The Prevalence of Gambling in College: a Review of Literature, Convenience Sample, and Recommendations by Chad Seifried, Ph.D., Ann Krenzelok, Brian A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Prevalence of Gambling in College: A Review of Literature, Convenience Sample, and Recommendations by Chad Seifried, Ph.D., Ann Krenzelok, Brian A. Turner, Ph.D., poses great sanctions or costs upon society and on the individual. and Martin Brett, Ph.D. For example, gambling leads to “increased bankruptcies, increased domestic violence, higher suicide rates, higher divorce rates, in- Abstract creased crime, increased cases of loss of employment, and in- This project examined the level of gambling exhibited by a creased involvement of underage youth,” (Thrasher, et al., 2007, convenience sample of 155 college students at a large Midwest- p.292). A report from the Kentucky Legislative Committee (2003) ern university and compared it to previously completed work. The also provided information which suggested pathological gamblers researchers found most college student gamblers engaged in the also hurt themselves and others by: (a) creating employment costs/ most popular form of gambling like casino games, card games, and losses from unemployment and decreased productivity; (b) in- betting pools for money. Gambling on games of skill also occurred creasing welfare expenditures by taxpayers; (c) engaging in more at a great rate. Very few respondents admitted gambling interfered crime which invariably produces more legal and security costs; with their studies. Finally, the frequency of gambling shows most and (d) prompting stays and sessions at treatment centers to help respondents gambled the same or more since entering college. The deal with addiction. Thrasher, et al. (2007) argued other hidden researchers make several suggestions to help address gambling by costs make it difficult to assess the total damage problem gambling students. inflicts upon society but one can see it appears large. Widely known types of gambling among adults such as lot- The Prevalence of Gambling in College: A Review of Litera- teries, bookmakers, casinos and online poker, received thorough ture, Convenience Sample, and Recommendations study and examination from a variety of scholars. However, few Gambling has emerged as prevalent activity widely accepted comprehensively investigated the gambling behavior of young by American society (Shaffer, Hall, Vander Bilt, & George, 2003; adults or college students (Derevensky & Gupta, 2000; Dereven- Stinchfield, Hanson, & Olson, 2006). For instance, Gerstein, et al. sky, Gupta, & Winters, 2003; Wickwire, Whelan, West, Meyers, (1999) revealed adults gambling at least once in their lifetime in- McCausland, & Leullen, 2007). For instance, Shaffer and Hall creased from 65% to 86% between 1975-1999. Gambling exists (2001) indicated this when their synthesis of 139 gambling stud- as an established endeavor embraced by mainstream society in a ies showed only 19 focused on the college student population. variety of forms mainly due to opportunity and good public rela- This appears problematic because gambling occurs much more on tions. As an example, the Kentucky Legislative Research Com- college campuses than most recognize. As an example, Volberg mittee (2003) revealed most states (i.e., 37, including Washington, (1996) found the rate of problem gamblers in college is roughly D.C.) introduced lotteries to their constituents since the 1960s and three times greater than that of the general population. This fig- riverboat casinos grew large enough by the early 1990s to secure ure appears significant because its ramifications potentially affect 20% of the casino market. Television networks, like ESPN and grades, relationships, health, future job prospects, and many other Bravo, regularly broadcast poker contests, which seemingly helps aspects of college life. Overall, this demographic (i.e. college stu- to change the image of poker and gambling with multi-million dent) appears extremely important to study because if nothing is dollar stakes and popular celebrities at play (Darden & Rockey, done to educate and help college students now, these problems, as 2006). For the purposes of this work, we follow the gambling defi- well as many others, might persist to affect their future. nition provided by Kassinove (1996) which identified it as “any To help bridge the gap in gambling literature on college stu- risky behavior, based on a combination of skill or chance, or both, dents, this research examined gambling on a college campus and in which something of value can be won or lost,” (p. 763). Items compared previously completed work on a variety of subtopics. recognized as holding value include money, personal possessions, The researchers developed an exploratory survey which sought social standing, and free-will. mainly to identify the different types of gambling and betting Previous studies indicated a large percentage of the population performed by the participants (e.g. slots, cards, sports), the range perceive gambling as a common experience they enjoyed within and source of wagers, and frequency of participation. This survey the past year (Engwall, Hunter, & Steinberg, 2004; LaBrie, Shaf- also sought to identify the location of where college students make fer, LaPlante, & Wechsler, 2003; Thrasher, Andrew, & Mahony, their bets/gamble and if they participate in games of skill (e.g. 2007). This topic should seem important when one hears gambling pool, golf, bowling) for money. The researchers also asked ques- holds addictive potential much like drug, alcohol, and tobacco-re- tions about some other related behavioral issues. Specifically, we lated products but with the additional trouble of overlapping and inquired about the amount of change in gambling behavior during augmenting these and other types of addictions (Engwall, Hunter, college and the possible interference this activity imposes on their & Steinberg, 2004; LeBrie, Shaffer, & LaPlante, 2003; Lesieur, schoolwork. Finally, the researchers offer a critique on the results et al., 1991; Potenza, Fiellin, Heninger, Rounsaville, & Mazure, and provide some recommendations to reduce gambling activities 2002). This combination seen primarily in problem gamblers im- on college campuses. volume 4, issue 1 13 Gambling Participation Literature Review given by these students were lottery games (45%), casino gam- In April of 1995, Layden completed a completed a three part bling (30%), and playing cards or dice with friends (13%). Burger, series of articles in Sports Illustrated addressing the issue of gam- et al. (2006) similarly found poker/card games were the number bling on college campuses. Layden (1995a) proposed gambling one gambling activities. Winters, Bengston, Dorr, and Stinchfield “…is the dirty little secret of college life in America, rampant and (1998) and Hira and Monson (2000) reported their respondents thriving,” (p. 68). The series highlights the stories of college gam- (i.e. college students) preferred casino-style gambling slightly blers and bookies on campuses across the country ranging from over lottery. Finally, Stinchfield and Winters (1996) studied 944 Florida to Arizona (Layden, 1995a, 1995b). The message Layden gamblers in treatment and found and equal number of participants provided in this series seems to suggest society as a whole accepts (37% each) listed slot machines and playing card games as their gambling. Recently, we also saw the rise of several other events preferred type of gambling activity. Interestingly, Stinchfield and which also support this point. Winters (1996) cited games of skill (e.g. billiards, golf, bowling) The internet, for example, provides college students with were cited by less than 1% of respondents. easy access to a plethora of online gambling sites. A majority of Volberg (1996) reported roughly 2% of the United States popu- these sites are offshore, making them legal entities. Darden and lation appears to possess a significant problem with gambling and Rockey (2006) attributed much of gambling and problem gam- along with Engwall et al. (2004) suggested approximately 6% of blingʼs growth to the popularity and ease of the internet. Darden college students also suffer problems associated with excessive or and Rockey (2006) also showed the recent commercialization of pathological gambling. Shafer and Hallʼs (1997) meta-analysis re- gambling in the media (e.g. ESPN and Bravo Channel) helped vealed similar results that college students appear roughly three strengthen this activity as large payouts, celebrities, and entertain- times more likely to become problem gamblers. Other studies fo- ing production make it an attractive and credible activity. Credit cusing in pathological or problem gambling also state this behavior Card companies also contributed because they appear more than is prevalent on college campuses and likely greater than the gen- willing to extend credit to college students, which students can use eral population (Ladouceur, Dubʼe, D., & Bujold 1994; Lesieur, et to gamble. In 2002, the California Council on Problem Gambling al., 1991; Moore & Ohtsuka, 1997; Rockey, Beason, Lee, Stewart, (CCPG) reported that “…addicted bettors between the ages of 18 & Gilbert, 1997). Lesieur et al. (1991) specifically concluded this and 25 face an average annual individual loss of $30,000,” much phenomenon occurs at a rate four to eight times greater than that of which was sustained with the help of a credit card (Caplan, of the general population. College life may encourage this discrep- 2002, p.19). Overall, the popularity of gambling is not something ancy because the freedom students receive from parental supervi- that happened