In the introduction, the range of
gambling experiences was described in terms of levels of gambling. Level 1 gambling, or social gambling, is the
sort of harmless gambling in which the majority of people engage. Level 2, or in- transition gambling, is
gambling which is accompanied by some familial, social or financial difficulty,
but perhaps not enough difficulty to be considered a serious problem. However, if a person gambles to excess, that
is to say frequently and in the face of familial, social, or financial
problems, then that would be described as Level 3, or problem gambling.
In this chapter the prevalence of
problem gambling is described. It
should be noted again that because these estimates are derived from a
probability sample, the overall estimates of problem gambling have a ± 2% margin of
error, based on a 95% confidence interval.
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 report the
estimated prevalence of problem gambling.
As discussed earlier, two different estimates are given. The estimates based on a broad definition of
problem gambling include both the frequency of gambling and the number of
symptoms of problem gambling as indicated by the SOGS-RA. Estimates based on the narrow definition are
based only on the SOGS-RA score.
Depending on the method of estimation, the prevalence of level 2
gambling ranges from 5% to 11.2% and level 3 gambling ranges from 1.4% to 4.1%. Level 1 gamblers are those who gambled in
the last 12 months, but did so infrequently and with no problems. Level 0 gamblers are those that did not
gamble at all in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Table
3.1. Prevalence of Level 2 and Level 3 Gambling (N=997)
(In Percent)
Level |
Broad |
Narrow |
|
|
|
0 |
34.0 |
34.0 |
1 |
50.7 |
50.7 |
2 |
11.2 |
5.0 |
3 |
4.1 |
1.4 |
|
|
|
The estimates given in Table 3.1
report the rates of level 2 and level 3 gambling among all the respondents in
the sample. However, of the 997
respondents, only 658 gambled in the 12 months prior to the survey. Another way to describe the rate of level 2
and level 3 gambling is to describe the rates only among those who gambled, and
thus were at risk of developing a gambling problem. The estimates for the at-risk population are described in Table
3.2. The smaller denominator results in
slightly higher estimates of problem gambling, from 7.6% to 17% for level 2
gambling and from 2.1% to 6.2% for level 3.
Table
3.2. Prevalence of Level 2 and Level 3 Gambling for At-Risk Population (N=658)
(In Percent)
Level |
Broad |
Narrow |
|
|
|
0 |
----- |
----- |
1 |
76.8 |
90.3 |
2 |
17.0 |
7.6 |
3 |
6.2 |
2.1 |
|
|
|
As described in Chapter 2, boys and
older youth are more likely to gamble.
Thus, we might expect that these groups are also more likely to be
problem gamblers. Table 3.3 describes
the distribution of problem gambling among various subgroups. For consistency, all the calculations for
problem gambling in this chapter are based on broad criteria. Boys were, as expected, more likely to be level
2 and level 3 gamblers, however, older respondents were not significantly more
likely to be level 2 or level 3 gamblers.
Table 3.3. Gender, Age, Race Distribution of At-Risk Level 2 and 3 Gamblers (Broad Criteria)
(In Percent)
Group (N) |
Level 2 Gamblers |
Level 3 Gamblers |
|
|
|
17.0 |
6.2 |
|
|
|
|
Gender25 |
|
|
19.9 |
7.8 |
|
12.6 |
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
19.1 |
6.7 |
|
19.5 |
4.5 |
|
15 (147) |
17.7 |
10.2 |
16 (152) |
12.5 |
4.6 |
17 (137) |
17.5 |
5.1 |
|
|
|
Race |
|
|
16.8 |
5.8 |
|
19.0 |
10.3 |
|
|
|
|
If grade of onset is related to
frequency of gambling, it is reasonable to expect that earlier gambling is also
related to problem gambling. Youth of
all ages who have gambled longer have had more time to develop problem
gambling. Table 3.4 describes the
relationship between grade of onset and level 2 and 3 gambling (broad
criteria). There is a significant
estimated relationship between grade of onset and problem gambling. Of the 237 respondents who began gambling in
grade school, 23.6% are level 2 gamblers and 8% are level 3 gamblers. These rates are significantly higher than
rates of in-transition and problem gambling among those who abstained until
high school, which are 16.8% and 3.2% respectively.
Table 3.4. Grade of Onset and Problem Gambling
(In Percent)
Level26 |
Percent Starting in Grade School (n=237) |
Percent Starting in grades 7-8 (n=198) |
Percent Starting in Grades 9-12 (n=95) |
|
|
|
|
1 |
68.4 |
81.3 |
80.0 |
2 |
23.6 |
13.1 |
16.8 |
3 |
8.0 |
5.6 |
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
Adolescents whose
parents gamble are also more likely to be level 2 or level 3 gamblers than are
the children of non-gambling parents.
Table 3.5 below illustrates the relationship between parental gambling
and problem gambling. Of the 324 youth
whose parents were abstainers, 14.5% were level 2 and 4.9% were level 3
gamblers, which is lower, but not significantly, than for children of gamblers
whose rates were 18.5% and 6.6% respectively.27
Table 3.5. Parental Gambling and Problem Gambling
(In Percent)
Level |
Parents Do Not Gamble (n=324) |
Parents Gamble(n=335) |
|
|
|
1 |
80.6 |
74.9 |
2 |
14.5 |
18.5 |
3 |
4.9 |
6.6 |
|
|
|
Because youth whose parents gamble
may be more likely to start gambling in grade school, and those who started
gambling in grade school may be more likely to be problem gamblers there is
reason to believe that parental gambling is related to problem gambling, even
if not directly so. Although rates of
problem gambling among youth with gambling parents are not significantly higher
than for their non-gambling counterparts, it may be instructive to further
analyze the complex relationship between parental gambling, grade of onset, and
problem gambling.
Comparing Table 3.6a with Tables
3.6b and 3.6c provides a more complete explanation of the relationship between
parental gambling, grade of onset, and problem gambling. Observe in Table 3.6a, that youth who began
gambling in grade school are roughly twice as likely to be level 2 or 3
gamblers than those who abstained until after grade school. However, this relationship between age of
onset and the development of risky gambling behavior may be affected by whether
or not the parents gambler.
Table
3.6a. Grade of Onset and Problem Gambling
(In Percent)
Grade28 |
Level 1 Gambling |
Level 2/3 Gambling |
|
|
|
68.4 |
31.6 |
|
Began
After Grade School (428) |
83.2 |
16.8 |
|
|
|
In order to further illustrate the
estimated influence of parental gambling two different tables were created. The first examines the relation between
grade of onset and problem gambling for children of gambling parents; the
second examines the same relation for children of non-gambling parents. Comparing Table 3.6b with Table 3.6c
indicates that early grade of onset may be more likely to influence the
development of problem gambling in youth whose parents gamble than in youth
whose parents do not. For example, in
Table 3.6b we see that among children of gambling parents, of the 133 youth who
began gambling in grade school 37.6% were estimated to be level 2 or 3
gamblers. This is significantly higher
than those who started later (16.8%).
However, this is not the case among
children of non-gambling parents. Among
children of non-gambling parents, youth who started in grade school have rates
of gambling only 7% higher that later-starting youth. In fact, while the relationship between grade of onset and
problem gambling is statistically significant among children of gamblers; it is
not significant for children of non-gamblers29
Table
3.6b. Children of Gambling Parents |
|
Table
3.6c. Children of Non-Gambling Parents |
||||
(In
Percent) |
|
(In
Percent) |
||||
Grade30 |
Level 1 Gambling |
Level 2/3 Gambling |
|
Grade |
Level 1 Gambling |
Level 2/3 Gambling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B |
62.4 |
37.6 |
|
Began in Grade School (103) |
75.7 |
24.3 |
Began After Grade School (202) |
83.2 |
16.8 |
|
Began After Grade School
(221) |
82.8 |
17.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This studys cross-sectional data,
strictly speaking, cannot indicate a causal relationship between parental
gambling, grade of onset, and level 2 or 3 gambling. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the findings do indicate
that a causal relationship does, in fact, exist if at least three things are
true. First, that the relationship
between parental gambling, grade of onset, and level 2 or 3 gambling is not
spurious, that is, that all three are not affected by some other unmeasured
factor (or factors). Second, parental
gambling must occur prior in time to the onset of childrens gambling. Finally, grade of onset must be prior to
level 2 or 3 gambling.
The latter is an easy assumption to
make, clearly, grade of onset occurs prior in time to the severity of
gambling. Likewise, it is also very
probable that parental gambling occurs prior in time to childrens
gambling. However, the first point,
that the relationship not be spurious, is an important factor to consider. It may be that the same factors which
influence parental gambling may also exert independent influence on grade of
onset and the severity of gambling behavior.
This is an important matter for future research to examine more closely.
In Chapter Two, the relationship
between substance use and gambling was illustrated. The evidence presented below suggests that not only is substance
use correlated with likelihood of gambling, but the frequency of substance use
may be positively related to problem gambling.
The modest but significant correlation coefficients in Table 3.7 below
suggest that level 2 and 3 gambling (using broad criteria) is more prevalent
among more frequent users than among less frequent users.
Table 3.7. Correlation of Substance Use and Level of Gambling.
|
Level of
Gambling |
Drinking
Frequency |
Drug Use
Frequency |