conduct research into the cause, development, maintenance and cessation of problem gambling, with an emphasis on risk and protective factors.
Develop and evaluate prevention programs and messages designed for students.
Provide treatment services for students who have already developed a gambling problem. (Randy Stinfield, William Hanson, Douglas Olson, 2006).
Correlates of college student gambling are worthwhile to analyze. Article named “Correlates of college student gambling in the United States” by Richard A. LAbrie et al gives some profitable information about it. Primary research questions which were answered: Will a nationally representative survey of gambling among college students confirm the concept that college students are at high risk for gambling problems? And will the problem behaviors and the risk factors conform to those of alcohol abuse and thereby support the persistence of a problem behavior syndrome (Richard A Labrie). Research used 2001 CAS self-administered questionnaire, which repeated standard questions used in 1993, 1997, 1999 surveys. The survey questionnaire asked, “during the past school year, how often did you bet or spend money on each of the following gambling activities: Betting on professional sports, Betting on college sports, Betting on horse or dog racing, Casino gambling, Betting on the lottery or the “numbers”, Internet betting or gambling, Betting with a bookie, Playing cards, dice, or other games of chance.
The 2001 CAS collected data from 120 colleges, 10765 students, to improve the representativeness of the sample; data were weighted to the gender, age and race/ethnicity distribution at the schools. Approximately 52% of men and 33% of women reported that they gambled, the most popular type of gambling was playing the lottery (25%), 30% reported casino gambling, 13% gambling with playing cards and dice. Gambling venues for men: lottery, playing cards, betting on sports, skill games and casino gambling, women preferred lottery, casinos, slot machines, bingo, and playing cards. Men are about 4 times more likely than women to have bet on sports and played games of skill for money, 3 times more likely to have bet on animals and twice as likely to have gambled in the stock market and played dice games (Douglas Engwall 2000). Of the students who gambled, 45% participated in only 1 type of gambling activity, the majority of student gamblers restricted their gambling to 1or 2 types (Richard A Labrie 2001). Students also answered questions about time spent on various activities in the past 30 days, these questions provided with an opportunity to evaluate the demographic and other factors that distinguished students who gambled from those who did not. Results showed that three demographic variables significantly predicted college student gambling for the total sample. Being male was the strongest demographic predictor of being a gambler, followed by being older than 20 years, and finally by having parents who had not completed the 4 year college. For men but not women, being white was a significant predictor of being a gambler, for women but not men having never been married was also significant predictor (Richard A Labrie 2001). Other covariates: those students whose families did not disapprove of drinking were more likely to gamble. Students who gamble intensely consider parties to be very important and religion and art less important. Male gamblers consider athletics to be very important. Men who lived in fraternity houses were more likely to be gamblers; having a grade average less than a B+ was more common among gamblers and also having 5 or more close friends was one of the predictors. Alcohol related behavior were the strongest risk correlates of gambling. Use of marijuana and illicit drugs also predicted gambling. Students of both sexes were more likely to be gamblers if they watched a great deal of television, spent time on a computer for non-academic reasons, studied less than 3 hours a day (Richard A Labrie 2001)
The results of this nationally representative survey of gambling among college students do not indicate that students are at high risk for gambling problems, fewer college students in the 2001 CAS gambled in the last school year than adults in the last year. The CAS also found that 2.6% of students gambled frequently. Although findings reported in this article do not indicate a large national gambling problem among students, promotion of gambling could change a current situation.
As we noted several times, intensive alcohol usage is most significant predictor of gambling behavior, so decision of choosing article “The co-occurrence of alcohol use and gambling activities in first-year college students” by Matthew P. Martens. Study written in this article was participated by 908 first-year college students, who were surveyed in 2005; research showed that alcohol use and alcohol-related risks were related to gambling frequency and peak gambling loss. National studies have indicated that approximately 40% of US students engaged in heavy episodic drinking, with men consuming more alcohol than women. In this study Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was used as a measure of alcohol use. AUDIT is a 10-item measure designed to assess alcohol consumption, dependence symptoms and alcohol related risks and problems. To assess gambling behaviors, participants completed a 7-item inventory, these items were taken from the South Oaks Gambling Screen, six items assessed gambling activities: playing cards for money, betting on horses or sports betting, playing slot machines, playing casino games, playing the lottery and playing a game of skill. The mean AUDIT score among participants was 8.61, men reported higher total scores than women (Matthew P. Martens 2005), results also showed that most played gambling activity was lottery games(55%) followed by playing cards for money(44%) and games of skill(26%), men reported gambling more frequently and having a greater peak gambling loss than did women.
Goal of this study was to examine the co-occurrence of alcohol use and gambling. Table 2 shows the correlation between AUDIT scores and gambling variables, correlation between AUDIT and gambling frequency was 0.29 indicating the co-occurrence. By assessing differences in gambling behaviors between high-risk drinkers, low risk drinkers and abstainers, analysis of results indicated that high-risk drinkers gambled significantly more often than did others and had higher peak gambling loss. The finding of this study was that alcohol-related variables (use, dependence and alcohol related risks) and gambling frequency and peak gambling loss co-occurred in a group of students:
Consuming large amounts of alcohol may make it more likely that a student chooses to gamble or it could negatively affect a student’s gambling-related decision. Similarly students may drink more heavily when they are engaged in gambling activity. (Matthew P. Martens et al, journal of American college health 2005).
As we noticed lotteries are most common form of gambling and they are readily available to students, so next article is “Predictors of lottery gambling among American college students” by Beverly A. Browne and Daniel J. Brown. In this study gambling behavior of 288 American college students was examined and it was found that student lottery gambling was related to having parents and friends who were lottery gamblers. Students who were frequent lottery gamblers were more likely to participate in other forms of gambling. Discriminator analyses using parental gambling, peer gambling, games played, sex and locus of control could predict frequency of lottery playing for 72% of gamblers and non-gamblers. A small body of research that addressed the relationships between gambling and personality (Reviewed by Kusyszyn, 1984) indicated that college students who gambled on lotteries were similar to non-gamblers in characteristics such as intelligence, psychoneurotic tendencies and extroversion, male college students who gambled were found to be more secure, masculine and happy but less socially responsible. People who believe in luck may be more likely to gamble. “The personality trait of locus of control has been linked to believing in chance rather than individual control over one’s destiny” (Rotter, 1966; Rotter, 1972). The sample of this research consisted of 288 students, as attitudes toward gambling might vary with nationality the sample was restricted to persons from the USA. The respondents completed a self-administered questionnaire that asked about gambling practices and the gambling of parents and friends. Results showed that almost 80% of the sample had purchased lottery tickets at one time or another; only 2% reported that they were frequent lottery players and 63% as occasional players. The average age of subjects when they bought their first ticket was 17.7 years, 31% of students reported that they had played lottery illegally before the age of 18. Responses also showed that 61% of college students played the same frequency as they did before they came to college, so college environment is not motivator of gambling. Study used discriminator analyses to determine how well a combination of variables would predict lottery playing behavior. The analyses indicated that the combination of other gambling, parental gambling, peer gambling, sex, and locus of control could predict gambling status.
Most predictive variables were engaging in other gambling, parental gambling, and peer gambling. Gaming peers may promote tendencies to gamble; nevertheless other influences (time, money, knowledge) may constrain those tendencies.
Review gave me a great deal of information around gambling to make conclusions, researches indicated legal gambling is not directly connected to unemployment growth, crime rate or personal bankruptcy, it is not significant influencer, so if we consider those benefits expressed in huge taxation revenues, developed services, and employment in casinos, we can find legal gambling acceptable and sometimes necessary too. Those funds received from taxation will stimulate economic growth and result in greater GDP. On the other hand, it is person’s legal right to gamble, if he is above 18 years and has desire, so it would be less than democratic to abolish gaming as a purpose of evading excessive or pathological gambling. I perfectly realize negative effects and bad sides of gambling, mainly influencing adolescents and problem gamblers, as excessive gambling frequently results in disruption of private life, psychological distress, big debts, failures at jobs, universities and in relationships with relativesaˆ¦ so population must be informed about it timely, and then people will make informed choice to gamble or not. Restrictions in age must be controlled strictly; juveniles under 18 years must not be allowed to gamble at all, not only in casinos but anywhere. It means that illegal gambling must be eliminated, also in schools and universities have to be conducted monitoring of student gambling behavior, prevention programs must be developed and policies should emphasize not punishment of those who became problem gamblers but rehabilitation. By looking at predictors of gambling behavior profile of prospective problem gambler can be created, people who fit this profile noticed and eliminate threat until it becomes dangerous. In some dimensions gambling has negative effects on society as a whole(social distress) so there is one view and I agree with it that gambling ventures can be removed
