In considering the development of policies and programs for problem gamblers, it is important to direct these efforts in an effective and efficient way. The most effective efforts at prevention, outreach and treatment are targeted at individuals who are at greatest risk of experiencing gambling-related difficulties. Since the purpose of this section is to examine individuals at risk, our focus will be on differences between individuals who gamble, with and without problems, rather than on the entire sample.
In addition to looking only at respondents who gamble, our analysis in this section is limited to differences between non-problem gamblers and lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers. Both the lifetime and current South Oaks Gambling Screen measures are important tools but they have rather different uses (see Appendix A for a full explanation of the methodological issues related to the South Oaks Gambling Screen). For reasons related to different rates of classification errors by the lifetime and current SOGS, the lifetime measure is better than the current measure at detecting pathological gambling among those who currently experience the disorder.
Since the lifetime South Oaks Gambling Screen is the more accurate method for identifying at-risk individuals in the general population, we use information about the characteristics of respondents who score as lifetime problem and pathological gamblers when considering the characteristics of individuals most in need of help with their gambling-related difficulties. Further, respondents who score as lifetime problem gamblers and those who score as lifetime probable pathological gamblers are treated as a single group and are referred to as problem gamblers in this section. As in the previous section, this approach is based on discriminant analysis that has established a strong and significant separation between non-problem gamblers and those who score as problem and probable pathological gamblers (Volberg & Abbott 1994).
Table 7 on the following page shows that, as in other jurisdictions, problem gamblers in Oregon are demographically distinct from non-problem gamblers in the sample. Problem gamblers in Oregon are significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to be male, under the age of 30, non-White and divorced, separated or never married. Problem gamblers in Oregon are significantly less likely than non-problem gamblers to have graduated from high school. As we noted earlier, however, the majority of lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are White and between the ages of 30 and 54. While none of the other demographic differences between non-problem and problem gamblers attain statistical significance, it is interesting to note that problem gamblers are more likely to be employed and more likely to have annual household incomes under $25,000 than non-problem gamblers in Oregon.
Table 7: Demographics of Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers in Oregon
Non-Problem
|
Problem
|
|||
(N=1,230) |
(N=75) |
|||
Gender |
** | |||
Male |
45.3 |
63.8 |
||
Female |
54.7 |
36.2 |
||
Age |
* | |||
18 - 20 |
4.5 |
11.5 |
||
21 - 29 |
16.6 |
23.0 |
||
30 - 54 |
51.2 |
43.3 |
||
55 and over |
27.7 |
22.3 |
||
Ethnicity |
** | |||
White |
93.4 |
78.6 |
||
Non-White |
6.6 |
21.4 |
||
Marital Status |
** | |||
Married |
58.7 |
35.4 |
||
Widowed |
8.4 |
7.4 |
||
Divorced/Separated |
13.5 |
23.5 |
||
Never Married |
19.4 |
33.7 |
||
Education |
* | |||
Less than HS |
6.9 |
14.0 |
||
HS and Over |
93.1 |
86.0 |
||
Employment |
||||
Working |
65.9 |
71.5 |
||
Unemployed |
1.6 |
2.5 |
||
Other |
32.5 |
26.0 |
||
Income |
||||
Less than $25,000 |
29.8 |
39.3 |
||
$25,000 to $50,000 |
38.6 |
33.9 |
||
$50,000 or More |
31.6 |
26.8 |
* Significant (p<=.05)
** Highly significant (p<=.01)
While information about the demographic characteristics of problem gamblers is helpful in designing prevention and treatment services, it is also important to understand more about the gambling behavior of non-problem and problem gamblers. Information about the behavioral correlates of problem gambling can help treatment professionals effectively identify at-risk individuals and provide appropriate treatment measures. This information is also useful to lawmakers and gaming regulators in developing measures to mitigate the negative impacts of future gambling legalization.
Behavioral correlates of problem gambling include regular gambling and involvement with continuous forms of gambling (Dickerson 1993; Ladouceur, Gaboury, Dumont & Rochette 1988; Walker 1992). Regular gambling is defined as weekly or more frequent involvement in one or more types of gambling. Continuous forms of gambling are characterized by rapid cycles of play as well as the opportunity for players to immediately reinvest their winnings. Legal forms of continuous gambling in Oregon include video poker, games at Indian Gaming Centers, wagering on horses and dogs and card games at card rooms. Illegal forms of continuous gambling include betting on sports (except the Oregon Lottery's Sports Action game), dice games not at a casino, wagering on games of skill and wagering on illegal slot machines.
Problem gamblers in Oregon are significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to have ever tried many of the different types of gambling included in the survey. This includes purchasing lottery products, wagering at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers and wagering on non-Indian bingo, video poker, card and dice games not at a casino, games of skill, sports and other types of gambling. Problem gamblers are also significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to have purchased lottery products and wagered on video poker, at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers, on games of skill, card games not at a casino, non-Indian bingo and on horses or dogs in the past year.
There are fewer differences in the weekly participation of problem and non-problem gamblers in Oregon. Table 8 shows differences in the past week involvement in different types of wagering by non-problem and problem gamblers in Oregon. Although past week participation for many types of gambling is significantly higher for problem gamblers than for non-problem gamblers in Oregon, the number of respondents involved can be extremely small. Only those types of gambling for which weekly participation among problem gamblers is 7% (N=5) or higher are shown.
Table 8: Weekly Gambling of Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers
|
Games Played Weekly |
Non-Problem
|
Problem
|
|
(N=1,230) |
(N=75) |
||
Lottery |
13.0 |
27.1 |
** |
Video Poker |
2.4 |
25.1 |
** |
Games of Skill |
2.5 |
11.1 |
** |
Casino/Indian Gaming Center |
0.3 |
9.0 |
** |
Weekly Gambling (1+ activities) |
18.9 |
53.9 |
** |
* Significant (p<=.05)
** Highly significant (p<=.01)
Table 8 shows that problem gamblers in Oregon are significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to have gambled in the past week on continuous types of gambling including video poker, games at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers and games of skill. Problem gamblers in Oregon are also significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to have purchased lottery products. While not shown in the table, it is interesting to note that, among past-year lottery players, problem gamblers are significantly more likely to prefer instant scratch tickets than non-problem gamblers. Table 8 also shows that nearly three times as many problem gamblers as non-problem gamblers in Oregon wager at least one or more times per week on one or more activities.
In addition to gambling involvement, respondents were asked about their preferred type of gambling. One-quarter (26%) of non-problem gamblers in Oregon identified the lottery as their favorite type of gambling in contrast to only 18% of the problem gamblers. One-quarter (26%) of non-problem gamblers and 36% of the problem gamblers identified casinos or Indian Gaming Centers as their preferred gambling activity. Only 5% of the non-problem gamblers, compared to 13% of the problem gamblers, identified Oregon Lottery video poker as their preferred gambling activity.
In addition to gambling regularly on continuous types of wagering, an important behavioral correlate of problem gambling is heavy gambling losses (Dickerson 1993). In this regard, it is interesting to examine the proportion of annual household income accounted for by the gambling expenditures of non-problem and problem gamblers. Table 9 on the following page provides a rough estimate of the proportion of annual household income that non-problem and problem gamblers spend on gambling. These figures are derived by multiplying the average total monthly expenditures for non-problem and problem gamblers by 12 (to estimate total annual expenditures) and then dividing by the median of each income category ($12,500 for the lowest income category, $37,500 for the middle income category and $75,000 for the highest income category).
Table 9: Gambling Expenditures as Proportion of Household Income
|
Income Category |
Non-Problem
|
Problem
|
(N=1,042) |
(N=69) | |
Less than $25,000 |
2.3 |
14.2 |
$25,000 to $50,000 |
1.3 |
5.3 |
$50,000 or More |
0.5 |
12.1 |
The table shows that the reported gambling expenditures of non-problem gamblers account for between 0.5% and 2% of median annual household income while the reported gambling expenditures of problem gamblers account for 5% to 14% of median annual household income. This estimate shows clearly that the gambling expenditures of problem gamblers have a greater impact on household income than the gambling expenditures of non-problem gamblers. Some treatment professionals believe that any expenditures on gambling over 5% of income constitute "over-gambling" (Robson 1995). This analysis suggests that the "5% rule" may be quite good.
Although gambling losses must be considered relative to income, comparisons of reported gambling expenditures of non-problem and problem gamblers provide further insight into the far greater financial impact of gambling involvement on problem gamblers and their families. Table 10 on the following page shows differences in the reported past month expenditures on different types of gambling for non-problem and problem gamblers in Oregon. Although expenditures on every type of gambling except telephone and computer wagering are significantly higher for problem gamblers than for non-problem gamblers in Oregon, only those types of gambling for which average expenditures by problem gamblers exceed $10 in the past month are shown.
Table 10: Average Monthly Expenditures of Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers
Non-Problem
|
Problem
|
||
(N=1,230) |
(N=75) |
||
Casino/Indian Gaming Center |
9.05 |
150.61 |
** |
Video Poker |
4.60 |
60.77 |
** |
Non-Indian Bingo |
2.18 |
24.23 |
** |
Games of Skill |
2.82 |
22.95 |
** |
Lottery |
5.68 |
20.18 |
** |
Charitable (not bingo) |
2.47 |
16.03 |
** |
Sports |
2.20 |
12.10 |
** |
Card Games |
1.26 |
12.06 |
** |
Total Expenditures |
32.11 |
335.20 |
** |
* Significant (p<=.05)
** Highly significant (p<=.01)
Table 10 shows that the greatest differences between non-problem and problem gamblers in Oregon in average monthly expenditures on gambling are for gambling at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers, on video poker and on non-Indian bingo. Table 10 also shows that average total monthly expenditures on gambling are far higher for problem gamblers than for non-problem gamblers in Oregon.
In our discussion of gambling expenditures in the total sample, we identified a small proportion of respondents (9%) who reported spending $100 or more on gambling in a typical month (see Page 12 and the discussion of Variations in Expenditures). This small group of respondents accounted for 73% of reported monthly expenditures on gambling in Oregon. In considering risk factors associated with problem gambling, it is worth noting that 43% of the problem gamblers in Oregon fall into this heavy-spending group.
Prevalence by Type of Gambling
The question most often asked about the relationship between gambling and problem gambling is: What type of gambling is most likely to add to the number of problem and pathological gamblers in the general population? We have examined the relationship between weekly involvement (see Table 8), gambling expenditures (see Table 10) and problem gambling among respondents in this survey to help answer this question for Oregon. Our analysis shows that for lifetime problem and pathological gamblers in Oregon, casino gambling and video poker present the greatest risk.
Another approach is to examine the prevalence of gambling problems among individuals who have participated in specific types of gambling. Figure 4 illustrates the prevalence of lifetime problem and pathological gambling for the total sample, for respondents who have ever gambled and for respondents who have ever participated in different types of gambling.
Figure 5: Prevalence by Type of Gambling
Figure 4 shows that lifetime prevalence rates are substantially higher among individuals who have participated in specific types of wagering than among the sample as a whole or among gamblers in general. In Oregon, prevalence rates are highest among individuals who have ever participated in illegal types of gambling, particularly sports and games of skill. Among legal types of gambling, prevalence rates are highest among respondents who have ever gambled on video poker, card games and non-Indian bingo.
In addition to their demographic characteristics and gambling involvement, there are other significant differences between non-problem and problem gamblers in Oregon. These include differences in respondents' perceptions of their gambling involvement, the amount of time they usually gamble and the largest amount they report losing in a single day. One important difference between non-problem and problem gamblers is the age at which they start gambling. While the mean age at which non-problem gamblers in Oregon started gambling is 24 years old, the mean age at which problem and pathological gamblers in Oregon started gambling is significantly younger at 21 years old.
Table 11 shows that problem gamblers are significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers in Oregon to have felt nervous about their gambling and to have felt that one or both parents had a gambling problem. Table 11 also shows that there are significant differences between non-problem and problem gamblers in Oregon in terms of the time and resources that they devote to gambling. Problem gamblers are significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to spend six or more hours gambling per session and to have lost $1,000 or more in a single day. There are no significant differences between non-problem and problem gamblers in the distance they usually travel in order to gamble.
Table 11: Other Significant Differences Between Non-Problem and Problem Gamblers
Non-Problem
|
Problem
|
||
(N=1,230) |
(N=75) |
||
Ever Felt Nervous About Your Gambling |
11.9 |
38.7 |
** |
Parent Ever Have Gambling Problem |
5.5 |
24.6 |
** |
Usually Gamble With |
|||
Alone |
25.4 |
30.9 |
|
Spouse/Partner |
32.3 |
22.1 |
|
Other Family |
11.9 |
7.1 |
|
Friends |
25.8 |
37.5 |
|
Other |
4.6 |
2.6 |
|
Usual Time Spent Gambling |
** | ||
< 1 to 2 hours |
78.4 |
52.4 |
|
3 to 5 hours |
16.6 |
35.0 |
|
6 or more hours |
5.0 |
12.5 |
|
Largest Amount Lost in One Day |
** | ||
< $1 to $9 |
29.7 |
4.5 |
|
$10 to $99 |
49.9 |
30.4 |
|
$100 to $999 |
18.6 |
51.9 |
|
$1,000 or more |
1.8 |
13.2 |
|
Usual Distance to Gamble |
|||
0 to 15 miles |
62.2 |
54.6 |
|
15 to 60 miles |
10.6 |
12.1 |
|
60 or more miles |
27.1 |
33.4 |
* Significant (p<=.05)
** Highly significant (p<=.01)
Help-Seeking
As in other jurisdictions, very few respondents in Oregon acknowledge desiring or seeking help for a gambling problem although these numbers are higher than in many other states. Only 1% (N=16) of the gamblers in Oregon have desired help for a gambling problem and only two individuals have sought such help. While half (N=9) of the 16 respondents who desired treatment for a gambling problem were classified as problem gamblers, the other seven were classified as non-problem gamblers. The two respondents who had sought help for a gambling problem had been to Gamblers Anonymous.
Location
In planning the availability of services for problem gamblers in Oregon, it is helpful to know where these individuals reside and where they prefer to gamble. In Oregon, 35% of the problem gamblers reside in the Portland metropolitan counties of Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington. Just over one-third of the problem gamblers (36%) identify casinos or Indian Gaming Centers as their preferred type of gambling while 18% prefer traditional lottery games and 13% prefer Oregon Lottery video poker. These findings suggest that the present concentration of treatment services for problem gamblers in the Portland metropolitan area is appropriate. However, it may be important to focus more outreach efforts on casino venues in order to reach the significant proportion of problem gamblers who prefer wagering at casinos.
As predicted by the research literature, regular gambling involvement and heavy gambling losses are the factors associated with gambling-related difficulties in Oregon. Problem gamblers in Oregon are most likely to gamble once a week or more often on legal forms of gambling in the state, including the lottery, video poker and Indian Gaming Centers. Problem gamblers in Oregon spend significantly more than non-problem gamblers on many types of gambling although the differences are greatest for wagering at casinos or Indian Gaming Centers, on video poker and on non-Indian bingo. Lifetime prevalence is highest among those who have ever wagered legally on video poker and illegally on games of skill. Problem gamblers in Oregon are also significantly more likely than non-problem gamblers to have felt nervous about their gambling, to believe that one or both parents has had a gambling problem, to spend three or more hours gambling at a time and to have lost $100 or more in a single day.
In this section, we have identified several major risk factors associated with gambling-related problems among respondents in Oregon. Our focus has been on respondents who have ever gambled, whether or not they experience difficulties related to this involvement. In the next section, we will examine similarities and differences between the two screens used in the Oregon survey to identify individuals as problem or pathological gamblers.
