FINAL REPORT Partner Influences on Gambling
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL REPORT Partner Influences on Gambling: An Exploratory Study Submitted to the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre Principal Investigator: Lorne Tepperman, Ph.D Co-Investigator: David Korn, MD, CAS Project Coordinator: Jennifer Reynolds, M.Ed Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this final report are those of the investigator(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC). 2 Acknowledgements We are indebted to a large number of people who supported this research. We want to thank Rob Simpson and the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre for funding this project. We hope this report and the publications that follow will justify his faith in the project. We would also like to thank all participants who agreed to be interviewed for this study. They showed a lot of confidence in us and in the importance of this research. A special thank you goes to our interviewers – Maja Jovanovic, Tara Hahmann, and Tamar Meyer. Their patience and careful interviewing was a great asset to this study. Additionally, their help with transcription and data analysis is greatly appreciated. Agata Falkowski-Ham entered the quantitative data, generated data analyses, and provided interpretations of the quantitative analyses. Agata did a marvellous job and made it easy for us to see the linkages between the qualitative (open-ended) and quantitative (closed-ended) questions in our interview schedule. Sandra Colavecchia, a recent recipient of the doctorate in sociology at the University of Toronto, devised questions that focused on the financial aspects of gambler’s households, analyzed couples’ responses, and contributed to the final report. Since one of the more visible effects of problem gambling can be seen through personal and family finances, Sandra’s contribution to the research was of first-rate importance. Finally, we would like to acknowledge all the hard work of Linn Clark, whose input, editing, and time is greatly appreciated. Her contributions have made for a better final report. We thank you for your talent and diligence. We dedicate this report to our interviewees in the hopes that something in our research has, or will, make a difference in their lives. Their contribution to the ongoing prevention of problem gambling will inevitably inform both health professionals and families who are affected by this issue. Lorne Tepperman David Korn Jennifer Reynolds Toronto, June 2006 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 7 2.0 RESEARCH PROJECT................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Literature Review................................................................................................. 8 2.2 The Measurement of Problem Gambling ............................................................. 11 2.3 Conceptual Framework for Our Analysis ............................................................ 11 2.4 Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................................ 11 2.5 Research Question................................................................................................ 12 2.6 Methods................................................................................................................ 12 2.6.1 Sampling ................................................................................................ 12 2.6.2 Data Collection Tools ............................................................................ 12 2.7 Limitations of Study............................................................................................. 13 3.0 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS ........................................................................ 14 3.1 Demographics....................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Gambling Problems of Participants...................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Quantitative Results as Reported by Gamblers ..................................... 15 3.2.2 Qualitative Results as Reported by Gamblers ....................................... 17 3.2.3 Quantitative Results as Reported by Partners........................................ 25 3.2.4 Qualitative Results as Reported by Partners.......................................... 27 3.3 Relationship Situation of Participants .................................................................. 29 3.3.1 Quantitative Results as Reported by Gamblers ..................................... 29 3.3.2 Qualitative Results as Reported by Gamblers ....................................... 31 3.3.3 Quantitative Results as Reported by Partners........................................ 34 3.3.4 Qualitative Results as Reported by Partners.......................................... 35 3.4 Openness to Treatment/Change............................................................................ 38 3.4.1 Quantitative Results as Reported by Gamblers ..................................... 38 3.4.2 Qualitative Results as Reported by Gamblers ....................................... 39 3.4.3 Qualitative Results as Reported by Partners.......................................... 49 3.5 Quantitative Interconnections between Scales..................................................... 52 3.5.1 Effects of Gambling on the Marital Situation........................................ 52 3.5.2 Effects of Gambling on the Marital Situation and Openness to Treatment/Change.................................................................................. 52 3.6 Couples Analysis.................................................................................................. 52 3.6.1 How Couples Communicate about Problem Gambling.......................... 53 3.6.2 Impact of Gambling................................................................................ 55 3.7 Vignettes of Participants ..................................................................................... 59 4.0 GENERAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 64 5.0 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 67 4 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 67 References........................................................................................................................ 69 Appendix A. Tables for Gamblers’ Analyses ................................................................. 71 Appendix B. Tables for Partners’ Analyses.................................................................... 90 Appendix C. Gambler Instruments ................................................................................. 102 Appendix D. Partner Instruments.................................................................................... 134 5 Executive Summary The purpose of this research was to explore in what ways, and with what degree of success, Ontario adults try to regulate their partner’s gambling behaviour. Our specific objectives were: 1. To describe the extent and character of problem gambling in a non-random sample of Toronto residents; 2. To examine the extent and character of marital problems associated with this problem gambling; 3. To describe the degree of network embeddedness of these couples – the degree to which they occupy each other’s worlds; 4. To find out how the gambling problem, the marital problem, and the network embeddedness affect readiness for treatment. In total, 90 adults from the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) were self-selected to take part in this study -- 59 who self-declared as having (or potentially having) a gambling problem and 31 who self- declared as partners of people who have, or potentially have, a gambling problem. Of those 90 individuals, 10 couples agreed to take part in an extra couples part of the study. The sample was recruited with advertisements placed in newspapers, local educational gambling websites, and meeting places of Gamblers Anonymous and Gam-Anon. We used a survey instrument (containing roughly 90 closed-ended questions) and an interview (containing roughly 30 open-ended questions). Couples willing to engage in the separate couples interview were asked an extra set of 20 open-ended questions. Findings 1. The extent and character of problem gambling in a sample of Toronto residents: All gamblers in the study were initially given the CPGI to find out their gambling levels. Most of our participants fell into the problem gambling category of gambling (with a score of 8 or more on the CPGI); the average CPGI score was 15. Only 7 out of 59 participants scored below 8 points on the CPGI. Much of the gambling behaviour by our participants can be considered high risk and points to a downward spiral of addiction. Surprisingly, only half of the participants felt they have a gambling problem or felt guilty about their gambling. 2. The extent