Commercial Gambling Advertising: Understanding the Youth Connection
Principal Investigator: David Korn, MD, CAS (University of Toronto)
Project Coordinator: Jennifer Reynolds, M.Ed (University of Toronto)
Marketing Expert: Tim Hurson
Final report submitted to the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre
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
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 3
Introduction ...... 5
Literature Review...... 6
Research Design ...... 9 Research Goals...... 9 Methodology ...... 9 Instruments ...... 11
Results ...... 12
Discussion ...... 54
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………...55
Recommendations ...... 56
Summary ...... 58
References ...... 59
Appendices ...... 63 Appendix A (youth interview questions) ...... 63 Appendix B (key informant interview questions) ...... 67 Appendix C (self administered questionnaire) ...... 71 Appendix D (frequency tables) ...... 91
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Today’s gambling environment can be characterized by continued expansion that in part has led to a climate in which gambling is largely seen by the young as normal, reasonable, and fun. Alongside this continued expansion has been the incessant increase in money allocated towards commercial gambling advertising and promotions. Commercial gambling advertising is ubiquitous and refers to advertising that promotes publicly sanctioned gambling and its products to consumers. The pervasiveness of this environment virtually ensures that youth will be exposed to it in the course of their daily lives. However, little attention has been paid to the potential impact of advertising on youths’ behavioural intentions, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs.
This study represents the second phase of a strategic initiative to better understand the influence of exposure to commercial gambling advertising on young people, ages 13-17. Our first phase study, funded by the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, was exploratory in design and warranted further study in this important area. The purpose of this research was to: 1) document the exposure of youth to all commercial gambling advertising through identifying their placement and frequency over a period of time, 2) extend our understanding of the potential impact of commercial gambling advertising on youth through the use of in-depth interviews, and 3) utilize for the first time a quantitative survey to determine the influence of commercial gambling advertising on the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of youth.
Methods
A three-stage approach, utilizing a mixed method design, was used in this study to further examine the impact of commercial gambling advertising on youths’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behavioural intentions. First, the occurrence of commercial gambling advertisements in all media was documented and analyzed over the winter quarter of 2005 to determine placement and frequency of ads. During the second phase, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 youth along the gambling continuum (i.e., non-, moderate, at-risk, and problem gamblers), from across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and 9 key informants from various gambling and non-gambling related organizations. Finally, a self-administered questionnaire was delivered to over 1033 youth, from 6 secondary schools across the GTA.
Results
The findings of this study clearly illustrate that commercial gambling advertising does influence youths’ gambling attitudes knowledge, beliefs, and behavioural intentions. Key findings from this study include: • Young people have been “overexposed” to commercial gambling advertisements during several youth popular television shows;
4
• Youth were able to remember specific gambling advertisements, slogans and jingles, as well as recall particular television gambling plot lines; • Many youth and key informants felt that commercial gambling advertising does have an impact on youths’ gambling attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and behavioural intentions; • Youth problem gamblers reported being more likely to purchase lottery, Pro-Line or instant-scratch tickets if they had seen an advertisement for it; • Youth problem gamblers appeared to be significantly more likely to be influenced by the name of the game when playing lottery products; • Youth problem gamblers were twice to as likely to feel that they were slow learners and were more likely to report being diagnosed with a learning disability
Results are intended to inform health professionals and public policy makers on the possible effects of adult-focused commercial gambling advertising youth and highlight the need for further research in this area.
Future Directions
As a result of our findings, several recommendations are suggested for future research, policy and practice:
Research • Further explore the impact of commercial gambling advertising and promotions on youth. • Extend our understanding of problem gambling in youth with co-occurring conditions. • Broaden the scope of inquiry to include point-of-sale promotions, Internet marketing, sports sponsorship and commercial gambling advertising. Policy • Establish common guiding principles for all commercial gambling advertising and promotions that impact youth. • Develop clear and concise numeric commercial gambling advertising placement standards. Practice • Strengthen youth media literacy initiatives. • Intensify enforcement of lottery point-of-sale age prohibitions. • Discontinue the development of lottery products associated with well-known children’s games (e.g., Battleship and Monopoly).
5
INTRODUCTION
Commercial gambling advertising is ubiquitous. The pervasiveness of this environment virtually ensures that youth will be exposed to it in the course of their daily lives. However, little attention has been paid to the potential impact of advertising on youths’ behavioural intentions, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs.
In Ontario, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation spends almost 10% of its net revenue on gambling marketing and promotion, slightly more than one-quarter of a billion dollars a year (OLG, 2005). Commercial gambling advertising refers to advertising that promotes publicly sanctioned legal gambling to consumers.
Youth spend a large amount of time exposed to a combination of media. Undoubtedly, this exposure affects their choices and may influence their risk-taking behaviour. This study builds on our findings from our study entitled: Commercial Gambling Advertising: Possible Impact on Youth Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs and Behavioural Intentions, funded by the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre. As the first study in Canada to explore this important issue, youth in our study indicated that they considered gambling a normal behaviour and saw lotteries as the dominant form of legal gambling. Most intended to gamble in the foreseeable future, despite acknowledged risks, viewed legal gambling prohibitions as only marginally relevant, believed that gambling risks were more significant for their younger peers, and felt that the lottery advertisements were preparing them to gamble for when they come of age (Korn, 2005).
During the course of our first exploratory study examining commercial gambling advertising and youth, it was discovered that the Gaming Control Act and Regulations only apply to casino-type facilities that offer table games and slot machines (Gaming Control Act, 1992). Lotteries and other legal forms of gambling are not covered in legislation. As a result of that research, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation developed a set of internal advertising and marketing standards (OLC, 2005). With respect to minor, internal standards, they state that all advertising and marketing materials must not: 1) feature in primary roles of individuals who are, or appear to be, minors to promote gaming; 2) appear in media directed primarily to minors, or where most of the audience is reasonably expected to be minors; 3) appear on billboards that are directly adjacent to schools or other primarily youth-oriented locations; 4) be based on themes, or use language, intended to appeal primarily to minors; and 5) contain figures, symbols, role models, and/or celebrity/entertainer endorsers whose primary appeal is to minors (OLG, 2005).
This study is the second phase of a three phase research agenda focusing on youth gambling and the potential role of advertising on youths’ behaviours, attitudes, knowledge and beliefs. In this study the following initiatives were carried out: 1) examine the media placement of advertising to gain a more accurate understanding of youth exposure to commercial gambling advertising; 2) conduct intensive in-depth interviews with a diverse mix of youth and key informants; 3) carry out a quantitative survey with youth in the Greater Toronto Area to assess attitudes, knowledge and behavioural intent with respect to gambling.
6
LITERATURE REVIEW
A dramatic expansion of gambling has occurred worldwide over the past decade (Adams, 2008; Korn, 2000). This phenomenon raises a public health concern about its impact on youth. Today’s youth is the first generation in Canada to be exposed to wide-scale, legalized gambling. Studies indicate that 60-80% of youth participate in gambling and that youth problem gambling prevalence rates are 2-4 times higher then those of the adult population (Shaffer & Hall, 2001). The range of gambling activities that youth report participating in is quite varied, including dice, betting with peers, cards, sports betting, lottery tickets, and other games of chance (Felsher, Derevensky & Gupta, 2004; Korn, 2005). Skinner et al. (2004) report that dares, betting, and gambling were identified by youth as social activities frequently used to relieve boredom, as well as to establish roles in their social networks. Research carried out by Korn (2005) indicated that youth report that they enjoy the adrenaline rush that comes with sports betting and that betting on sports is a great way to show support for your favorite team. With increased participation and exposure to gambling opportunities, there is a concern that gambling among youth will increase (Ladouceur, Boisevert & Dumont, 1994).
The average youth currently spends one-third of each day exposed to media (Roberts, 2000). Research indicates that television, radio, and print advertising have the ability to persuade people to buy. Movies, along with television entertainment programs, exert significant influence over ideas, values, and behaviours (DeJong, 2002; Earle, 2000; Kilbourne, 1999). A number of studies examining the impact of advertising on youth and viewing of high-risk behaviours in movies and television provide strong evidence that exposure has been shown to be effective in increasing awareness, emotional response, recognition, and desire to own or use the products promoted (Dalton et al., 2003; Strasburger, 2002).
Despite the pervasiveness of commercial gambling advertising, little empirical research exists on the effects of commercial gambling advertising (Griffiths, 2003). As the first study in Ontario to explore the possible impact of commercial gambling advertisements on adolescents (ages 13-17), Korn (2005) found that ads for lottery tickets departed somewhat from the trends observed in the horse racing and casino ads. Lottery advertisements often used younger-looking models or actors and used humour, both of which held the attention of the youth in the study.
In 2001, a total of 1,500 individuals in New Zealand were administered a gambling advertising survey. Amey (2001) found that 89% could remember seeing or hearing some form of gambling advertising in the past year. Further, the number of people who recalled advertisements for lottery games was identical to the number who played the games. Results found no significant difference between females’ (88%) and males’ (90%) ability to remember the advertisements. However, it was found that the younger the person was, the more likely they were to remember some form of gambling advertising. Over 93% of individuals under the age of 25 recalled gambling advertising. Amey (2001) noted an association between gambling advertisement recall
7
and participation in gaming activities.
Notwithstanding the lack of research available on advertising, youth and gambling, there have been many studies examining the effects and influence of tobacco and alcohol advertising on youth behaviour (Altman et al., 1996; Atkin, 1993; Centre for Disease Control, 1994; Collins, Phyllis & McCaffrey, 2003; Dalton et al., 2003; Evans et al., 1995; Grube & Wallack, 1994; Institute of Medicine, 1994).
For comparative purposes, prevalence rates and issues with alcohol consumption provide a strong parallel to gambling. Both activities are legal for adults to participate in, are heavily marketed and highly regulated, and both industries are sanctioned by the government and provide them with substantial tax revenues. Additionally, alcohol and gambling were both prohibited earlier in the twentieth century and, currently, each industry positions itself as an entertainment or recreational pursuit, focusing on individual responsibility (Korn & Shaffer, 1999). According to the Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS), it was reported that 0.7 - 5.4% of Ontario adults report experiencing harm from personal alcohol use. Specifically, 1.7% report experiencing a harmful effect on work, studies, or employment opportunities, 1.8% feeling an impact on their home life or marriage, 5.4% indicate experiencing physical health problems, and 2.8% report experiencing harm on their financial position (Aldolf, Begin & Sawka, 2005).
Research on alcohol and advertising indicate that alcohol advertising is a significant factor in drinking behaviour among youth (Centre for Substance Abuse Prevention, 1997; Grube, 1999) and that exposure to advertisements can make children more likely to try alcohol (Grube, 1999; Grube & Wallack, 1994). Austin and Knaus (1998) found within a group of third-sixth, and ninth-grade students that exposure to alcohol advertising at a young age influenced drinking behaviour during adolescence. A study completed in Sweden during the 1970s found that drinking behaviour decreased by 20% per capita following a ban on all beer and wine advertising (Romelsjo, 1987).
Research in the area of tobacco and alcohol advertising has lead to restrictions imposed on advertisements’ content and placement. For example, federal regulations under the Tobacco Act require that tobacco ads not be aimed at youth and that placements minimize youth exposure (Options for Tobacco Promotion and Regulation, 1999). Atkin et al. (1984) demonstrated a significant positive relationship between young people’s exposure and attention to alcohol advertisements and their subsequent drinking behaviour. Additionally, it was found that young participants who reported high levels of exposure to alcohol ads, but did not drink yet, were more likely to do so in the future.
As a result of a compelling body of research that documents youth’s exposure to alcohol and tobacco advertisements and potentially risky behaviour, the Centre on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at Georgetown University systematically tracked youth exposure to alcohol advertising.
8
Recently, the Centre published research documenting youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television from 2001 to 2007. Results indicate that youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television has risen by 38% since 2001. Additionally, the Centre found that 40% of youth exposure to alcohol advertising came from ads placed during youth-oriented programming and that almost two-thirds of these overexposing ad placements were on cable television, which generated 95% of youth “overexposure” (i.e., were on programs where youth was greater than 15.6% of the viewing audience). Following the distribution of this report, the Federal Trade Commissioner called for the strengthening of the alcohol industry’s placement standard for its advertising from 70% legal-aged audiences to 75% (Centre on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, 2008).
Alcohol manufacturers have increasingly utilized the alcohol industry’s official sponsorship of high-profile sporting events in order to realize that opportunities for synergies between promotion and advertising (Novak, 2004). The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, produced by Advertising Standards Canada, states: “Products prohibited from sale to minors must not be advertised in such a way as to appeal particularly to persons under legal age…And people featured in advertisements for such products must be, and clearly seen to be, adults under the law” (Advertising Standards Canada, 2004, as cited in Novak, 2004). According to Novak (2004), the current high-profile alcohol industry’s use of sports sponsorship, with a heavy advertising component, risks being in violation of this regulation.
The high level of alcohol advertising during the NCAA’s (the governing body of intercollegiate sports) March Madness 2008 tournament in broadcasts prompted more than 100 college presidents and athletic directors to write a letter to NCAA President Myles Brand, specifically urging the organization to reconsider its policies on alcohol advertising. According to the letter, the NCAA violated its own policies limiting beer advertising to 60 seconds per hour and no more than 120 seconds per telecast (Krone, 2008). Additionally, many organizations such as the American Medical Association support alcohol-free advertising for college sports and the Big Ten have banned alcohol-and gambling-related advertising from its Big Ten Network (Krone, 2008).
As previously stated, regulations on commercial gambling advertisements, such as the Gambling Control Act (1992), do exist, however, they do not apply to commercial gambling lottery advertisements (Gaming Control Act, 1992). The American Gaming Association (2003) has pledged to make responsible gaming an integral part of its daily operations, including advertising and marketing by AGA member companies. Its code states that gaming advertising and marketing will not: 1) contain figures, symbols, celebrities, and/or language that appeal to children and minors, 2) feature current collegiate athletes, 3) present anyone who is, or appears to be, a minor participating in a gaming activity, 4) imply that gaming will guarantee an individual’s social, financial and personal success, 5) be placed where most of the audience is expected or specifically oriented to children and/or minors 6) imply or suggest illegal activity of any kind, 7) be placed adjacent to or in close proximity to comics or other youth features, and 8)
9
will not be placed at any venue where the audience is expected to be below the legal age to participate.
As Brown and Brown (1994) report, lotteries and other gambling products have become common components of television, print, and radio advertising. External factors, such as exposure and availability, have been viewed by some social scientists as influencing patterns of gambling behaviour. The exposure model suggests that exposure to gambling or gambling-related events (e.g., gambling advertising) can influence a shift in an individual’s experience, behaviour, and health status (McGuire, 1964; Shaffer, LaBrie & LaPlante, 2004).
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Question: Does lottery and other commercial gambling advertising influence the intention to gamble among Ontario youth?
Research Goals: As the second phase of a three-phase research agenda, this study sought to achieve the following goals:
1. To comprehensively document the exposure of youth to commercial gambling advertising through identifying the placement and frequency of the ads (i.e., whether they are linked to youth-targeted entertainment, how often they appear, and in which media they appear). 2. To further our understanding of the potential impact on youth through in-depth interviews that focus on youths’ attraction to gambling, the cognitive distortions and dissonances that apply to them, and their attribution of risk to younger peers but to not themselves. 3. To carry out a quantitative survey to determine whether commercial gambling advertising influences the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of young people.
Methodology: A three-stage approach, utilizing a mixed method design, was used in this study to further examine the impact of commercial gambling advertising on youths’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behavioural intentions.
Stage One (Youth Exposure): A significant dimension to understanding the potential impact on youth is the documentation of youths’ exposure to commercial gambling advertisements. The occurrence of commercial gambling advertisements in the media (i.e. television, magazines, newspapers, outdoor signage) was determined by a professional media-tracking agency. Through their in-house data collection methodology, the goal was to identify the placement and frequency of all commercial gambling advertisements over the winter quarter of 2005. Analysis of the results document: 1) whether the ads are linked to youth- targeted entertainment or programming such as coverage of sporting events that attract a large youth audience, 2) how often they appear, and 3) in which specific media they appear.
10
Stage Two (In-depth Interviews): In-depth interviews were held with 20 youth (aged 13-17) from across the Greater Toronto Area who were classified along the gambling continuum using DSM IV-J scores. (see Appendix A for interview schedule). DSM IV-J classifications were as follows: 1) non-gamblers 20% (4 youth), 2) social gamblers 60% (12 youth), 3) at-risk gamblers 15% (3 youth), and 4) problem gamblers 5% (1 youth).
The objective of the in-depth interviews was to directly probe youths’ perspectives on all commercial gambling advertisements. Particular attention was paid to advertisements for unregulated lottery and sports lottery advertisements and how they shape their perceptions and decision-making regarding gambling.
Youth from diverse age, sex, ethnocultural and socio-economic backgrounds were chosen and parental consent was required for all participants. In addition, the youth received an honorarium in appreciation for their time and participation. Interviews were approximately one hour in duration, and were taped and transcribed for accuracy. Qualitative methodologies were used to analyze the interview data. Specifically, an inductive analytic approach was used to capture the consensus of respondents and to explicate differences and similarities.
Additionally, key informant interviews were conducted with various key stakeholders (see Appendix B for interview schedule). Invitations to participate in our study were submitted to the following organizations: the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, the Responsible Gambling Council of Ontario, the YMCA Youth Gambling Awareness Program, Toronto Public Health, the Ministry of Health Promotion, as well as an academic specializing in the area of tobacco advertising and a marketing and production company with experience in creating advertising for the Ontario gambling industry. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed utilizing an inductive analytic approach.
Stage Three (Self-administered Questionnaire): As a complement to the two previous research tasks described above, this study also delivered a self-administered questionnaire to 1,033 youth from 6 secondary schools in the Greater Toronto Area. The self-administered questionnaire (see Appendix C) was derived utilizing the following measurement scales: 1) the DSM-IV-MR-J gambling screen (Fisher, 2000); 2) the Gambling Activities Questionnaire (Derevensky & Gupta, 1996); 3) the Gambling Attitudes and Norms Scale (Moore & Ohthsuka, 1999); the Gambling Misconceptions and Knowledge Scale (Ferland, Ladouceur & Vitaro, 2002); the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). In addition, students were also asked questions that explored exposure to commercial gambling advertising, gambling participation, and questions around lottery, scratch tickets, and sports betting (as utilized by Derevensky & Gupta, 2001).
To analyze the prevalence, participation, relations, and influences of commercial gambling advertising on youths’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours, quantitative analysis was conducted by SPSS using descriptive, relational, and standard multivariate techniques (i.e., correlations, regression and ANOVA’s).
11
Specific schools involved in the study were determined through negotiation between all parties and selection reflected Toronto’s socio-economic and demographic diversity. In lieu of individual student incentives, an honorarium was provided to each participating school.
Instruments
This study utilized the following instruments:
1. The DSM-IV-MR-J (Fisher, 2000), was used to screen for adolescence who have gambled over the past year. For scoring purposes, an adolescent who scores four ‘yes’ answers (out of 12 items) is classified as a problem gambler. The principle components of this screening tool examine issues such as preoccupation, tolerance, loss of control, withdrawal, escape, lies, unsocial/illegal acts, and risked education/family relationships. 2. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965), was used to measure global self-esteem by asking particular questions that focus on such factors as personal worthiness, appearance, and social competence (e.g., “I feel useless at times” and “I wish I could like myself more”). RSES score is a sum of the scores for all 10 items. The scale is a 10-item Likert scale with questions answered on a four-point scale - from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Half of the questions are scored from 0 – “strongly disagreed” to 3 for “strongly agree” responses (questions 51 a, c, d, g, j), while the rest were reverse scored when “strongly disagreed” was equivalent to 3 and “strongly agree” was scored as 0 (questions 51 b, e, f, h, I). The higher the score, the higher the self-esteem. 3. The Gambling Activities Questionnaire (GAQ) (Derevensky & Gupta, 1996), was designed to assess four general domains related to gambling behaviours: Descriptive information; Cognitive perceptions; familial gambling; and comorbidity with other addictive and delinquent behaviour. Questions within each section domain are discrete, analyzed individually and no cumulative scores are calculated. For this study only a select number of questions from the GAQ have been incorporated into the self- administered questionnaire. 4. The Gambling Knowledge & Misconceptions Questionnaire (Ferland, Ladouceur & Vitaro, 2002) was used to examine adolescence gambling knowledge and misconceptions. In total, the questionnaire contains seven (7) questions that assess misconceptions about gambling and nine (9) questions that examine knowledge. With respect to the misconception questions, if a student strongly agreed, agreed, or chose the “don’t know” response, the student was given a score of 1, as they hold incorrect ideas about gambling. In the end, the misconception score could vary from 0 (no erroneous statements) to a score of 7 (all answers were incorrect). Similar to the misconception scale, a score of 0 indicated a good knowledge of probabilities (and therefore no erroneous responses), while a score of 9 denoted a poor knowledge of probabilities, since the student responded incorrectly to all knowledge questions. With the exception of two questions (36 and 39), strongly disagreed, disagreeing, or choosing the “don’t know” response indicated a wrong answer, while strongly agreeing or agreeing indicated a correct response. For questions 36 (“At lottery, choosing numbers based on the numbers that came out most often during the year can be a good way to increase your chances to
12
win”), and 39 (“If I play LOTTO 6/49, I have more chances to win if I choose my lucky numbers”) the scoring was reversed, where strongly agreeing, agreeing, and the “don’t know” response indicated a wrong answer, while strongly disagreeing, or disagreeing indicated a correct response. 5. The Gambling Attitudes and Norms Questionnaire (Moore & Ohtsuka, 1999) was used to assess the adolescents gambling attitudes. For the purpose of this study, only questions pertaining to gambling attitudes were utilized. This measure consisted of 12 statements. Questions 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, and 23 were scored as follows: strongly agree (5), agree (4), don’t know (3), disagree (2), or strongly disagree (1). Questions 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 22 were reverse scored where: strongly agree (1), agree (2), don’t know (3), disagree (4), or strongly disagree (5). With appropriate reversals, items were summed to produce a scale for which Scores could range between 12 and 60 and high scores represented positive attitudes to gambling.
Ethics Approval: The study protocol was submitted for review and approval to both the University of Toronto Ethics Review Committee and the Toronto District School Board Review Committee. Approval was received before the commencement of the project.
RESULTS
Stage One:
Youth Exposure: All commercial gambling advertisements were tracked across major Ontario television stations by a professional media-tracking company during the winter quarter of 2005. Advertisements were tracked for frequency, placement, and youth viewership. The following represents the findings. Adolescent viewership is broken down between teens (ages 12-17), child (ages < 12), and total. Additionally, commercial gambling advertisements were tracked for the following companies: the OLG, Woodbine Entertainment, Pokerroom.com, PartyPoker.com, and Pokerstar.net.
Television
In total, 13,406 commercial gambling advertising product commercials appeared on television during the winter quarter of 2005.
Figure 1 illustrates the top 11 television series representing a total adolescent viewership of 14% or more. The television shows with the most adolescent viewership was “American Idol 6” (33%) and “CSI” (31%), closely followed by the “Santa Claus Parade” (21%) and “Dancing with the Stars” (18%).
13
Figure 1 – Television Series
Figure 2 displays the youth viewership of sports shows on television captured during the winter quarter 2005, broken down by adolescent and child categories. “Hockey Night in Canada” had a significant amount of adolescent and child viewers (41%).
Figure 2 – Sports
Utilizing the current Federal Trade Commissions advertising placement standards, the following commercial gambling lottery product advertisements were shown to audiences where the child and adolescent viewership exceeded the standard 25%:
• LOTTO SUPER 7 Lottery • Cash for Life Instant Lottery • PayDay Lottery
14
• Pro-Line Lottery
Finally, it should be noted that with respect to specific networks, no commercial gambling advertisements were placed directly on youth-oriented networks (i.e. YTV etc) during the winter quarter of 2005.
Radio
In total, 1,654 commercial gambling advertisements were captured on the radio during the winter quarter of 2005. Commercial advertisements were for OLG lottery products only. Radio advertisements were placed in five Ontario cities (i.e. Hamilton, London, Ottawa, St. Catharines, Toronto), over 14 stations (680 News, CFMJ, CFPL, CFRB, CHFI, CHRE, CHUM-FM, CJEZ EZROCK, CKBY, CKOC, FAN590, MIX 99.10, MIX 99.9, Q107).
Figure 3 represents the commercial gambling advertisements placed on radio programs that exceeded the 25% adolescent viewership, as outlined by the Federal Trade Commission.
Figure 3 – Radio
Station Program Teen Viewership Q107 (Toronto) Kim Mitchell 49% Q107 (Toronto) Joanne Wilder 48% Al Joynes 48% Q107 (Toronto) Derringer in the Morning 37% MIX 99.9 (Toronto) Maura Grierson 32% Mix on Demand 32% Ron Young 32% MIX 99.9 (Toronto) Steve Anthony 25%
Magazines
In total, five commercial gambling advertisements appeared in magazines during the winter quarter of 2005. Specifically, commercial gambling advertisements were only placed in Specialty Gambling Magazines (i.e. Bluff Magazine).
Newspapers
In total, 281 commercial gambling advertisements appeared in newspapers. During the winter quarter of 2005, commercial gambling advertisements were placed in the following Ontario major newspapers:
• 24 Hours (Toronto daily) • Whig-Standard (Kingston)
15
• Metro (Toronto daily) • Toronto Star • National Post • Toronto Sun • Niagara Falls Review • Windsor Star • Ottawa Citizen
The commercial gambling advertisements promoting the following products were found in Ontario newspapers listed above:
• Daily Keno • Pick 3 • LOTTO 6/49 • Pick 4 • LOTTO SUPER 7 • Pro-Line • Millionaire Life • Pro-Pick • OLG Corporate • Pro-Pick Pools • OLG Slots • Windsor Casino • Ottawa Casino • Woodbine Entertainment • PayDay Lottery
Outdoor
In total, 16 commercial gambling advertisements were placed on outdoor signage. All promotions were placed in the Toronto area for the following commercial gambling products:
• Daily Keno • PayDay Lottery • PartyPoker.com
Specifically, the commercial gambling advertisements were placed at the following intersections:
• Queen & Broadview • Yonge & Sheppard • Greenwood & Gerrard • Queen & Shuter • Queen & Landsdown • Gardener & Spadina
Stage Two:
Youth In-depth Interviews: Twenty in-depth interviews were conducted with youth across the Greater Toronto Area. Youth were recruited through a professional recruitment company. To broadly reflect the distribution of gambling behaviours identified in existing prevalence estimates, we recruited four youth (20%) who scored as non-gamblers, 12 youth (60%) who scored as social gamblers, three at-risk youth gamblers, and one youth (5%) who scored as a problem gambler. Youth participants were evenly distributed by sex (10 girls, 10 boys) and by socio-economic and ethno-cultural diversity when possible.
16
The objectives of these in-depth interviews were to probe more deeply into youths’ perspectives on all commercial gambling advertisements but paying particular attention to unregulated lottery and sports lottery advertisements. Specifically, the qualitative component of this study sought to examine the media habits of all youth, the youth perspectives on commercial gambling advertising, and youth gambling habits. While the recruitment of youth aimed to broadly reflect the distribution of gambling problem prevalence rates (similar to gender, ethno-cultural and socio-economic diversities), the purpose was not meant to compare responses across groups but to begin to understand youths’ perspectives more broadly.
Media Habits
Every interview began by asking each youth about their media habits and if any of the television shows, movies, or Web sites they visited related to gambling. First, youth were asked to identify their five favorite television programs. While there was a broad range of shows that youth stated as their favorite, the most popular shows cited were: “The Simpsons”, “Family Guy”, “MuchMusic”, “South Park”, “Friends”, “Seinfeld” and “sports” in general.
No matter whether or not the youth were non-gamblers, social, at-risk or problem gamblers, all youth were quick to remember a number of gambling-themed episodes of their favorite TV shows. Natalie (social gambler) relates an episode from a popular youth program called “The Simpsons”:
Natalie: It involves gambling in that…when Marge has a gambling problem. Do you remember that one? Interviewer: No. Natalie: I’ve seen all of them. She would just go to this place, a casino, and she’d have a cup full of quarters and she’d do the Lucky 7 and the numbers come up and she’d keep going and keep going and keep winning and getting addicted and her whole family was watching her and they had to get her out of there and it took a while. Interviewer: How did they depict gambling? As good or bad? Natalie: Bad. You watched her from literally being such a good mom, like to going absolutely psychologically insane. Interviewer: Did they resolve it? How did they resolve it? Natalie: Well, they tried to make…I don’t really remember how they resolved it, but they tried to get her away from it, but then she went back and they took her away again and she stayed away for good.
When asked whether they had seen or remembered any gambling movies, youth participants were able to identify a number of different movies that directly included gambling in the plot line. Youth were asked to state how these movies represented gambling, and with the exception of one youth, all participants stated that the movies that they had seen portrayed gambling in “a good way that they [people] win and it makes them happy.” - Daniel, social gambler
17
Other youth stated that for the most part, all the movies that they had seen only show the good side of gambling:
It’s depicted as fun. Like people enjoy going to gamble and they don’t really depict the bad side of it when it happens - Meachum (non-gambler)
Another youth was able to recall some older movies based on gambling, but suggested that with the recent craze over poker, we will be seeing an influx of poker movies:
I’ve watched Ocean’s Eleven, which has to do with odds. And older movies, I guess…there are older ones, I can’t remember the title. I can’t think of newer movies that focus on gambling, but older ones, especially with pool, like sharks and stuff. And poker, I mean poker has become really big recently, so I’m sure they’ll come out with a movie about poker soon. It’s inevitable, probably. - Andrew (social gambler)
Only one youth remembered a movie that portrayed the “bad side” of gambling, featuring a young woman who developed a severe gambling problem:
It was a made-for-TV movie with Elisha Cuthbert. Basically she got a hold of her parents’ credit card and started going onto an Internet gambling site. And, you know, she starts off by winning two hundred odd dollars, and is like, “Wow, this is great,” and keeps going and eventually plunges into like $4,000 worth of debt. It’s an awesome movie. I saw it when I was like nine or 10. I can’t remember what it was called, but look into it. It was called “Something Girl”, or “Stolen”. It was really good. - Brent (at-risk gambler)
The Web sites that were most frequently cited by youth participants were Facebook, Google, YouTube, Neopets, and Addictinggames.com. Of these 5 Web sites, it is important to note that Facebook, Neopets, and Addictinggames.com all have gambling-related content, games, and applications. In the case of Facebook, users can add an assortment of gambling applications, including Texas Holdem’ Poker, where individuals can play on-line for points and rank; Daily Pick’em which allows users to do Pro-Line-style sports betting for points and prizes; and a virtual lottery application where users choose their numbers and enter a daily draw for prizes. Although Facebook users are supposed to be 13 or older to have an account, no age enforcement exists to open an account or to add these gambling applications.
Neopets is an on-line virtual pet game where players “feed” their “pets” by playing games to gain points in order to buy food. Some of these games include casino-style games such as poker, roulette, and blackjack. Due to controversy from users, families, industry, and community groups, Neopets decided to restrict access to their casino-style games to users 13 and over.
18
Addictinggames.com (sponsored by Bubblelicious Bubblegum) and a similar Web site, Candystand.com (sponsored by Wrigley’s chewing gum), were cited by several youth as a favorite website. Although clearly geared towards a youth demographic, both of these Web sites feature card and casino-style games, imagery, and sounds. Casino-style Sudoku, Colo$$eum Blackjack, and Poker are among the games that any participant can play. What makes these Web sites more insidious, aside from the role that they have in potentially teaching youth how to play casino and card games, is that some of the children and adolescents were able to access these games at school because teachers did not perceive the sites as gambling Web sites:
I go to Candystand.com when I’m at school, because the teachers see it as lifesavers [instead of poker chips], and “Oh, it’s okay.” And at home I go to Holdempoker.com. It’s a free site, but you play for virtual money. So you start off with a thousand dollars, and you keep building up and it saves your money in your account, which is nice. - Timothy (social gambler)
In addition to Web sites that contain youth-directed gambling games and content, a number of youth participants (mostly non-gamblers and social gamblers) stated how much they were bombarded by “pop-up” advertisements for various free and/or money poker and casino sites. At-risk and problem gamblers did not mention the pop-up advertisements.
Youth Perceptions of Commercial Gambling Advertising
Youth were asked to recall if they remembered any commercials for gambling activities during any of their favorite shows. With one single exception (a non-gambler), all youth (19/20) interviewed were able to remember specific gambling advertisements during the commercial break of their favorite television shows, and the vast majority of youth were able to recall with alarming clarity the plot lines, slogans, and jingles of some of these commercial gambling advertisements:
The thousand dollars thing did “Fantastic.” I don’t know if the Princess Margaret does it or any of the hospitals. The Fantastic really strikes me. I don’t know if the other ones have them [slogans], although they probably do. I just don’t know if they have quite the hook. All throughout the commercial saying “Fantastic.” - Andrew (social gambler)
Well, there is the little “Ding Ding Ding” – the OLGC thing. There’s the “Yahoo” from the $1,000 a week per life thing. And…the LOTTO 6/49 is “Imagine the Freedom.” That’s all I can remember. - Brent (at-risk gambler)
Pro-Line commercials…I really like them. I think they’re pretty funny. I just mainly think of it, oh it’s just a sports one. When I’m watching sports…. Oh, I guess there was the $1,000 a week-per-life one as well. Most of them didn’t really have a plot line. It was people just wading around in money or riding around in a
19
boat. And then there are the crossword ones, I remember one about the crossword, and people would say the word that won them. They would say “sandwich,” and they would be standing by a yacht. Or they would say “Thanks, lunch bag”…I guess I recognize those as well, but I don’t really affiliate those with gambling, but I guess it is. I just think of it more as charity, I guess. Not as much with crosswords, I guess, but I just didn’t really think of it as gambling, but I guess it is. - Andrew (social gambler)
The only youth who did not remember gambling advertisements playing during his favorite shows was nonetheless able to recall several commercials that he has seen at other times:
Not necessarily during the shows, but I’ve seen commercials for gambling. There’s the one where there is a $1,000 a day for life. You’ll see the house, and they’ll add different things to the house. And LOTTO 6/49 – the son brings his parents into a house and says, “I hope you like it.” And there is definitely a bunch. There’s for PayDay I think, the guy works in an office, and he gets a thousand dollars a week also. The recent one there is a tiger in the boss’s office. There’s a bunch. - Daniel (social gambler)
The pervasiveness of gambling commercials in the media today meant that youth participants were able to recall details of many different gambling advertisements, such as LOTTO 6/49, Pro- Line, On-line Poker sites including PartyPoker.com, casino commercials including Casino Rama and Casino Niagara, the Heart and Stroke Foundation Lottery and other hospital-based mega- lotteries, and a variety of scratch-ticket advertisements. As one youth explains, gambling advertisements are always on television:
Yeah, there are always commercials for LOTTO 6/49, and I see poker on TV and I see they have commercials saying that at 8 o’clock there is a poker tournament on. - Timothy (social gambler)
When asked how these advertisements portrayed gambling, several youth made it clear that they were cognizant that gambling was essentially a business and, as such, these advertisements only portrayed the good aspects of gambling and not ever the negative consequences:
They make it look like a lot of fun, and you can make friends and meet people and stuff like that. And if you win, you have more money and you can spend it where you want to. - Sarah (at-risk gambler)
I don’t think I’ve seen any commercial where it’s been like “Don’t gamble because it’s bad.” I think I’ve probably seen ones where people are like laughing, or being like “Faaaaaaaantastic.” And Pro-Line got people screaming and yelling.
20
Everybody is screaming and yelling and happy, and I’m like, “I want a yacht.” I’ll go do that game I guess. - Andrew (social gambler)
There are people whose lives are really affected by gambling, and gamble every day and have an addiction. I don’t think that’s really shown. You can win money, and it doesn’t cost that much! It’s not like they’re necessarily blowing it up and making it a lot better than it is, but it’s not really a truth[ful] situation. They’re not really showing the bad side, but that’s understandable because it’s the lottery and things. You know, if I was running a car company and I made a car commercial, I wouldn’t start off by saying, “These are the recalls we’ve had, and these are the defects…” You want to show the good stuff. - Brent (at-risk gambler)
Another youth underscored that although the commercial gambling advertisements he had seen promote gambling, they also promote responsible gambling, and in the end it is up to the individual to determine how much is too much:
Gambling in the media - they say it’s fun to do, but you should probably gamble responsibly. That’s usually the message…It’s fair because…um…I don’t know, I just think it’s fair because they don’t really tell you to gamble. On the lottery commercials they just tell you the jackpot and it’s really up to you. You should have the knowledge that you should set your limit to how much you’re going to gamble. On TV they never make it seem like super easy to win. - Timothy (social gambler)
Youth participants were asked whether some of the gambling advertisements that they remember might have an influence on their friends and peers. Sarah (at-risk gambler), stated that “advertising in general is very influential, so I don’t see how gambling advertising would be any different.” Another youth explained that if an advertisement is funny or seen as “cool” by other youth, it may increase its influence on young people:
Yeah, probably. Because, like you know, I guess with such a funny commercial, or it’s witty, and everybody is talking about the commercial, and it’s seen as cool. I could see that definitely happening. - Andrew (social gambler)
One youth explained that the influence of gambling advertising might particularly impact young people due to financial and familial reasons:
When you see how happy the families are with all the money…how good the money is doing for their home, and helps them to pay their bills and everything. - Gabrielle (social gambler)
21
The impact of gambling ads on young people who are usually financially dependent on parents or caregivers or work part-time, low-paying jobs needs to be taken into consideration. As another youth participant states:
Because if you win it [lottery, Cash for Life] this young, it’s like “okay,” money is taken care of.” It opens a lot of doors. Or university is taken care of so I can just relax. As we get a little bit older, certainly in the next few years, money will be a big focus more than it ever really has been. So I think that watching commercials like that when people are winning millions of dollars, it’s like, “okay”, sign me up.” - Andrew (social gambler)
When youth were asked what advertisers can do to ensure that their advertisements are not directed towards underage youth, the number one response was to make sure that the actors in the commercials did not look young:
Avoid younger characters. Make sure they say that you have to be 18 to do this. That’s it. - Nicholas (social gambler)
In addition to making sure that gambling commercials do not contain young-looking characters, several youth participants stated the importance of making sure that the advertisements do not contain any music or style that would be popular among youth:
They can definitely put [in] middle-age people [in the advertisements]. Maybe even like the music or something that doesn’t appeal to youth and stuff like that. - Sarah (at-risk gambler)
Actually, I’m remembering one right now - PartyPoker.com, I think and it’s kind of…it looks animated and I think that one appeals towards youth because it looks like a video game. The way the people are sitting around the table, I think that would [appeal to youth]. - Amy (social gambler)
Other youth underscored that while commercial gambling advertisers should use “older” people in their commercials, there should be a real emphasis on having a disclaimer in the advertisement to prevent underage gambling by youth:
Just have a disclaimer saying if you’re 18 plus, and show some older people playing some games. I know they don’t show young people playing poker, but when you see it and they don’t have a disclaimer and they just show people playing on-line and winning money. They should at least say something, although that probably won’t work. But still, give them some sign. - Timothy (social gambler)
22
Maybe they should have something like the warning they have on cigarette packages. “Gambling is very addictive.” “You could become addicted to gambling. It can drain your finances. It could have a serious affect on your life.” I’m just thinking of other gambling ads – there have been a bunch for Woodbine and the Mohawk racetracks as well. You see people getting this excitement and winning the money and it’s like, but not everybody won the money, man! What happened to the other people? Just stuff like that…What about the rest of the picture? - Brent (at-risk gambler)
Another youth explained that gambling advertisers should be more cognizant of where and when their commercials are being run:
They can’t be so up in your face…They’re not thinking about what they’re doing. Like think about the channels that you [gambling advertisers] are putting them on [gambling advertisements], like the channels that little kids watch. like daytime and prime time, and they put it on certain shows and then kids will be watching it and they are not thinking right. - Kativa (non-gambler)
Youth Gambling Habits
All youth revealed that they participated in a broad range of gambling games including poker with friends and family, Internet poker, dice games like Cee-lo, blackjack, Pro-Line, scratch tickets, sports pools, and lotteries. Interestingly, a number of youth never identified their lottery or scratch-ticket gambling as “real” gambling. One youth demonstrates this when she was asked to remember any gambling advertisements she had seen during her favorite television shows:
Interviewer: Do you remember any commercials on TV about gambling? Johana: Yeah, Casino Rama or something like that…And casino on-line, does that count? Interviewer: Yeah, when we talk about gambling we mean casino, lottery, horse racing… Johana: Oh, lottery… I see them every day. You know, like scratch to win and stuff like that and it’s kind of annoying to see the same thing…but yeah, scratch to win, lottery, keno. Even the shows, they are like… “Maybe if we win the lottery, we’ll have more money.” - Johana (social gambler)
When asked about their gambling spending, 8/20 youth stated that they have purchased lottery tickets by themselves, for themselves. The ease with which many of the youth were able to go into a convenience store and purchase a scratch or lottery ticket on their own is outlined by the following youth:
23
Andrew: Yeah, a Pro-Line ticket, and I bought $1,000 a week for life. But I haven’t really done it that much. It’s not like every time I go in, it’s not like I look at the lottery ticket and go, “Oh wow.” I just sort of pass them by. Interviewer: Have you ever been carded? Andrew: Yeah…I have ID. And sometimes my cousin gets it. Or my dad will buy it – Pro-Line. I guess the perception is that I’m not allowed legally to do it. I don’t think it’s perceived as buying cigarettes. I think that if a police officer caught you with a Pro-Line ticket, they would be like, “Washington?! Nice…!” They probably wouldn’t’ be like “Here’s a ticket.” Or I’ve never heard of that happening. -Andrew (social gambler)
Well, it depends where you go because there is a place downtown, near my school, and yeah…not that I actually look underage, but they don’t actually look for ID. - Johana (social gambler)
Pro-Line, yeah. It was really easy. Because the convenience store just wants to make money, so…but I’m guessing if I do win, they’ll be like, “you’re underage.” They’re happy to sell, but won’t cash it in. - Daniel (social gambler)
While not all youth purchased lottery or scratch tickets on their own, 11 out of the 20 youth interviewed explained that they scratched tickets or did sports pools with family members, had older siblings buy tickets for them, received tickets as gifts, and/or were asked to pick numbers and choose cards by family. Of the youth who revealed that they did not purchase lottery or scratch tickets on their own, most of the 11 were either non-gamblers or social gamblers.
Sometimes for birthdays and stuff my grandparents would get us a scratch card. Or yeah…my mom buys me one or something. - Meacham (non-gambler)
I’ve been in a weekly football pool though my dad’s office. Where we give in 12 to -15 dollars a week and you can win money every week, and at the end whoever has won the most games wins a big pot. And I’ve bet on the odd hockey game through Pro-Line. But Pro-Line is difficult, so I’ve sort of stayed away from it. - Andrew (social gambler)
When deciding which cards or numbers to choose, some youth expressed that they had lucky techniques for choosing lucky cards. As Amy (a social gambler), states: “Sometimes I’ll just look at them and just try to get a feeling from it…like which one feels lucky.” Another participant describes a technique she uses to choose scratch cards:
24
I often look for crosswords and I look for the words and I associate them if they are involved with my life. Like if I feel they were lucky numbers or if they were all stacked like, 10 of them…I’ll count to seven or a certain number and then I’ll pick it. - Breanna (social gambler)
Key Informant Interviews: In total, five interviews were conducted with nine key stakeholders from the following organizations, including the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, the Responsible Gambling Council of Ontario, the YMCA Youth Gambling Awareness Program, Toronto Public Health, the Ministry of Health Promotion, as well as an academic specializing in the area of tobacco advertising. In an attempt to protect the individuals’ and their agencies confidentiality, key informants specific comments have been quoted without any identifying organizational information.
Current Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs about Youth Gambling
Overall, the majority of key informants had a considerable understanding of the prevalence and severity of gambling problems among youth; were aware of the types of gambling that youth are currently participating in; and were able to cite popular and current research to support their opinions.
Poker is very popular, and for younger kids, less formal forms of gambling, like betting on things, betting on games, or betting on competitions, races, for example.
My understanding is that it can be quite severe because I think gambling is something that you can accumulate quite a bit of long-term damage with…Research tells us that they’re [youth] are two to four times more likely to have a problem with gambling than adults – It’s not a huge amount of young people who have a problem with gambling.
Poker! Poker! And Internet gambling. I think those are the two things that are on the rise right now, sort of on the rise and are different from say 5-7 years ago.
When asked “To what extent do you think any of the following factors play a role in youth gambling behaviour?” most key informants all agreed that gender, mental health and media exposure all have at least an “effect” on youth gambling behaviour.
Younger age, I think it’s stronger for males…I think for women when they are older.
I think that media exposure has an effect. I think it probably has a strong effect if we’re thinking about the promotion of celebrities in poker tournaments, and that poker is now considered a sport…kids think they can do it if they practice.
25
Mental health….I would say that it is high. Based on what I’ve researched, mental health status has been linked to many core addictions.
In youth gambling, I think it is a strong effect. It’s more boys first.
Commercial Gambling Advertising Impacts on Youth
Key informants were specifically asked whether or not they felt that media and advertising influence young people to gamble. Most key informants agreed that media and advertising definitely influence youth to gamble; that advertising normalizes gambling; and portrays it as a fun activity that naturally attracts youth audiences.
I’ll bet it is more media based than advertising based…um…I’ll bet lottery advertising has a lot more impact and is a lot more visible and it does things that are a lot more appealing to kids – partially because of it’s silliness. I think casino advertising is more tightly controlled, they can’t talk about wining and stuff, and it’s supposed to be about entertainment, and it’s more target – whereas, lottery is everywhere.
I think any form of advertising is to influence in any shape or form. They do a very good job.
I think there is a lot of media exposure that would make it [lottery] appear desirable, and entertaining, and normalized. Certainly there wouldn’t be advertising, they wouldn’t spend their money on it if they weren’t getting some kind of return on investment.
With respect to the current regulation of lottery advertising, key informants were asked “What changes would you make (if any) in marketing and advertising that would better protect young people?” Many key informants were unaware of regulations for advertising, but were able to put forth several suggestions that they felt would better protect youth with respect to commercial gambling advertising. Some informants were aware of both internal OLG advertising codes and the Gaming Control Act of Ontario.
I don’t know what the regulations are for advertising. I don’t know if there are any. I assume they aren’t allowed to target underage kids, but I don’t know of a regulation that says that. Are there any?
There is an OLG advertising code, which goes well beyond the Gaming Control Act….with very clear metrics to follow.
I would suggest looking at what’s in place for tobacco and alcohol and learning from them. I think for example, scratch tickets – really look at the scratch tickets and they look like they are designed for children, and I think it is important that
26
they don’t look like that because they know that young people are not supposed to be playing those kinds of things.
I think they [advertisements] should be regulated externally by a body that isn’t interested in promoting profits….I think just the amount of advertising needs to be monitored and reduced. I have driven by a school, and next door to the school is a big billboard advertising a casino. I don’t think that’s appropriate.
We lie in a culture of gambling, so they are exposed to it. So to hide the information is not the way to go. It’s more towards the education of youth about advertising and its influence.
One thing that is important to do is build informal partnerships and support organizations like McGill to educate parents that putting a lottery ticket in a child’s Christmas stocking is not okay.
Counterforce Messaging
Finally, key informants were asked: “What counterforce/social marketing messages (currently in place) are you aware of that address the problem of underage gambling?” All respondents were able to say that they were aware of the clear signs at convenience stores that say that gambling is for adults only, but with respect to actual social marketing messages, all key informants were able to recall the Responsible Gambling Council’s Friends 4 Friends social marketing campaign.
When you ask, the only one I can come up with is Friends 4 Friends but the RGC.
I would have to say the Friends 4 Friends campaign is the only one directed to people that age….showing how youth can support their friends in that respect.
The Friends 4 Friends campaign, from the RGC was fantastic….the posters they designed specifically for the University campus’s. Also, the YMCA, and their very good program that they do going into the school….also the RGC’s plays.
Stage Three: In total, 1,033 students, from six secondary schools across the Greater Toronto Area completed the self-administered questionnaire.
Gambling Activity
Descriptive information on gambling activity of youth is presented in Table 1. On average, respondents participated in 3.19 (SD = 2.71) gambling activities (median 3, mode 0 gambling activities). If non-gamblers were excluded from the mean analysis, the average number of gambling activities among gamblers was 3.87 (SD = 2.49), with the median of three activities and a mode of two gambling activities.
27
Table 1 - Gambling Activities of Youth Less Indicate how often, if at all, you than Missing have done the following within the Never Monthly Monthly Weekly Daily Total System Total last 12 months - % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) I played cards for money 56.0 29.3 8.7 3.9 1.7 99.6 0.4 100.0 (578) (303) (90) (40) (18) (1029) (4) (1033) I flipped coins for money 80.5 14.0 3.2 0.8 1.1 99.6 0.4 100.0 (832) (145) (33) (8) (11) (1029) (4) (1033) I bet on games of personal skill like 61.7 23.5 7.4 4.7 2.2 99.5 0.5 100.0 pool, golf or bowling (637) (243) (76) (49) (23) (1028) (5) (1033) I bet on sports teams (e.g., Pro-Line) 68.0 18.5 7.0 3.8 2.5 99.7 0.3 100.0 (702) (191) (72) (39) (26) (1030) (3) (1033) I bet on horse or dog races 93.3 4.5 0.6 0.3 1.0 99.7 0.3 100.0 (964) (47) (6) (3) (10) (1030) (3) (1033) I played bingo for money 81.1 15.1 2.2 0.5 0.8 99.7 0.3 100.0 (838) (156) (23) (5) (8) (1030) (3) (1033) I played dice games 55.2 29.3 8.8 4.5 1.6 99.5 0.5 100.0 (570) (303) (91) (47) (17) (1028) (5) (1033) I played slot machines, poker 83.3 13.0 2.2 0.7 0.4 99.5 0.5 100.0 machines, or other gambling machines (860) (134) (23) (7) (4) (1028) (5) (1033) I played scratch tabs 61.8 28.8 6.4 1.9 0.7 99.6 0.4 100.0 (638) (298) (66) (20) (7) (1029) (4) (1033) I played the lottery by picking 62.9 27.9 4.8 3.5 0.7 99.8 0.2 100.0 numbers (650) (288) (50) (36) (7) (1031) (2) (1033) I played pull tabs 89.3 8.2 1.4 0.2 0.5 99.5 0.5 100.0 (922) (85) (14) (2) (5) (1028) (5) (1033) I played gambling games for money 85.0 8.3 2.9 1.7 1.8 99.8 0.2 100.0 on the Internet (e.g. poker): (878) (86) (30) (18) (19) (1031) (2) (1033)
DSM Scale Items
Descriptive information on DSM Scale items is presented in Table 2. Mean score for all participants (including non-gamblers) was .77 (SD = 1.51). Once non-gamblers were removed from the sample the average DSM score was .92 (SD = 1.62).
Of the 1,033 youth surveyed, 176 (17%) did not participate in any gambling activities in the past 12 months. A further 626 (60.6%) students received a score of 0-1 on the DSM scale which put them in the “social gambler” category, while 119 (11.5%) students scored 2-3 and were categorized as “at-risk gamblers.” Of all students, 62 or 6% scored more than 4 on the DSM scale, and were therefore categories as “problem gamblers”. Fifty (4.8%) students did not respond to one or more items on the DSM scale, and were therefore not included in the calculation of the total DSM score.
28
Table 2 - Gambling Problems (DSM Scale) Once or Missing Never Twice Sometimes Often Total System Total In the past year % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) How often have you found yourself 48.2 32.1 13.8 5.5 99.7 0.3 100.0 thinking about gambling or planning to gamble? (498) (332) (143) (57) (1030) (3) (1033) Have you ever spent much more than 84.7 10.6 3.1 0.9 99.3 0.7 100.0 you planned to on gambling? (875) (110) (32) (9) (1026) (7) (1033) Have you felt bad or fed up when 93.4 3.2 1.4 0.9 98.8 1.2 100.0 trying to cut down or stop gambling? (965) (33) (14) (9) (1021) (12) (1033) How often have you gambled to help 93.2 4.7 0.9 0.9 99.7 0.3 100.0 escape from problems or when you are feeling bad? (963) (49) (9) (9) (1030) (3) (1033) After losing money gambling, have 79.9 13.6 3.1 2.4 99.0 1.0 100.0 you returned another day to try to win back the money you lost? (825) (141) (32) (25) (1023) (10) (1033) Has your gambling ever led to lies to 91.2 6.1 1.4 0.4 99.0 1.0 100.0 your family? (942) (63) (14) (4) (1023) (10) (1033) Have you ever taken your school 90.3 6.2 2.1 0.9 99.5 0.5 100.0 lunch money or fare money without permission to spend on gambling? (933) (64) (22) (9) (1028) (5) (1033)
Have you ever taken money from 91.3 5.7 2.0 0.7 99.7 0.3 100.0 your family without permission to spend on gambling? (943) (59) (21) (7) (1030) (3) (1033)
Have you ever taken money from 93.9 4.1 0.9 0.9 99.7 0.3 100.0 outside the family without permission to spend on gambling? (970) (42) (9) (9) (1030) (3) (1033) Has your gambling led to arguments 91.2 6.5 1.4 0.5 99.5 0.5 100.0 with family/friends or others? (942) (67) (14) (5) (1028) (5) (1033) Has your gambling ever led to 95.5 1.4 0.5 0.3 97.6 2.4 100.0 missing school? (986) (14) (5) (3) (1008) (25) (1033)
DSM Gambling Categories DSM Gambling Categories Frequency Percent Non-Gambler 176 17.0 Social Gambler (Score 0-1) 626 60.6 At-risk Gambler (Score 2-3) 119 11.5 Problem Gambler (Score 4+) 62 6.0 Total 983 95.2 Missing System 50 4.8 Total 1,033 100.0
29
Gambling Activities by DSM Gambling Categories
Table 3 outlines the results for gambling activities by DSM gambling categories. Problem gamblers were the most likely to engage in gambling activities such as playing cards for money (82.3%), betting on sports teams (80.6%), playing dice games (80.6%), and betting on games of personal skill (79.0%). Problem gamblers were least likely to bet on horse or dog races (27.4%), and play pull-tabs (33.9%).
At-risk gamblers were by far most likely to play cards for money (82.4%), followed by betting on games of personal skill (65.5%) and dice games at (61.3%). At-risk gamblers were least likely to play pull-tabs (11.8%) or bet on horse or dog races (12.6%).
For all gambling activities, less than half of social gamblers said that they gambled in the last 12 months. Social gamblers were most likely to play dice games (49.7%), cards for money (44.9%), play scratch and lottery tickets (43.8% and 42.5% respectively). Social gamblers were least likely to bet on horse or dog races (4.5%).
It should be noted that for all three groups, playing cards for money and dice games were consistently rated among the top three gambling activities engaged in.
Gambling Attitude Scale Items (Q12-23) by DSM Gambling Categories
A two-tailed Pearson correlation between attitudes about gambling scale (M = 36.43, SD = 8.38, N = 1002) and DSM score (M = .77, SD = 1.51, N = 995) for the full sample showed a highly significant positive relationship of r(967) = .353, p = .000 between these two scales. When non- gamblers were removed from the sample the correlation between the gambling attitudes scale (M = 37.51, SD = 8.12, N = 783) and DSM score (M = .92, SD = 1.62, N = 807) slightly decreased in strength to r(783) = .341, p = .000. Meaning that more positive gambling attitudes were held by youth who scored higher on the DSM gambling screen, while youth who held more negative gambling attitudes scored lower on the DSM gambling screen.
Table 4 shows individual responses to each of the gambling attitudes scale items. Just over half of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “Gambling is a fun activity” (51.1%), while 11.9% of respondents did not seem to have an opinion about this statement.
Majority (55.6%) of students strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “Moderate gambling is harmless,” while 10.1% responded “don’t know” to this statement.
When students responded to the statement “Gamblers need counseling,” 12.9% of respondents strongly agreed, while 31.8% agreed with this statement. A further 17.0% of students indicated no preference to this statement by responding “don’t know.”
Overall, few students endorsed the statement “Gambling should be illegal.” Just over half (50.6%) of students disagreed with this statement and another 17.9% strongly disagreed with this
30
Table 3 - Gambling Activities by DSM Gambling Categories DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total Gambling Activities: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-Square 44.9% 82.4% 82.3% 53.3% 79.033 df = 2 I played cards for money (281) (98) (51) (430) p = .000 16.9% 35.3% 62.9% 23.2% 78.486 df = 2 I flipped coins for money (106) (42) (39) (187) p = .000 I bet on games of personal skill like 39.1% 65.5% 79.0% 46.1% 57.385 df = 2 pool, golf, or bowling (245) (78) (49) (372) p = .000 30.8% 57.1% 80.6% 38.5% 79.499 df = 2 I bet on sports teams (eg. Pro-Line) (193) (68) (50) (311) p = .000 4.5% 12.6% 27.4% 7.4% 48.582 df = 2 I bet on horse or dog races (28) (15) (17) (60) p = .000 20.0% 20.2% 46.8% 22.1% 23.869 df = 2 I played bingo for money (125) (24) (29) (178) p = .000 49.7% 61.3% 80.6% 53.8% 24.974 df = 2 I played dice games (311) (73) (50) (434) p = .000 I played slot machines, poker 15.0% 28.6% 56.5% 20.2% 66.161 df = 2 machines, or other gambling p = .000 machines (94) (34) (35) (163) 43.8% 51.3% 64.5% 46.5% 11.049 df = 2 I played scratch tabs (274) (61) (40) (375) p = .004 I played the lottery by picking 42.5% 48.7% 71.0% 45.6% 18.994 df = 2 numbers (266) (58) (44) (368) p = .000 10.2% 11.8% 33.9% 12.3% 29.343 df = 2 I played pull tabs (64) (14) (21) (99) p = .000 I played gambling games for money 12.0% 33.6% 46.8% 17.8% 70.262 df = 2 on the Internet (e.g. poker): (75) (40) (29) (144) p = .000 Total 626 119 62 807 statement. Approximately 18.7% of students strongly agreed or agreed with this statement, and 12.5% had no preference.
Although few students feel that gambling should be illegal, many respondents believe that there is too much gambling today. Just over 16% of respondents strongly agreed and 40.7% agreed with the statement “There is too much gambling today.” Additionally, 16.7% of students responded “don’t know” to this statement.
Approximately one in four students strongly agreed with the statement “Gambling destroys families” (21.0%), and four in five students agreed with this statement (40.3%); altogether, 61.3% of respondents.
31
With regards to the statement “Gambling is just another hobby”, only 35.4% of respondents disagreed, and a slim majority of the respondents at 52.6% agreed with the statement. This shows that gambling is still perceived as mundane and ordinary.
Yet, for the statement “Most people can control their gambling,” there seemed to be a greater degree of polarization between those who agreed and disagreed. Approximately 55% of the respondents said no, and 47% answered in the affirmative to the question. The fact that a majority said that gambling behaviours could become compulsive suggests that while they perceive gambling to be a hobby, they did recognize that it could become an addiction.
The degree to which this addiction could be seen in a negative light is muted by the fact that only 29.2% of the respondents said yes to “Gambling is a social evil,” 48% saying no outright, but unusually, over 22.1% of respondents stated “don’t know.” This 22.1% represented the highest rating for the “don’t know” response for any of the questions in the set. This would suggest a great deal of ambivalence in regards to the question.
When it comes to the statement “I approve of some gambling being legal,” the majority of the respondents stated yes at 76.1%, and only 15.4% said no, that they did not approve. Clearly, respondents do not see gambling as an activity that should be banned. Continuing from the previous question, when analyzing the results of the statement “Gambling should be controlled by law so people don't overdo it,” over 2/3 (67.7%) of the respondents felt that it should be controlled to some degree. This result should not be surprising, as a majority of respondents had earlier commented on the fact that gambling could become a compulsive habit, and that there was a high degree of ambivalence in regards to whether or not gambling should be seen as a social evil.
Ultimately, when asked as to whether or not they approve of gambling, only a slim majority said yes to the statement at 52.6%, and 31.2% said no. Again, a high level of ambivalence is recorded as close to 15.7% of the respondents said “don’t know” to the question. Of all the gambling statements in this set, respondents were most likely to be supportive of “I approve of some gambling being legal,” followed by “gambling should be controlled by law so people don't overdo it.” Students were least likely to strongly agree or agree with the statement “gambling should be illegal.”
When analyzing the problem gambler segment, a clear pattern emerges that suggests that problem gamblers are normalizing gambling activity overall – in essence, that gambling is not a big deal. When looking at their responses to the negative repercussions of gambling, just over half of problem gamblers strongly agree or agree that gambling destroys families (53.7%), and that gambling should be controlled by law so people don't overdo it (51.8%). Less than half of problem gamblers strongly agree or agree that gamblers need counseling (44.1%), and that there is too much gambling today (49.1%). Very few problem gamblers strongly agree or agree that gambling should be illegal (14.8%) or that gambling is a social evil. In conjunction with the previous questions, it can be said that problem gamblers are most likely to maintain positive attitudes of gambling. While problem gamblers exhibit this pattern to the extreme, they are not
32
Table 4 - Attitudes about Gambling (Scale Items) Strongly Strongly Don't Missing Best reflects how you feel about Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know Total System Total each of the following: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) 13.4 22.8 42.0 9.1 11.9 99.2 0.8 100.0 Gambling is a fun activity (138) (236) (434) (94) (123) (1025) (8) (1033) 11.4 22.3 48.1 7.5 10.1 99.3 0.7 100.0 Moderate gambling is harmless (118) (230) (497) (77) (104) (1026) (7) (1033) 5.0 32.6 31.8 12.9 17.0 99.3 0.7 100.0 Gamblers need counselling (52) (337) (328) (133) (176) (1026) (7) (1033) 17.9 50.6 13.4 5.3 12.5 99.7 0.3 100.0 Gambling should be illegal (185) (523) (138) (55) (129) (1030) (3) (1033) 4.4 21.6 40.7 16.4 16.7 99.6 0.4 100.0 There is too much gambling today (45) (223) (420) (169) (172) (1029) (4) (1033) 4.4 16.3 40.3 21.0 17.0 98.9 1.1 100.0 Gambling destroys families (45) (168) (416) (217) (176) (1022) (11) (1033) 7.4 28.0 46.6 6.0 11.4 99.3 0.7 100.0 Gambling is just another hobby (76) (289) (481) (62) (118) (1026) (7) (1033) Most people can control their 8.6 31.9 42.0 5.0 11.9 99.5 0.5 100.0 gambling (89) (330) (434) (52) (123) (1028) (5) (1033) 7.7 40.3 23.0 6.2 22.1 99.3 0.7 100.0 Gambling is a social evil (80) (416) (238) (64) (228) (1026) (7) (1033) I approve of some gambling being 3.6 8.8 62.6 13.5 11.1 99.6 0.4 100.0 legal (37) (91) (647) (139) (115) (1029) (4) (1033) Gambling should be controlled by 4.5 16.9 46.6 21.1 10.5 99.5 0.5 100.0 law so people don't overdo it (46) (175) (481) (218) (108) (1028) (5) (1033) 11.0 20.2 43.9 8.7 15.7 99.5 0.5 100.0 Basically I approve of gambling (114) (209) (453) (90) (162) (1028) (5) (1033)
alone in these feelings. At-risk gamblers, for example, often share the same sentiments or even exceed them for some statements such as the following: “Moderate gambling is harmless;” “That there is too much gambling today;” “That gambling destroys families;” “That gambling is just another hobby;” “That they approve of some gambling being legal;” “That gambling should be controlled by law so people don't overdo it;” and “Basically I approve of gambling.”
Over 90% of at-risk gamblers approve of some gambling being legal (95.5%), and say that they basically approve of gambling (92.4%). More than 80% of at-risk gamblers strongly agree or agree with the statement: “Gambling is a fun activity” (89.8%); “Moderate gambling is harmless” (83.0%); or “Gambling is just another hobby” (80.2%). Approximately, 7 out of 10 at-risk gamblers strongly agreed or agreed with the statement: “Most people can control their gambling” (72.1%). Just over half of at-risk gamblers strongly agreed or agreed with the statements: “There is too much gambling today” (50.0%); “That gambling destroys families” (54.3%); and “Gambling should be controlled by law so people don't overdo it” (56.0%). Two out of five at-risk gamblers strongly agreed or agreed with “Gamblers need counseling” (40.6%). Finally, few at-risk gamblers believe “Gambling should be illegal.” In fact, at-risk gamblers
33
were less likely than problem gamblers to strongly agree or agree with this statement. Similarly, at-risk gamblers are less likely than problem gamblers to believe “Gambling is a social evil,” with 21.8% of at-risk gamblers strongly agreeing or agreeing with this statement.
Social gamblers, in general, seem to be more likely than at-risk gamblers and problem gamblers to endorse negative perceptions of gambling. While there is a slight drop in agreement for the statement “I approve of some gambling being legal” from 95.5% of at-risk gamblers to 87.7% for social gamblers, there was a significant increase in agreement with the statement “Gambling should be controlled by law” from 51.8% of problem gamblers to 79.1% by social gamblers.
This jump is mirrored in the statement of “Gambling destroys families” of which only 53.7% of problem gamblers agreed, but 78.1% of social gamblers agreed. In general, social gamblers were more likely than at-risk gamblers and problem gamblers to strongly agree or agree with statements such as: “Gamblers need counseling;” “Gambling should be illegal;” “There is too much gambling today;” “Gambling destroys families;” “Gambling is a social evil;” and “Gambling should be controlled by law so people don't overdo it.” Much of the pattern that was first seen in social gamblers was present in the non-gambler segment, but to a heightened degree. Non-gamblers were by far the most likely group to endorse negative attitudes of gambling, and the least likely group to hold positive attitudes of gambling, such as: “Gambling is a fun activity;” or “I basically approve of gambling.” More than 80% of non-gamblers strongly agreed or agreed with statements such as: “Gambling destroys families;” “There is too much gambling today;” and “Gambling should be controlled by law so people don't overdo it.”
Misconception & Knowledge Scale Responses According to DSM Categories
Table 6 illustrates the responses to the misconception and knowledge scale items. As Table 6 illustrates, overall few of students correctly responded to the question that when they are betting, they must know the tricks and strategies if they want to win; that is 19.5% of students disagreed or disagreed with the statement that when they are betting, they must know the tricks and strategies if they want to win. Responses to this statement were not significantly related to the DSM gambling categories.
Students were asked to indicate whether betting is a good way to obtain money quickly. Approximately 57% of students correctly responded by strongly disagreeing or disagreeing with this statement. This statement was not significantly related to the DSM gambling categories.
Over half of students (53.8%) strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement that betting money is a good way to take up a challenge. This statement was not significantly related to the DSM gambling categories.
34
Table 5 - Gambling Attitude Scale Items by DSM Gambling Categories DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Best reflects how you feel about Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total each of the following: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Gambling is a fun activity 33.1% 54.8% 89.8% 93.3% 58.8% (45) (299) (106) (56) (506) 117.25, df = 3, p = 0 Moderate gambling is harmless 43.0% 62.2% 83.0% 77.0% 62.6% (64) (345) (93) (47) (549) 50.028, df = 3, p = 0 Gamblers need counselling 63.4% 56.3% 40.6% 44.1% 54.7% (83) (292) (39) (26) (440) 14.838, df = 3, p = 0 Gambling should be illegal 36.4% 20.3% 6.3% 14.8% 20.7% (51) (110) (7) (9) (177) 36.484, df = 3, p = 0 There is too much gambling today 81.3% 71.9% 50.0% 49.1% 69.1% (113) (371) (53) (27) (564) 40.011, df = 3, p = 0 Gambling destroys families 87.9% 78.1% 54.6% 53.7% 75.4% (124) (400) (53) (29) (606) 50.216, df = 3, p = 0 Gambling is just another hobby 40.0% 59.2% 80.2% 78.7% 60.0% (58) (323) (89) (48) (518) 52.049, df = 3, p = 0 Most people can control their 40.3% 51.2% 72.1% 73.7% 53.6% gambling (56) (283) (80) (42) (461) 35.686, df = 3, p = 0 Gambling is a social evil 47.9% 39.7% 21.8% 28.1% 37.7% (57) (190) (22) (16) (285) 19.260, df = 3, p = 0 I approve of some gambling being 72.4% 87.7% 95.5% 90.3% 86.6% legal (97) (494) (106) (56) (753) 32.168, df = 3, p = 0 Gambling should be controlled by 88.2% 79.1% 56.0% 51.8% 76.1% law so people don't overdo it (135) (439) (61) (29) (664) 57.568, df = 3, p = 0 Basically I approve of gambling 34.3% 61.0% 92.4% 90.2% 62.8% (46) (321) (97) (55) (519) 106.12, df = 3, p = 0 Total (134) (526) (105) (61) (826)
Next students were asked whether they strongly disagreed or disagreed with a statement that anyone can stop betting easily. Majority (68.3%) of students strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement, and therefore held correct views. Non-problem gamblers were the most likely while problem gamblers where the least likely gambling group to correctly respond to this statement.
Similarly, 68.3% of students strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement that when they gamble, they would have more chances of winning if they have a good luck charm with them. This statement was not significantly related to the DSM gambling categories.
Social gamblers were the most likely DSM gambling category to give a correct response (strongly disagree or disagree) the next two statements: if I lose while gambling, it because I played badly, and If I gamble often at a game of change and money, I can become good and win
35
Table 6 - Responses to Knowledge and Misconception Items by DSM Gambling Categories DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler MISCONCEPTIONS AND Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total KNOWLEDGE SCALE: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square MISCONCEPTIONS When I'm betting, I must know the 16.0% 21.9% 14.3% 14.5% 19.5% 6.7469, df = 3, p = tricks and strategies if I want to win (28) (137) (17) (9) (191) 0.080 Betting is a good way to obtain money 68.6% 60.1% 38.7% 24.2% 56.7% 55.504, df = 3, p = quickly (120) (374) (46) (15) (555) 5.359 Betting money is a good way to take 68.0% 57.4% 31.1% 21.0% 53.8% 68.969, df = 3, p = up a challenge (119) (358) (37) (13) (527) 7.093 75.0% 69.7% 62.2% 50.0% 68.5% Anyone can stop betting easily 15.861, df = 3, p = (132) (434) (74) (31) (671) 0.001 When I gamble, I have more chances 64.2% 68.4% 77.1% 61.3% 68.3% of winning if I have my good-luck 7.0091, df = 3, p = charm with me (113) (427) (91) (38) (669) 0.071 If I lose while gambling, it’s because I 52.3% 59.2% 50.4% 41.9% 55.8% 9.9687, df = 3, p = played badly (92) (368) (60) (26) (546) 0.018 If I gamble often at a game of chance 65.3% 68.3% 67.2% 40.3% 65.9% and money, I can become good and 19.792, df = 3, p = win more money (115) (427) (80) (25) (647) 0.000 KNOWLEDGE I don't have more chances to win at the 24.6% 28.6% 36.1% 51.6% 30.3% 18.796, df = 3, p = lottery if I choose my numbers myself (43) (179) (43) (32) (297) 0.000 Betting money can become a problem 85.1% 87.3% 84.0% 69.4% 85.4% 14.824, df = 3, p = like alcoholism and drug addiction (149) (544) (100) (43) (836) 0.001 Buying lottery tickets is a type of 81.7% 81.4% 80.7% 77.4% 81.1% 0.6372, df = 3, p = gambling (143) (507) (96) (48) (794) 0.887 All pinball machines and electronic 46.2% 60.0% 60.5% 67.7% 58.1% games are not considered as gambling 13.570, df = 3, p = activities (80) (375) (72) (42) (569) 0.003 Gamblers have no control on the gains 55.4% 58.9% 42.0% 41.9% 55.2% 16.239, df = 3, p = and losses in a gambling activity (97) (367) (50) (26) (540) 0.001 At lottery, choosing numbers based on 46.0% 52.3% 59.3% 62.9% 52.7% the numbers that came out most often during the year can be a good way to (81) (326) (70) (39) (516) 7.8480, df = 3, p = increase your chances to win 0.049 It is impossible to predict the winner or 47.7% 55.4% 45.8% 38.7% 51.8% 10.319, df = 3, p = loser at any gambling activity (84) (346) (54) (24) (508) 0.016 42.2% 44.4% 39.5% 34.4% 42.8% It is impossible to predict chances 2.9489, df = 3, p = (73) (277) (47) (21) (418) 0.399 If I play LOTTO 6/49, I have more 58.6% 69.7% 72.0% 62.9% 67.6% chances to win if I choose my lucky 9.3571, df = 3, p = numbers (102) (435) (85) (39) (661) 0.024 Total 174 624 118 62 978
36
more money. Again, problem gamblers were the most likely DSM gambling category to give wrong answers to this statement.
The next nine statements were part of the knowledge scale. Many respondents believe that they have a better chance of wining at a lottery if they choose the numbers themselves. In fact, only 30.3% of students strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that one doesn’t have more chances to win at lottery if one chooses the numbers oneself. Problem gamblers were the most likely group to strongly agree or agree with this statement, while non-gamblers were the most likely group to give the wrong response to this statement.
The vast majority of respondents correctly believe that betting money can become a problem like alcoholism or drug addition. Social gamblers were the most likely DSM gambling category to respond correctly to this statement, while problem gamblers were the most likely group to give the wrong answer to this statement.
There was no significant relationship between DSM gambling levels and the likelihood of correct response to the statement that buying lottery tickets is a type of gambling
Next the majority of students (58.1%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that all pinball machines and electronic games are not considered as gambling activities. Problem gamblers were the most likely group to correctly respond to this question, while non-gamblers were the most likely group to give the wrong response to this statement.
Over half of students (55.2%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that gamblers have no control on the gains and losses in a gambling activity. Social gamblers were the most likely group to give a correct answer to this question, while problem gamblers were the most likely group to give a wrong answer to this statement.
Just over half (52.7%) of students strongly disagreed or disagreed with a statement that at lottery, choosing numbers based on the numbers that came out most often during the year can be a good way to increase your chances to win. Problem gamblers are the most likely group to give a correct answer to this question, while non-gamblers are the most likely group to give a wrong answer to this statement.
Approximately half of students (51.8%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that it is impossible to predict the winner or loser at any gambling activity. Social gamblers were the most likely group to correctly respond to this question, and they were the only group where over 50% students gave a correct response.
Less than half of students strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that it is impossible to predict chances. There was no significant relationship between the likelihood of correct response to this statement and SM gambling category.
Approximately 68% of students strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement that if they play lottery 6/49, they have more chances to win if they choose their lucky numbers. At risk
37
gamblers were the most likely group to give a correct response to this statement, while non- gamblers were the most likely group to give a wrong answer to this statement.
Misconceptions and Knowledge of Gambling by DSM Gambling Categories
Pearson correlations (including non-gamblers) between misconceptions (M = 3.12, SD = 1.90, N = 1015), and DSM score (M = .77, SD = 1.51, N = 995) was highly significant, r(981)=.245, p = .000 . No significant correlation existed between not significant between the knowledge and DSM score (r(976)=.048, p = .132).
When examining the result of the ANOVA analysis (see Table 7), it is clear that non-gamblers seem to have the least number of misconceptions about gambling (least number of wrong answers) with the average score of 2.92 (SD = 2.09). Also, as the gambling problems increase the number of gambling misconceptions also increased, where problem gamblers had the highest average number of gambling misconceptions (M = 4.47, SD = 1.70), F(3, 968) = 15.955, p = .000.
When examining the results of the relationship between DSM gambling categories and the knowledge scale, the relationship is not as clear, indicating that in general students are less knowledgeable about probabilities. Non-gamblers were the most likely group to have the highest number of wrong answers to the knowledge questions (M = 4.16, SD = 2.36), followed by problem gamblers (M = 3.92, SD = 1.80), F(3,963) = 3.683, p = .012.
Table 7 – One-way ANOVA table for Misconceptions and Knowledge Scales
95% Confidence Std. Std. Interval for Mean Deviation Error Lower Upper N Mean Bound Bound Minimum Maximum Non-Gambler 173 2.92 2.09 0.16 2.61 3.23 0 7 Social Gambler (Score 0-1) 616 2.95 1.84 0.07 2.80 3.09 0 7 At-risk Gambler (Score 2-3) 118 3.59 1.61 0.15 3.30 3.89 0 7 Problem Gambler MISCONCEPTION (Score 4+) 62 4.47 1.70 0.22 4.04 4.90 0 7 SCALE Total 969 3.12 1.89 0.06 3.00 3.24 0 7 Non-Gambler 170 4.16 2.36 0.18 3.80 4.52 0 9 Social Gambler (Score 0-1) 616 3.62 1.80 0.07 3.48 3.77 0 9 At-risk Gambler (Score 2-3) 117 3.79 1.75 0.16 3.47 4.12 0 8 Problem Gambler KNOWLEDGE (Score 4+) 61 3.92 1.80 0.23 3.46 4.38 1 8 SCALE Total 964 3.76 1.92 0.06 3.64 3.88 0 9
38
Ever Seen Gambling Related Advertisement by DSM Gambling Categories
As reported in Table 8, the majority of students indicated that they had recalled seeing TV commercials (95.0%), newspaper (80.2%) or magazine (74.2%) advertisement or subway/billboards (75.1%) advertising casinos, lotteries, or Pro-Line. Also, a vast majority of students had recalled seeing TV commercial advertising on-line poker. There was a significant relationship between DSM gambling categories and recalled seeing TV commercials, and newspaper or magazine advertising casinos, lotteries or Pro-Line. At-risk gamblers were the most likely DSM gambling category to have recalled seeing TV commercials advertising casinos, lotteries, or Pro-Line. Problem gamblers were the most likely DSM gambling category to have recalled seeing newspaper or magazines advertising, or subway/billboard advertising casinos, lotteries, or Pro-Line. Non-gamblers were the least likely group to have recalled seeing any sort of advertising for casino’s, lotteries, or Pro-Line.
Almost 40% (39.4%) of students said that they would be more likely to buy a lottery, Pro-Line or instant scratch tickets if they have seen an advertisement for it. However, it is worth noting that problem gamblers were reportedly the most likely to be influenced by advertising. Over half of problem gamblers (54.8%) said that they would be more likely to buy lottery, Pro-Line or instant scratch tickets if they have seen an advertisement for it, compared to 41.9% of at-risk gamblers, 39.6% of social gamblers, and 31.4% of non-gamblers who would have been influenced by advertisements.
Table 8
DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total Have you ever seen: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square TV commercials advertising 89.6% 96.0% 98.3% 93.5% 95.0% 14.942, df = 3, p = casinos, lotteries, or Pro-Line? (155) (599) (117) (58) (929) 0.001 Newspapers advertising casinos, 75.3% 79.3% 85.7% 91.9% 80.2% 10.593, df = 3, p = lotteries, or Pro-Line? (131) (495) (102) (57) (785) 0.014 Magazines advertising casinos, 66.5% 74.1% 79.0% 86.9% 74.2% 11.936, df = 3, p = lotteries, or Pro-Line? (115) (461) (94) (53) (723) 0.007 Subway/billboard advertising 70.1% 74.6% 80.7% 83.9% 75.1% 6.927, df = 3, p = casinos, lotteries, or Pro-Line? (122) (464) (96) (52) (734) 0.074 TV commercials advertising on- 75.9% 88.9% 93.3% 96.7% 87.6% 31.312, df = 3, p = line poker? (132) (554) (111) (59) (856) 7.305 Are you more likely to buy a 31.4% 39.6% 41.9% 54.8% 39.4% lottery ticket, Pro-Line, or instant 11.118, df = 3, p = scratch ticket if you have seen an (54) (246) (49) (34) (383) 0.011 advertisement for it? Total 174 623 119 61 977
39
Purchase Influence by DSM Gambling Categories
Respondents were asked about their purchases of lottery tickets or Pro-Line (see Table 9). In general, students found it easy or somewhat easy to buy lottery tickets from the corner store. There was no significant relationship between the ability to buy lottery tickets and DSM gambling category.
Next, students were asked what influences their choice of a lottery ticket or Pro-Line. Reponses were grouped into a dichotomous variable with “very important,” “important” and “somewhat important” responses grouped together, versus “not at all important;” “don’t know” responses were coded as “missing” and therefore were excluded from the analysis.
In general, it seems students are most likely to be influenced by size of the prize (92.9%), type of game (90.4%), price of ticket (88.9%), and number of games on the card (84.1%). Many of students (60.2%) are also influenced by the name of the game. Conversely, less than half of students find ads for tickets to be very important, important, or somewhat important when choosing a lottery ticket or Pro-Line. Very few students said that they were influenced by the size (39.3%) or the colour (26.3%) of the ticket. In general, it seems that students are not influenced by the design of the ticket but rather by what they can get out of playing the game (i.e., the winnings).
Out of all the different characteristics of lottery tickets or Pro-Line, only the name of the game was significantly related to the DSM gambling categories. It seems that problem gamblers were the most likely group to be influenced by the name of the game, as compared to 63.4% of at-risk gamblers, 59.6% of social gamblers, and 50.9% of non-gamblers.
Reasons for Gambling
Table 10 outlines the respondents answers when asked why they gamble. The question was a multiple-response question; however, responses were categorized into dichotomies in order to aid in future analysis.
Approximately, 5% (n=3) of problem gamblers said that that they do not gamble, followed by 15.1% (n=18) of at risk gamblers, 63.0% of social gamblers, and 94.8% of non-gamblers. Since the vast majority of the non-gamblers did not choose any other response categories, they were excluded from further analysis.
When analyzing the results for this question, not only do the three main reasons become apparent as to why students gamble, but also that the response rates to this series of questions differs significantly between social gamblers on the one hand and at-risk and problem gamblers on the other. Notice that for the three top reasons given, for enjoyment, for excitement, and to make money, the spread between at-risk gamblers and social gamblers is far greater than the spread between at-risk gamblers and problem gamblers.
40
Table 9
DSM Gambling Categories At-risk Social Gambler Problem Non- Gambler (Score 2- Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) 3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square How easy is it to buy a 81.3% 82.3% 80.4% 82.8% 81.9% lottery ticket from the corner .266, df = 3, p = store? (Easy/Somewhat (107) (475) (102) (58) (742) 0.966 Easy) Total 107 475 102 58 742 When choosing a lottery ticket or Pro-Line, how important is (Very Important/Important/Somewhat Important):
87.0% 90.1% 88.7% 82.8% 88.9% Price of ticket 3.348, df = 3, p = (87) (430) (86) (48) (651) 0.341 20.2% 27.2% 24.2% 33.3% 26.3% Colour 3.795, df = 3, p = (21) (130) (23) (18) (192) 0.284 87.9% 90.2% 94.2% 90.0% 90.4% Type of Game 2.527, df = 3, p = (94) (458) (97) (54) (703) 0.470 50.9% 59.6% 63.4% 77.6% 60.2% Name of the Game 11.704, df = 3, p (55) (293) (64) (45) (457) = 0.008 90.8% 92.3% 97.2% 95.1% 92.9% Type of size of Prize 4.545, df = 3, p = (108) (494) (104) (58) (764) 0.208 30.8% 38.5% 45.8% 50.0% 39.3% Size of Ticket 7.811, df = 3, p = (32) (189) (44) (29) (294) 0.050 77.4% 84.3% 85.6% 91.1% 84.1% Number of Games on Card 5.308, df = 3, p = (72) (397) (83) (51) (603) 0.150 48.4% 47.8% 52.2% 61.5% 49.5% Ads for Tickets 3.856, df = 3, p = (44) (216) (48) (32) (340) 0.277 Total 107 508 103 60 778
There appears to be minor secondary reasons why at-risk and problem gamblers gamble: “To be with or make new friends” and “To increase my skills.” For both gambler segments the spread between both groups is relatively minor, as with the statement “To be with or make new friends,” 36.1% of at-risk gamblers mentioned this statement and 38.7% of problem gamblers gave this as a reason. For the “To increase my skills” statement, the spread was similarly narrow with 37% of at-risk gamblers giving this as a reason and 38.7% of problem gamblers giving it as a reason.
The close spread seems to reaffirm the idea that problem gamblers and at-risk gamblers are very alike in the reasons why they gamble.
41
Table 10
DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total Why do you gamble?: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Do not gamble 63.0% 15.1% 4.8% 51.4% 149.721, df = 2, p (391) (18) (3) (412) = .000 For enjoyment 30.4% 76.5% 79.0% 41.0% 127.601, df = 2, p (189) (91) (49) (329) = .000 To relax 7.9% 26.1% 29.0% 12.2% 48.4110, df = 2, p (49) (31) (18) (98) = .000 For excitement 21.9% 65.5% 77.4% 32.7% 147.664, df = 2, p (136) (78) (48) (262) = .000 To be with or make new 12.2% 36.1% 38.7% 17.8% 58.9150, df = 2, p friends (76) (43) (24) (143) = .000 Because I'm depressed 1.3% 4.2% 6.5% 2.1% 10.1630, df = 2, p (8) (5) (4) (17) = .006 To escape an unpleasant 0.5% 2.5% 12.9% 1.7% home, school, or work 51.1899, df = 2, p situation (3) (3) (8) (14) = .000 Because I'm lonely 1.4% 0.0% 4.8% 1.5% 6.51650, df = 2, p (9) (0) (3) (12) = .038 To feel older 1.6% 1.7% 11.3% 2.4% 23.1237, df = 2, p (10) (2) (7) (19) = .000 To make money 18.0% 59.7% 75.8% 28.7% 157.574, df = 2, p (112) (71) (47) (230) = .000 To increase my skills 8.4% 37.0% 38.7% 15.0% 93.9843, df = 2, p (52) (44) (24) (120) = .000 To support my favourite 8.2% 19.3% 29.0% 11.5% 32.5538, df = 2, p sports team (51) (23) (18) (92) = .000 Other 7.2% 16.0% 17.7% 9.4% 14.5377, df = 2, p (45) (19) (11) (75) = .001 Total 621 119 62 802
How Would You Rate Yourself as a Gambler
When the respondents were asked to self-identify where they felt they belonged on the gambling continuum, it quickly becomes apparent that the participants perspectives on their gambling behaviour and the behaviour itself were disjointed (see Table 11). The only group that accurately matched their self-identification with the gambling scale was the non-gambler segment, with 96% of respondents self-identifying as non-gamblers. Beyond the non-gambler segment, there is a noticeable trend of underreporting their gambling behaviours.
42
Table 11
How would you DSM Gambling Categories rate yourself? Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Non-Gambler 96.0% 63.0% 15.3% 6.6% 59.5% 363.053, df = 15, (167) (388) (18) (4) (577) p = .000 2 4.0% 24.2% 34.7% 23.0% 21.8% (7) (149) (41) (14) (211) Social Gambler 0.0% 12.2% 44.9% 57.4% 16.8% (0) (75) (53) (35) (163) 4 0.0% 0.3% 2.5% 4.9% 0.8% (0) (2) (3) (3) (8) Problem Gambler 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 3.3% 0.5% (0) (0) (3) (2) (5) Pathological 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 4.9% 0.5% Gambler (0) (2) (0) (3) (5) Total 174 616 118 61 969
Social Support
Table 12 outlines the participant results for the question regarding perceived social support, while Table 13 reveals more specifically who the students felt they could confide in. For all respondent segments, the majority of students felt that they had someone that they could talk to.
Table 12 Do you have someone DSM Gambling Categories that you feel you can confide in and discuss Social At-risk Problem general problems with? Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Yes 77.0% 81.5% 77.3% 66.1% 79.2% 134 503 92 41 770 No 23.0% 18.5% 22.7% 33.9% 20.8% 9.222, df = 3, p = 40 114 27 21 202 .026 Total 174 617 119 62 972 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
43
Table 13 DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Who can you confide Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total in: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square 79.9% 83.1% 77.8% 74.5% 81.4% Friend 3.533, df= 3, (107) (423) (77) (35) (642) p = .316 45.5% 44.0% 44.4% 48.9% 44.6% Brother(s) or sister(s) 0.476, df= 3, (61) (224) (44) (23) (352) p = .924 63.4% 62.9% 58.6% 51.1% 61.7% Parent/Guardian 3.121, df= 3, (85) (320) (58) (24) (487) p = .373 28.4% 29.3% 29.3% 29.8% 29.2% Other relatives 0.054, df= 3, (38) (149) (29) (14) (230) p = .997 19.4% 14.9% 7.1% 19.1% 15.0% Teachers 7.573, df= 3, (26) (76) (7) (9) (118) p = .056 Minister, Priest, or 9.0% 5.7% 8.1% 6.4% 6.6% 2.237, df= 3, Rabbi (12) (29) (8) (3) (52) p = .525 7.5% 7.1% 6.1% 14.9% 7.5% Counsellor/Psychologist 4.144, df= 3, (10) (36) (6) (7) (59) p = .246 6.7% 4.1% 5.1% 4.3% 4.7% Other 1.642, df= 3, (9) (21) (5) (2) (37) p = .650 Total 134 509 99 47 789
Table 14 illustrates how satisfied the youth feel, with respect to their social lives.
Table 14 How satisfied are you DSM Gambling Categories with your social life? Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square 4.0% 5.0% 5.1% 9.7% 5.1% Not Happy (7) (31) (6) (6) (50) 44.9% 41.0% 42.4% 33.9% 41.4% 4.75, df = 6, p = Satisfied (79) (256) (50) (21) (406) .576 51.1% 54.0% 52.5% 56.5% 53.5% Very Pleased (90) (337) (62) (35) (524) Total 176 624 118 62 980 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Learning Disabilities
There are two findings regarding the question of whether or not the respondent has ever been diagnosed with a learning disability (see Table 15). One is that the majority of respondents have
44
not – the lowest being 80.6% from problem gamblers and the highest response rate being from non-gamblers at 95.4%. The second finding is derived from the first, in that problem gamblers have twice the response rate for stating that they have been diagnosed than the next closest segment – the at-risk segment. Close to 19.4% of all problem gamblers have stated that they have been diagnosed, which might suggest a connection between either the inability to control gambling behaviour or an attraction to excessive gambling or both.
Table 15 Have you ever been DSM Gambling Categories diagnosed with a Social At-risk Problem learning disability or Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler learning problem? Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Yes 4.6% 8.8% 10.9% 19.4% 9.0% 8 55 13 12 88 No 95.4% 91.2% 89.1% 80.6% 91.0% 12.898, df = 3, p = 167 569 106 50 892 .005 Total 175 624 119 62 980 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
As described in Table 16, the majority of respondent responses are split between “fast learner” and “average learner,” with only a slightly greater response rate being accredited to the number of people who say “average learner.” Of significance is the number of people who state that they are a slow learner, of which problem gambler respondents dominate by sizeable amount. 12.9% of problem gamblers stated they were slow learners, followed by non-gamblers at 8%, social gamblers at 5.3%, and only 4.2% of at-risk gamblers said that they were slow learners.
Table 16 DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem What type of student Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler would you describe Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total yourself as? % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square 42.30% 43.80% 50.80% 32.30% 43.60% 11.292, df = 6, p = Fast Learner (74) (272) (60) (20) (426) .080 49.70% 50.90% 44.90% 54.80% 50.20% Average Learner (87) (316) (53) (34) (490) 8.00% 5.30% 4.20% 12.90% 6.10% Slow Learner (14) (33) (5) (8) (60) Total 175 621 118 62 976 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Students were asked whether or not they have or if anyone close to them have ever been concerned that the respondent might have a series of problems ranging from ADD to substance abuse (see Table 17).
45
Table 17 DSM Gambling Categories Have you or anyone Social At-risk Problem close to you ever been Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler concerned that you Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total might have: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Attention Deficit 21.4% 34.1% 40.3% 28.2% 32.9% 5.476, df = 3, p Disorder (ADD/ADHD) (12) (100) (25) (11) (148) = .140 Depression 44.6% 38.2% 33.9% 41.0% 38.7% 1.56, df = 3, p (25) (112) (21) (16) (174) = .668 Learning 32.1% 19.8% 17.7% 23.1% 21.3% Disability/Learning 4.859, df = 3, p Problems (18) (58) (11) (9) (96) = .182 Alcohol Use 10.7% 23.2% 24.2% 53.8% 24.4% 24.215, df = 3, (6) (68) (15) (21) (110) p = .000 Substance Abuse 10.7% 18.8% 27.4% 25.6% 19.6% 6.252, df = 3, p (6) (55) (17) (10) (88) = .100 Other 16.1% 18.1% 21.0% 15.4% 18.0% 0.693, df = 3, p (9) (53) (13) (6) (81) = .875 Total 56 293 62 39 450
Self Perception- Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
The next set of questions (Q51a to Q51j) was part of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. When individual responses were examined, cross-tabulated with the DSM gambling categories, only three items were significantly related to DSM gambling levels: “I feel that I do not have much to be proud of;” “I certainly feel useless at times;” and “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure” (see Table 18).
One out five students feels that they do not have much to be proud of. As the severity of gambling problems increased, so did the likelihood of feeling that they do not have much to be proud of. While 18.7% of non-gamblers felt this way, 37.3% of problem gamblers feel that they do not have much to be proud of.
Just over two out of five respondents (42.4%) claimed that the felt useless at times. With the exception of at-risk gamblers, who were the least likely group to feel useless at times, as the severity of gambling problems increased the likelihood of feeling useless also increased. Over half of problem gamblers indicated that they have felt useless at times.
Generally, few respondents (11.4%) declared that they were inclined to feel that they are a failure. But it is worth noting that problem gamblers were twice (22.6%) as likely as the general population to feel that they are a failure. Non-gamblers had the second highest proportion of students stating that they feel like a failure, while social gamblers were the least likely group to feel this way.
46
Table 18 DSM Gambling Categories Statements dealing with your general Social At-risk Problem feelings about yourself: Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Strongly Disagree/ 6.9% 9.6% 8.5% 11.5% 9.1% On the whole, I am Disagree (12) (60) (10) (7) (89) 1.658, df = 3, satisfied with p = 0.646 myself Strongly Agree/ 93.1% 90.4% 91.5% 88.5% 90.9% Agree (161) (563) (108) (54) (886) Total 173 623 118 61 975 Strongly Disagree/ 55.6% 53.4% 63.6% 49.2% 54.7% At times, I think I Disagree (95) (333) (75) (30) (533) 4.987, df = 3, am no good at all Strongly Agree/ 44.4% 46.6% 36.4% 50.8% 45.3% p = 0.173 Agree (76) (291) (43) (31) (441) Total 171 624 118 61 974 Strongly Disagree/ 5.8% 7.1% 5.9% 1.6% 6.4% I feel that I have a Disagree (10) (44) (7) (1) (62) 2.919, df = 3, number of good p = 0.404 qualities Strongly Agree/ 94.2% 92.9% 94.1% 98.4% 93.6% Agree (162) (579) (111) (60) (912) Total 172 623 118 61 974 Strongly Disagree/ 4.7% 7.2% 5.1% 9.8% 6.7% I am able to do Disagree (8) (45) (6) (6) (65) 2.857, df = 3, things as well as p = 0.414 most other people Strongly Agree/ 95.3% 92.8% 94.9% 90.2% 93.3% Agree (164) (578) (111) (55) (908) Total 172 623 117 61 973 Strongly Disagree/ 81.3% 80.3% 79.7% 62.7% 79.3% I feel that I do not Disagree (139) (498) (94) (37) (768) 10.720, df = 3, have much to be p = 0.013 proud of Strongly Agree/ 18.7% 19.7% 20.3% 37.3% 20.7% Agree (32) (122) (24) (22) (200) Total 171 620 118 59 968 Strongly Disagree/ 58.7% 56.8% 66.9% 43.3% 57.6% I certainly feel Disagree (101) (354) (79) (26) (560) 9.463, df = 3, useless at times Strongly Agree/ 41.3% 43.2% 33.1% 56.7% 42.4% p = 0.024 Agree (71) (269) (39) (34) (413) Total 172 623 118 60 973 I feel that I'm a Strongly Disagree/ 9.4% 10.3% 14.4% 10.0% 10.6% person of worth, at Disagree (16) (63) (17) (6) (102) 2.182, df = 3, least on an equal Strongly Agree/ 90.6% 89.7% 85.6% 90.0% 89.4% p = 0.535 plane with others Agree (155) (551) (101) (54) (861) Total 171 614 118 60 963 Strongly Disagree/ 57.6% 57.0% 66.1% 52.5% 57.9% I wish I could have Disagree (99) (350) (78) (32) (559) 4.208, df = 3, more respect for p = 0.240 myself Strongly Agree/ 42.4% 43.0% 33.9% 47.5% 42.1% Agree (73) (264) (40) (29) (406) Total 172 614 118 61 965
47
Strongly Disagree/ 86.0% 90.9% 86.4% 77.4% 88.6% All in all, I am Disagree (148) (560) (102) (48) (858) 12.614, df = 3, inclined to feel that p = 0.006 I am a failure Strongly Agree/ 14.0% 9.1% 13.6% 22.6% 11.4% Agree (24) (56) (16) (14) (110) Total 172 616 118 62 968 Strongly Disagree/ 15.2% 13.5% 8.4% 15.3% 13.3% I take a positive Disagree (26) (83) (10) (9) (128) 3.237, df = 3, attitude towards p = 0.356 myself Strongly Agree/ 84.8% 86.5% 91.6% 84.7% 86.7% Agree (145) (530) (109) (50) (834) Total 171 613 119 59 962
Students were asked additional questions about their self-perception (see Table 19). Close to half (48.4%) of respondents said that they generally do and say things without stopping to think. Problem gamblers were the most likely group (68.6%) to say this, while non-gamblers were the least likely group (39.9%) to say that they general do and say things without thinking.
Table 19 DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Do you generally do and say things 39.9% 47.6% 55.5% 65.6% 48.4% 14.743, df = without stopping to think? (69) (294) (66) (40) (469) 3, p = .002 Do you often get into trouble because 30.3% 38.7% 55.1% 61.3% 40.6% 29.908, df = you do things without thinking? (53) (238) (65) (38) (394) 3, p = .000 Are you an impulsive person? 20.6% 38.9% 38.5% 48.4% 36.2% 24.029, df = (35) (232) (45) (30) (342) 3, p = .000 Do you usually think carefully before 77.1% 66.8% 62.3% 54.2% 67.4% 13.662, df = doing anything? (135) (409) (71) (32) (647) 3, p = .003 Do you mostly speak before thinking 40.2% 47.7% 49.6% 58.3% 47.3% 6.711, df = 3, things out? (70) (293) (59) (35) (457) p = .082 Total 175 615 118 62 970
Media and Gambling
With respect to relations between gambling influences and media consumption, several key results were found (see Table 20). First, there was a significant portion of problem gamblers (and to a lesser extent, at-risk gamblers) who reported that they watched shows that talk about gambling (i.e., 78.3% of problem gamblers and 69.5% of at-risk gamblers). In comparison, 54.2% of social gamblers responded similarly and only 37.3% of non-gamblers said that the shows that they watched mentioned gambling.
48
This trend continues when analyzing whether or not respondents had ever seen gambling ads or signs when watching TV shows, with 73.8% of problem gamblers and 71.4% of at-risk gamblers saying yes, while 56.2% of social gamblers and 46.7% of non-gamblers saying yes. Thus, there is a sizeable percentage spread between at-risk/problem gamblers and casual gamblers and non- gamblers in regards to noticing gambling influences in the media.
This difference between social gamblers/non-gamblers on the one hand and at-risk/problem gamblers on the other is intensified when looking at response rates to whether or not respondents like to watch poker shows on television. Over 55% of problem gamblers and 52.1% of at-risk gamblers were more likely to watch poker shows, while only 21.7% of social gamblers and 14.1% of non-gamblers have stated that they like to do the same – almost a two-and-a-half-fold difference.
In regards to whether or not respondents liked to watch “MuchMusic,” a majority of all respondents from all segments liked to watch the channel – from a high of 65.7% of social gamblers to a low of 56.7% of problem gamblers. The spread between the population segments is not significant.
Table 20 DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Do they ever talk about 37.3% 54.2% 69.5% 78.3% 54.6% 44.689, df = 3, gambling? (63) (330) (82) (47) (522) p = .000 Do you ever see gambling ads 46.7% 56.2% 71.4% 73.8% 57.6% 24.393, df = 3, or signs when watching them? (77) (343) (85) (45) (550) p = .000 Do you like to watch 61.3% 65.7% 61.5% 56.7% 63.9% 3.034, df = 3, p “MuchMusic?” (103) (403) (72) (34) (612) = .386 Do you like to watch poker 14.1% 21.7% 52.1% 55.0% 26.1% 85.99, df = 3, p shows on television? (24) (133) (61) (33) (251) = .000 Total 170 614 117 60 961
Web/Internet Use
Tables 21-24 describe the youth responses to their use of the Internet.
49
Table 21 DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler I mostly use the Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total Web/Internet from: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Home 95.4% 97.9% 97.5% 91.8% 97.0% 9.093, df = 3, p = (165) (606) (116) (56) (943) .028 School 20.2% 29.2% 35.3% 32.8% 28.6% 9.193, df = 3, p = (35) (181) (42) (20) (278) .027 Public Library or 5.2% 7.1% 10.1% 6.6% 7.1% 2.579, df = 3, p = Employment Centre (9) (44) (12) (4) (69) .461 Internet Café 1.7% 3.9% 6.7% 14.8% 4.5% 19.817, df = 3, p = (3) (24) (8) (9) (44) .000 Youth or Community 0.0% 1.0% 1.7% 4.9% 1.1% 10.263, df = 3, p = Centre (agency) (0) (6) (2) (3) (11) .016 Work 2.3% 2.3% 5.0% 9.8% 3.1% 12.567, df = 3, p = (4) (14) (6) (6) (30) .006 A friend or family 9.2% 18.1% 21.8% 24.6% 17.4% 12.045, df = 3, p = member's home (16) (112) (26) (15) (169) .007 I do not use the 0.0% 0.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.4% 14.832, df = 3, p = Internet (0) (1) (3) (0) (4) .002 Other 1.7% 1.1% 0.8% 1.6% 1.2% (3) (7) (1) (1) (12) .642, df = 3, p = .887 Total 173 619 119 61 972
Table 22 DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler What do you use the Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total Web/Internet for: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Looking up information 59.0% 60.5% 45.3% 45.8% 57.5% 12.861, df = 3, for self or school (102) (375) (53) (27) (557) p = .005 Playing on-line poker 1.2% 2.6% 8.5% 16.9% 3.9% 39.690, df = 3, (2) (16) (10) (10) (38) p = .000 Sending/reading e-mail 50.9% 61.1% 52.1% 49.2% 57.5% 9.514, df = 3, p (88) (379) (61) (29) (557) = .023 Playing games on-line 25.4% 32.1% 39.3% 50.8% 32.9% 15.336, df = 3, (including cards) (44) (199) (46) (30) (319) p = .002 Talking/chatting with 67.6% 74.7% 69.2% 71.2% 72.5% 4.214, df = 3, p others on-line (117) (463) (81) (42) (703) = .239 Other 9.2% 10.6% 13.7% 22.0% 11.5% 8.310, df = 3, p (16) (66) (16) (13) (111) = .040 Total 173 620 117 59 969
50
Table 23 DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem How do you usually Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler find out about Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total websites: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Friends/brothers/sisters 87.0% 90.1% 85.7% 85.0% 88.7% 3.640, df = 3, p (147) (557) (102) (51) (857) = .303 Radio 2.4% 8.3% 6.7% 13.3% 7.3% 10.125, df = 3, (4) (51) (8) (8) (71) p = .018 Newspapers 5.3% 7.3% 10.1% 20.0% 8.1% 14.388, df = 3, (9) (45) (12) (12) (78) p = .002 TV 17.2% 22.7% 32.8% 36.7% 23.8% 15.313, df = 3, (29) (140) (39) (22) (230) p = .002 Magazines 11.8% 17.3% 21.0% 25.0% 17.3% 7.163, df = 3, p (20) (107) (25) (15) (167) = .067 School 22.5% 32.8% 26.9% 40.0% 30.7% 9.942, df = 3, p (38) (203) (32) (24) (297) = .019 Other 10.7% 10.8% 12.6% 15.0% 11.3% 1.224, df = 3, p (18) (67) (15) (9) (109) = .747 Total 169 618 119 60 966
Table 24 I trust the DSM Gambling Categories information I Social At-risk Problem find on the Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Web/Internet Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Very much 14.6% 8.7% 15.3% 16.1% 11.0% 14.685, df = (24) (53) (18) (9) (104) 9, p = .100 Somewhat 65.2% 72.4% 66.9% 66.1% 70.1% (107) (439) (79) (37) (662) Not much 16.5% 17.2% 13.6% 14.3% 16.4% (27) (104) (16) (8) (155) Not at all 3.7% 1.7% 4.2% 3.6% 2.4% (6) (10) (5) (2) (23) Total 164 606 118 56 944 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Demographic Characteristics
Demographic characteristics of the adolescent respondents are illustrated in Tables 25-30, with respect to gender and the DSM gambling categories, a clear pattern emerges. Problem gamblers and at-risk gamblers are mostly men, with 86.2% of problem gamblers being male and 80.7% of
51
at-risk gamblers being male. There is no significant percentage spread among social gamblers, with only a weak difference based on gender for non-gamblers with 55% of non-gamblers being female.
Table 25 Are you female DSM Gambling Categories or male? Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Female 55.0% 48.9% 19.3% 13.8% 44.2% 65.255, df = (94) (302) (23) (8) (427) 3, p = .000 Male 45.0% 51.1% 80.7% 86.2% 55.8%
(77) (315) (96) (50) (538) Total 171 617 119 58 965 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 26 How old are you? DSM Gambling Categories Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square 14 years or younger 22.7% 18.0% 12.6% 11.7% 17.8% 17.796, df = 15, p (39) (111) (15) (7) (172) = .274 15 years 26.7% 31.7% 27.7% 33.3% 30.4% (46) (196) (33) (20) (295) 16 years 27.3% 30.9% 30.3% 25.0% 29.8% (47) (191) (36) (15) (289) 17 years 14.5% 13.6% 19.3% 18.3% 14.8% (25) (84) (23) (11) (143) 18 years 6.4% 5.0% 7.6% 10.0% 5.9% (11) (31) (9) (6) (57) 19 years or older 2.3% 0.8% 2.5% 1.7% 1.3% (4) (5) (3) (1) (13) Total 172 618 119 60 969 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
52
Table 27 What grade are DSM Gambling Categories you currently in? Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Grade 9 34.5% 26.1% 25.2% 18.3% 27.0% 21.739, df = 9, p = (59) (161) (30) (11) (261) .010 Grade 10 25.1% 36.2% 21.8% 36.7% 32.5% (43) (224) (26) (22) (315) Grade 11 27.5% 26.5% 37.0% 31.7% 28.3% (47) (164) (44) (19) (274) Grade 12 12.9% 11.2% 16.0% 13.3% 12.2% (22) (69) (19) (8) (118) Total 171 618 119 60 968 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 28 Other than Canadian, what is DSM Gambling Categories the main cultural group you Social At-risk Problem identify with? Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Aboriginal 0.0% 1.2% 3.1% 1.9% 1.3% 62.958, df = 30, (0) (6) (3) (1) (10) p = .000 North American (United States, 5.2% 10.2% 10.3% 17.3% 9.8% Mexico, etc.) (7) (51) (10) (9) (77) Caribbean (Trinidad, Bahamas, 3.0% 3.4% 12.4% 3.8% 4.5% Cuba, etc.) (4) (17) (12) (2) (35) Southeast Asian (China, Japan, 45.2% 37.5% 34.0% 26.9% 37.7% Korea, etc.) (61) (188) (33) (14) (296) Central Asian (India, Pakistan, 15.6% 12.6% 5.2% 15.4% 12.4% Sri Lanka, etc.) (21) (63) (5) (8) (97) Middle Eastern (Lebanon, Iraq, 5.9% 5.6% 2.1% 0.0% 4.8% Israel, etc.) (8) (28) (2) (0) (38) African (South Africa, Ghana, 6.7% 2.0% 4.1% 5.8% 3.3% Egypt, etc.) (9) (10) (4) (3) (26) Central or South American 1.5% 1.2% 2.1% 1.9% 1.4% (Peru, Ecuador, Chile, etc.) (2) (6) (2) (1) (11) European (Portugal, England, 14.1% 18.0% 15.5% 19.2% 17.1% Iceland, etc.) (19) (90) (15) (10) (134) Eastern European (Czech 3.0% 8.4% 10.3% 7.7% 7.6% Republic, Hungary, Russia, etc.) (4) (42) (10) (4) (60) Australian, New Zealander or 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.1% Pacific Islander (Tonga, Fiji) (0) (0) (1) (0) (1) Total 135 501 97 52 785 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
53
Table 29 Do you have a DSM Gambling Categories part-time job? Social At-risk Problem Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square Yes 20.5% 28.5% 39.8% 56.9% 30.2% (35) (177) (47) (33) 292 No 79.5% 71.5% 60.2% 43.1% 69.8% 33.355, df = 3, (136) (444) (71) (25) 676 p = .000 Total 171 621 118 58 968 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 30 If yes, please DSM Gambling Categories indicate how much Social At-risk Problem you make a week Non- Gambler Gambler Gambler (roughly) Gambler (Score 0-1) (Score 2-3) (Score 4+) Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Chi-square $25.00 or less 22.9% 14.8% 21.6% 13.5% 16.7% 17.708, df = 15, p (8) (28) (11) (5) (52) = .278 $26.00 - $50.00 14.3% 16.4% 15.7% 10.8% 15.4% (5) (31) (8) (4) (48) $51.00 - $75.00 20.0% 16.9% 15.7% 8.1% 16.0% (7) (32) (8) (3) (50) $76.00 - $100.00 17.1% 16.9% 9.8% 10.8% 15.1% (6) (32) (5) (4) (47) $101.00 - $150.00 8.6% 19.6% 21.6% 18.9% 18.6% (3) (37) (11) (7) (58) $151.00 or more 17.1% 15.3% 15.7% 37.8% 18.3% (6) (29) (8) (14) (57) Total 35 189 51 37 312 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Correlation Matrix Between all Scales in the Study
Previously, we tested only for correlations with the DSM score, but the correlation shows us relationships between each scale. For example, the gambling attitudes scale has a weak positive relationship with self-esteem score, a moderate positive relationship with the misconception scale, and a strong positive correlation with the number of gambling activities and the DSM score. To put in other words, students with positive gambling attitudes have higher self-esteem, have more misconceptions about gambling, and participate in more gambling activities.
54
The self-esteem score has a weak negative relationship with the knowledge scale, where those with high self-esteem have better knowledge of gambling (and therefore gave less wrong answers to the knowledge questions).
The number of gambling activities has a strong positive relationship with the DSM score, and a moderate positive relationship with the misconceptions scale; that is, as the number of gambling activities increases, the number of gambling problems and gambling misconceptions (i.e., respondents give more erroneous responses to the misconception items) increased.
The DSM score had a moderate positive relationship with the misconception score; that is, as the DSM score increased, the likelihood of giving an incorrect response to the gambling misconceptions items also increased.
Finally, the misconception scale has a strong positive relationship with the knowledge scale (i.e., the less you know about gambling, the more misconceptions you have about gambling).
DISCUSSION
Today’s gambling environment can be characterized by continued expansion that in part has lead to a climate in which gambling is largely seen by the young as normal, reasonable and fun. The continued expansion of gambling has led to an incessant increase in money being allocated towards commercial gambling advertising and promotions. Commercial gambling advertising is ubiquitous and gauging the effects of advertising on young people is one of the most difficult tasks facing social researchers today. The results of this study, and our previous work in this area, confirm that youth are gambling and intend to gamble in the foreseeable future, despite age restrictions.
As a second phase of a three-phase research agenda, the findings from this study come together to generate a comprehensive picture of the first generation of youth to grow up in a culture where gambling is legal and normalized. As the results indicate, adolescent problem gamblers approve of gambling, feel that gambling is a fun activity and agree that some form of gambling should be legal. In comparison, non-gamblers were by far the most likely group to endorse negative attitudes of gambling and feel that there is too much gambling today and that gambling can have negative repercussions (i.e., has the potential to destroy families).
Young people are exposed to a wide range of messages that reinforce the attitude of gambling normalcy, cite gambling as a relatively common theme in popular television programs and movies, see point-of-sale gambling promotions virtually every time they enter a convenience store, and see gaming-like promotions and advertising on/for many consumer products (i.e., soft drinks, cereals, computers) (Korn, 2005). Not only do the results of this study support our previous findings, but in addition, a significant relationship was found between gambling prevalence rates and seeing TV commercials, and newspaper or magazine advertisements for casino’s, lotteries and/or Pro-Line. As the exposure data indicate, commercial gambling advertisements were positioned during many popular TV shows where the youth viewership is
55
well above the 20% standard outlined by the Federal Trade Commission, in particular: “American Idol 6,” “CSI,” and “Hockey Night in Canada.” The results of this study also found that at-risk youth gamblers were significantly more likely to report having seen commercial gambling advertisements on TV and problem gamblers were more likely to claim that they purchased a lottery, Pro-Line, or instant scratch tickets if they have seen an advertisement for it.
These findings support the hypothesis that gambling advertising does in fact influence adolescents and their gambling behaviour, as well as justify our previous concerns regarding the marrying of the youth culture with sports betting, which inevitably speaks to youth, especially young males. As previous studies indicate, adolescent males are most likely to participate in sports lotteries (Felsher, Derevensky & Gupta, 2005), and to report that betting on sports was a way to show support for a favourite team (Korn, 2005).
Felsher, Derevensky & Gupta (2004) found that lottery products are popular gambling activities among adolescents, in particular scratch tickets. This finding raises concerns about the gambling industries building upon players previous experiences by naming lottery products after commonly known children’s games (e.g., Monopoly, Battleship) (Parke & Griffiths, 2001). Out of all the different characteristics of lottery tickets probed in this study, the name of the game was significantly related to the DSM gambling categories, specifically showing that adolescent problem gamblers were more likely to be influenced by the name of the game when purchasing a lottery product.
Findings from this study indicate that problem gamblers were twice as likely to report that they had been diagnosed with a learning disability, feel that they were slow learners, and more likely to report that they themselves or someone close to them has been concerned that they might have an attention deficit disorder (i.e., ADD/ADHD). Many times, children diagnosed as hyperactive are often given small doses of stimulants – drugs such as the widely prescribed Ritalin. The use of psycho-stimulants for individuals diagnosed with hyperactivity, may seem paradoxical at first, but has proven in studies to have a calming effect on the individual (Gainetdinov, Wetsel, Jones, Levin, Jaber & Caron, 1999). Overall, these findings, along with problem gamblers reporting a significantly lower sense of self, raise concerns regarding problem gambling among youth and co-occurring disorders, specifically ADD/ADHD. Future research in this area should examine whether or not stimulating activities, such as gambling, may have a calming effect much like prescribed psycho-stimulants, such as Ritalin, which could increase the risk for development of gambling problems.
LIMITATIONS
A few key limitations to this study are worth noting. The results clearly suggest that youth find lotteries an enjoyable and exciting form of entertainment and that they are not immune to commercial gambling advertising. However, quantitative results of this research are solely derived from youth self-report questionnaires. While questionnaires based on self-reported data are the norm in the youth gambling field, they can at times have their limitations – an unwillingness to admit their true gambling participation or a tendency to exaggerate their
56
gambling involvement (Felsher, Derevensky & Gupta, 2004). In an attempt to maximize young people’s comfort with expressing their honest feelings without fear of adult scrutiny, participants were assured their responses to the questionnaire would remain anonymous and confidential and that their teachers, parents and principals would not be shown any individual questionnaires.
To fully recognize the potential impact of commercial gambling advertising and promotions on youth, it is important to understand all the variables that make up the marketing mix, or the 4P’s of marketing: Product, Price, Place, and Promotion. This study sought only to examine commercial gambling advertising, which comprise only a small portion of the overall marketing mix. Specifically, this study did not include other key area’s such as point-of-sale promotions, Internet marketing and exposure, gambling content within popular television programming and sports sponsorship’s.
In an attempt to minimize unforeseen negative consequences from commercial gambling advertising and to have a positive impact on how future commercial gambling advertisement’s are developed, this study hoped to include a broader range of perspectives from the gambling regulatory and production industries in our key informant interviews. While this current research was unsuccessful in eliciting a broader spectrum of key informants, future research could engage key informants from diverse industries, regulatory, and gambling-related organizations to specifically respond to current study results, as provided by the youth and exposure data collected.
Finally, the researchers acknowledge that there are a range of other influences that impact youth perspectives of gambling. These include exposure to gambling focused television programs, the rise in popularity of poker as a youth activity, and other messages internalized from family, peers and their surrounding communities. While this study attempted to examine some of these elements, it was a first-cut cross-sectional study. In order to clearly look at trends and exposure to all commercial gambling advertising and promotions, a more comprehensive picture could be developed to tracking data over a full calendar year, as opposed to a three-month duration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this second-phase study exploring commercial gambling advertisements and its potential impact on youth, the following recommendations for research, policy, and practice are suggested:
1. Research • Further explore the impact of commercial gambling advertising and promotions on youth. A third-phase study is proposed to examine more closely the subpopulations of youth along the gambling continuum (i.e., problem, at-risk, social, and non-gambling youth). In an attempt to compare and contrast group attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and behavioural intentions, qualitative focus groups will be conducted to probe more deeply how commercial gambling advertising and promotions impact groups along the gambling continuum.
57
• Extend our understanding of problem gambling in youth with co-occurring conditions. Of particular interest would be a study to probe the possible connections between mental health issues, learning disabilities, ADD/ADHD, and low self-esteem with youth experiencing gambling-related harms. Understanding this issue may inform prevention interventions by addressing co-occurring conditions in early education sessions before they lead to gambling-related problems. • Broaden the scope of inquiry to include point-of-sale promotion, Internet marketing, sports sponsorship, and commercial gambling advertising. While this study sought to only examine commercial gambling advertising, it only covered a small subset of marketing. A significant dimension to understanding the potential impact of all commercial gambling advertising and promotions on youth would be to broaden the scope of inquiry to include point-of-sale promotion, Internet marketing, sports sponsorship, as well as commercial gambling advertising.
2. Policy • Establish common guiding principles for all commercial gambling advertising and promotions that may impact youth. As noted earlier in this report, all lottery advertising and promotions are self-regulated and do not adhere to the Gaming Control Act. From a healthy public policy perspective, where the provincial government has a range of authorities and mandates in the gambling field, the creation of transparent guiding principles would ensure consistency among major gambling modalities, as well as appropriate accountability for all gambling advertising and promotion. • Develop clear and concise numeric commercial gambling advertising placement standards. In an attempt to shield children and adolescents from commercial gambling advertising, it is proposed that clear and concise placement standards be created that follow the recommendation by the Federal Trade Commission suggesting for a placement standard for its advertising limited to at least 75% legal-aged audiences.
3. Practice • Strengthen youth media literacy initiatives. Existing youth gambling prevention stakeholders, such as the YMCA Youth Gambling Awareness Program, the Responsible Gambling Council of Ontario, and the University of Toronto could create additional media literacy modules within their existing prevention program initiatives to help educate youth around advertising and many media advertising and promotional strategies. • Intensify enforcement of lottery point-of-sale age prohibition. Although it was not the objective of this study to examine point-of-sale practices, it is recommended, based on the youth responses, that the enforcement of age-prohibition for lottery purchases be reassessed. In line with a number of practices established for the sale of tobacco, there should be stronger enforcement of age restrictions for all lottery purchases through universal identification requirements prior to sale. Based on recent efforts in the tobacco field, the Ontario Convenience Stores Association could play a
58
key role in creating a zero tolerance law for the sale of age restricted gambling products. In addition, penalties for vendors who violate such laws should be more strictly enforced. • Discontinue the development of lottery products associated with well-known children’s games. In line with previous research in the area of youth lottery play (Felsher, Derevensky & Gupta, 2004), it is proposed that lottery products associated with well-known children’s games (i.e., Monopoly & Battleship) be discontinued because it directly connects with youth familiarity and previous childhood experiences.
SUMMARY
To date, little is known about the possible connections between commercial gambling advertising/promotion and youth. As a second phase study exploring this important area of inquiry, findings from this current study, along with our previous work in this area, are beginning to shed some light on the impact of commercial gambling advertising on youth and warrant further examination to fully understand the implications for youths gambling attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and behavioral intentions
59
References
Adams, P. (2008). Gambling, Freedom and Democracy. New York: Routledge.
Aldolf, E., Begin, P. & Sawka, E. (Eds.) (2005). Canada’s Addiction Survey (CAS): A national survey of Canadians’ use of alcohol and other drugs: Prevalence of use and related harm: Detailed report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Altman, D. Levine, D, Coeytaux, R. et al. (1996). Tobacco promotion and susceptibility to tobacco use among adolescents aged 12 through 17 years in a nationally representative sample. American Journal of Public Health,86, 1590-1593.
American Gaming Association (2003). Code of Conduct for Responsible Gaming. American Gaming Association.
Amey, B. (2001). People’s Participation In and Attitudes to Gaming, 1985-2000: Final Results of the 2000 Survey. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.
Atkin, C. (1993). Effects of media alcohol messages on adolescent audiences. Adolescent Medicine State of the Art Review, 4, 527-542.
Atkin, C, Hocking, J., & Block, M. (1984). Teenage drinking: Does advertising make a difference?, Journal of Communication, 34, 157-67.
Austin, EW. & Knaus C. (1998). Predicting Future Risky Behavior Among those “Too Young” to Drink as the Result of Advertising Desirability. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Baltimore.
Brown, B, & Brown, D. (1994). Predictors of lottery gambling among American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 339-347.
Centre for Disease Control. (1994). Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Centre for Substance Abuse Prevention, Centers for Disease Control & American Academy of Pediatrics. (1997). Media Sharp: Analyzing tobacco and alcohol messages (leader’s guide). Washington, D.C.
Centre on Alcohol Marketing and Youth. (2008). Youth Exposure to Alcohol Advertising on Television, 2001 to 2007. The Centre on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, Georgetown University.
Collins, R., Schell, T, Ellickson, P., & McCaffrey, D. (2003). Predictors of beer advertising awareness among eighth graders. Addiction, 98, 1297-1306.
60
Dejong, W. (2002). The role of mass media campaigns in reducing high-risk drinking among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14(suppl), 182-92.
Derevensky, J. and Gupta, R. (2001). Lottery Ticket Purchase by Adolescents: A Qualitative and Quantitative Examination. Final Report for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario
Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (1996). A developmental perspective of gambling behavior in children and adolescents. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 49–65.
Earle, R. (2002). The Art of Cause Marketing: How to Use Advertising to Change Personal Behavior and Public Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Evans, N., Farkas, A. and Gilpin, E. et al. (1995). Influence of tobacco marketing and exposure to smokers on adolescent susceptibility to smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 87, 1538-1545
Felsher, J., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2004). Lottery playing amongst youth: Implications for prevention and social policy. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(2), 127-153.
Ferland, F., Ladouceur, R. & Vitaro, F. (2002). Prevention of problem gambling: Modifying misconceptions and increasing knowledge. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18(1), 19-29.
Fisher, S. (2000). Developing the DSM-IV-DSM-IV criteria to identify adolescent problem gambling in non-clinical populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 253-273.
Gainetdinov, R., Wetsel, W., Jones, S., Levin, E., Jaber, M. & Caron, M. (1999). Role of serotonin in the paradoxical calming effect of psychostimulants on hyperactivity. Science, 283, 5400, 397-401.
Gaming Control Act. (1992). Ontario Regulation 385/99. Government of Ontario.
Gupta, R. & Derevensky, J (1996). The Relationship Between Gambling and Video-Game Playing Behaviour in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(4), 375-394.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Does Gambling Advertising Contribute to Problem Gambling? Presented at the World Lottery Association Conference. London, United Kingdom. January 24, 2003.
Grube, JW. (1999). Alcohol Advertising and Alcohol Consumption: A Review of Recent Research. NIAA Tenth Special Report to Congress on Alcohol and Health. Betheseda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Grube, J. and Wallack, L. (1994). Television beer advertising and drinking knowledge, beliefs
61
and intentions among school-children. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 254-259.
Institute of Medicine. (1994). Growing Up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youths. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kilbourne, J. (1999). Can’t Buy My Love. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Korn, D. (2005). Commerical gambling advertising: Possible impact on youth knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behavioural intentions. Final Report submitted to the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
Korn, D. (2000). Expansion of gambling in Canada: implications for health and social policy. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 163, 61-4.
Korn, D., & Shaffer, H. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(4), 289-365.
Krone, E. (2008, April 12, 2008). College presidents: Athletes, alcohol just don’t mix. Daily Herald. Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J., and Dumont, J. (1994). Cognitive behavioural treatment for adolescent pathological gamblers. Behavioral Modification. 18(2), 230-242.
McGuire, W. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Eds), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol 1, pp. 191-259). New York: Academic Press.
Moore, S. & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). The prediction of gambling behavior and problem gambling from attitudes and perceived norms. Social Behavior and Personality, 27(5), 455-466.
Novak, J. (2004). Alcohol promotion and the marketing industry. Final Report submitted to the Association to Reduce Alcohol Promotion in Ontario.
Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation. (2006). Annual Report (2005-2006). Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation.
Options for Tobacco Promotion Regulations. (1999). Tobacco Control Act Consultation Document. Government of Canada.
Parke, J. & Griffiths, M. (2001). The psychology of the fruit machine: The role of structural characteristics (revisited). Paper presented at the future of the slot machine in the UK conference, London, England.
Roberts, DF. (2000). Media and youth: Access, exposure and privatization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27S, 8-14.
62
Romelsjo, A. (1987). Decline in alcohol-related problems in Sweden greatest among young people. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 1111-24.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shaffer, H. & Hall, M. (2001). Updating and refining prevalence estimates of disordered gambling behaviour in the United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92 (3), 168-172.
Shaffer, H, LaBrie, R., and LaPlante, D. (2004). Laying the foundation for quantifying regional exposure to social phenomena: Considering the case of legalized gambling as a public health toxin. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(1), 40-48.
Skinner, H.A., Biscope, S., Murray, M., & Korn, D. (2004). Dare to addiction: Youth perspectives on gambling. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95 (4), 264-267.
Strasburger, V. (2002). Alcohol advertising and adolescents. The Pediatric Clinics of North America, 49, 353-376.
Volberg, RA. (2002). Gambling and Problem Gambling among Adolescents in Nevada. Northampton, MA: Gemini Research Ltd.
63
Appendix A: Youth Interview Questions
I’m just going to start by asking you some questions about some of your favorite tv shows, magazines and internet sites, that sort of stuff.
Gambling and Media Habits
1. What are some of your favourite television shows? (List top 5)
2. Do you watch any reality tv show? If so, which ones are your favorites? (Top 5)
3. Do you recall any of these shows ever discussing, showing characters engaging in, or suggesting gambling? Describe in one or two words how these shows represent gambling.
4. Can you think of any movies that depict gambling games or behavior? What are they?
5. Describe in one or two words how these shows/movies represent gambling.
6. Do you remember seeing any commercials for gambling activities in these shows?
7. Overall, how is gambling depicted in the media? Is this portrayal accurate/fair? Why or why not? What kind of consequences can this have on how gambling is understood by other youth (i.e. siblings, friends)?
8. What are your favorite magazines that you like to read? (list top 5)
9. Do you go on the Internet? If so, what are your favorite sites that you like to go to?
10. Where do you use the Internet? (probe home, school, friends, library).
If shows come to you or movies etc. over the course of the interview, just let me know. I am now going to switch gears and ask you about advertising. And this is all advertising, not just gambling.
1. Do you like advertisements? Do you pay attention to them, either on tv, in magazines, in the subway, etc?
2. Do you trust advertising? Why?
3. What makes an advertisement trustworthy? (Probe to see medium, company, or message).
64
Awareness/Exposure
Now thinking specifically about gambling advertisements (lottery, casino, horseracing, sports betting, poker etc….
1. What specific gambling advertising have you seen or heard? Can you remember for what, where, anything about it? (Probe by category beginning with television, radio, billboards, print advertisements, internet…)
2. Which gambling advertisements do you like the most and why? (Probe for characteristics of advertisement i.e.: humor, music, can relate to characters in advertisement due to age, gender, ethnicity…)
3. Do you and your friends ever talk about certain advertisements? Ones you like, don’t like etc? If so, what are some things you say?
4. Are there any gambling advertisements that you have told a friend or family member about?
5. What do you think makes an advertisement appeal to youth, or makes them directed to youth? (probe for them to be specific).
6. Which specific gambling advertisements if any, do you think are geared towards youth and by youth I mean under 18?
7. Do you think these youth-directed ads are successful? How do you think they are successful?
8. What might make a gambling advertisement appealing to youth?
9. Do you think that some youth may be susceptible to being influenced by gambling advertising? Why?
10. What responsibility do you think advertisers have (and should) have in creating gambling advertisements?
Recollection:
1. What are some of the messages (slogans or sayings) from gambling advertising that you can remember?
2. Are there any specific ads that have influenced your attitude towards gambling? Please explain.
65
3. How does gambling advertising make you feel about gambling or spending more money when you gamble?
4. Which advertisements have or might influence your friends, peers, siblings or yourself to gamble? Why?
5. What can gambling advertisers do to make sure that their advertisements are not directed toward underage youth?
I am going to ask you now a few questions about your own gambling behavior:
1. Have you gambled before and if so, what type of gambling or gambling games have you played?
2. What do you like/don’t like about gambling? (probe for excitement, chance to make money, hang with friends etc).
3. Where do you get the money to gamble? Or where do your friends get the money to gamble?
4. Have you ever bought lottery tickets for yourselves? If so, how difficult is this to do?
5. How do you decide which lottery tickets to buy? (probe for colour, title, size, amount of money you can win? Etc).
6. How did you get around gambling age restrictions? Did you have any problems buying them from the corner store?
7. Have you ever received lottery tickets as gifts (either Christmas or birthday)? If so, from who? Do you like to receive lottery tickets as gifts?
8. How important are age restrictions when it comes to gambling?
9. Have you ever asked an older friend, relative, stranger etc. to buy them lottery/scratch/Nevada tickets?
10. Do you think that youth should be “protected” when it comes to gambling? Should the age restrictions remain the same, be dropped, be increased…?
Now, I am going to just ask you some questions about problem gambling, the idea of luck and odds…..
1. What do you think constitutes a gambling problem?
66
2. Do you have any friends that might have a gambling problem? How did you find out?
3. What do you think the definition of luck is?
4. Do you think a person can be lucky?
5. Do you think gambling is a game of luck, skill, both? Anything else?
6. Do you think that the odds of winning are properly represented in gambling advertisements? Finally, I’d like you to watch a number of television ads and some print ads that are gambling related.
1. What are some of your overall thoughts about the ads, and/or general reactions to the ads as a whole? (Probe any likes/dislikes, and what makes them say that?)
2. To whom would you say these ads are directed to? (Probe: are they aimed at people your age?/like yourself? And what makes you say that?)
3. What kinds of messages did you take away from the ads? What did they seem to be saying?
67
Appendix B: Key Informant Interview Questions
Key Informant Interview Guide _ Prevention/Eduction Programs
SECTION 1: To explore current knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about youth gambling and related problems. 1. Please describe your understanding of: a. The severity of gambling problems among youth? b. How prevalent are youth gambling problems? c. What types of gambling are youth participating in? d. What problems it creates for them? e. What evidence can you cite to support your opinions? 2. To what extent do you think any of the following factors play a role in youth gambling behaviour: (Please rate on a scale: strong effect, effect, minimal effect, no effect) a. Gender b. Age c. Year in school d. Grade point average e. Participation in sports f. Mental health g. Substance abuse h. Peer pressure i. Video/on-line games j. Media exposure k. Where do you get your information to support your opinions?
SECTION 2: To explore current knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about commercial gambling advertising and its potential impacts on youth. 1. Do you think media and advertising influence youth to gamble? a. Could you give an example and explain your thinking? 2. In your opinion, what messages do you think youth take away from commercial gambling advertising? a. How well do you think the current advertising development and marketing system (with respect to gambling) is working, with respect to the following, and why? b. Quality of ads c. Degree of regulation on commercial gambling advertising (i.e. lottery/proline, casino, racetrack, online gambling) 3. Do you think that commercial gambling ad’s maybe influencing youth to gamble? And in what ways?
68
4. What would you suggest to strengthen the current advertising development and marketing system for lottery products to better protect young people? 5. In your opinion, are there gaps in the current regulation of lottery advertising that may contribute to illegal youth gambling? 6. What changes would you make (if any) in marketing and advertising that would better protect young people? 7. What counterforce/social marketing messages (currently in place) are you aware of that address the problem of underage gambling?
8. How effective do you believe these are?
9. What evidence do you have to support your views?
10. What changes do you feel would enhance the protection of young people, with respect to illegal gambling?
11. What is the critical research question regarding current advertising and marketing that still needs to be looked at?
12. Is there anything that you feel we have missed or would like to add?
69
Key Informant Interview Guide _ Industry
SECTION 1: To explore current knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about youth gambling and related problems. 3. Please describe your understanding of: a. The severity of gambling problems among youth? b. How prevalent are youth gambling problems? c. What types of gambling are youth participating in? d. What problems it creates for them? e. What evidence can you cite to support your opinions? 4. To what extent do you think any of the following factors play a role in youth gambling behaviour: (Please rate on a scale: strong effect, effect, minimal effect, no effect) a. Gender b. Age c. Year in school d. Grade point average e. Participation in sports f. Mental health g. Substance abuse h. Peer pressure i. Video/on-line games j. Media exposure k. Where do you get your information to support your opinions?
SECTION 2: To explore current knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about commercial gambling advertising and its potential impacts on youth. 13. Do you think media and advertising influence youth to gamble? a. Could you give an example and explain your thinking? 14. In your opinion, what messages do you think youth take away from commercial gambling advertising? 15. How well do you think the current advertising development and marketing system (with respect to gambling) is working, with respect to the following, and why? ” a. Quality of ads b. Degree of regulation on commercial gambling advertising (i.e. lottery/proline, casino, racetrack, online gambling) 16. Do you think that commercial gambling ad’s maybe influencing youth to gamble? And in what ways?
70
17. What would you suggest to strengthen the current advertising development and marketing system for lottery products to better protect young people? (See comment above) 18. In your opinion, are there gaps in the current regulation of lottery advertising that may contribute to illegal youth gambling? 19. What changes would you make (if any) in marketing and advertising that would better protect young people? 20. What counterforce messages (social marketing) (currently in place) are you aware of that address the problem of underage gambling?
SECTION 3: Industry Specific Questions
1. In your self-regulated industry (for lottery/proline advertising), what mechanisms are in place to ensure that you are only reaching intended targets? How do you avoid having an impact on undesignated targets (i.e. youth audience)? 2. What evidence did you look at to develop your guidelines? 3. How do you test your ads to ensure they are having an impact on only the intended groups? 4. How do you determine/define the target market that you are developing ad campaigns for? 5. How do you measure the efficacy of an advertising campaign that you develop? 6. With respect to tone & style, do you find that serious messages or humorous ones work best for you in reaching your intended target? 7. What has been the most successful lottery advertising campaign to date, and in your opinion, what makes it successful? 8. Have you used new alternative/viral/experiential media? If so, what forms have been effective and are you currently using any? 9. How do you decide what sporting events to sponsor? 10. Do you find that the association of sports and lotteries/proline is an effective sales tool? Do you see any negative consequences from this association? 11. What anti-gambling messages (for underage youth) are incorporated into lottery/proline advertisements? 12. What safeguards are in place to ensure a healthy balance between the protection of vulnerable groups (including youth) vs profit? 13. What measures do you have in place to protect youth sales?
71
Appendix C: Self-administered Questionnaire
School: ______Today’s Date: ______
Please answer the following questions as honestly as possible. Your information is confidential. Your answers will not be shown to any teachers, your principal or your parents/guardians.
However, if you still do not feel comfortable answering a question, please skip it and move on to the next.
Thank you for your participation!
Question 1 asks you about your gambling activities.
1. Indicate how often, if at all, you have done these activities in the past 12 months by circling the appropriate number:
a. I played cards for money: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
b. I flipped coins for money: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
c. I bet on games of personal skill like pool, golf or bowling: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
d. I bet on sports teams (eg: pro-line): 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
72
e. I bet on horse or dog races: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
f. I played bingo for money: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
g. I played dice games: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
h. I played slot machines, poker machines or other gambling machines: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
i. I played scratch tabs: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
j. I played the lottery by picking numbers: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
k. I played pull tabs: 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily
73
Monthly
l. I played gambling games for money on the Internet (e.g. Poker): 0------1------2------3------4 Never Less than Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly
Please answer the next questions by placing a check in the box ( ) next to the most correct answer.
2. In the past year how often have you found yourself thinking about gambling or planning to gamble?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
3. During the course of the past year have you needed to gamble with more and more money to get the same excitement you want?
1) Yes 2) No
4. In the past year, have you ever spent much more than you planned to on gambling?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
5. In the past year have you felt bad or fed up when trying to cut down or stop gambling?
74
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
6. In the past year how often have you gambled to help escape from problems or when you are feeling bad?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
7. In the past year, after losing money gambling, have you returned another day to try and win back the money you lost?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
8. In the past year has your gambling ever led to lies to your family?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
9. In the past year have you ever taken money from the following without permission to spend on gambling?
a) School lunch money or fare money?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
b) Money from your family?
75
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
c) Money from outside the family?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
10. In the past year has your gambling led to arguments with family/friends or others?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
11. In the past year has your gambling ever led to missing school?
1) Never 2) Once or Twice 3) Sometimes 4) Often
Please circle the number which best reflects how you feel about each of the following statements:
12. Gambling is a fun activity
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
13. Moderate gambling is harmless
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
14. Gamblers need counseling
76
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
15. Gambling should be illegal
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
16. There is too much gambling today
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
17. Gambling destroys families
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
18. Gambling is just another hobby
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
19. Most people can control their gambling
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
20. Gambling is a social evil
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t
77
Disagree Agree Know
21. I approve of some gambling being legal
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
22. Gambling should be controlled by law so people don’t overdo it
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
23. Basically I approve of gambling
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
24. When I’m betting, I must know the tricks and strategies if I want to win
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
25. Betting is a good way to obtain money quickly
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
26. Betting money is a good way to take up a challenge
1------2------3------4 X
78
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
27. Anyone can stop betting easily
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
28. When I gamble, I have more chances of winning if I have my good luck charm with me
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
29. If I lose while gambling, it’s because I played badly
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
30. If I gamble often at a game of chance and money, I can become good and win more money
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
31. I don’t have more chances to win at the lottery if I choose my numbers myself
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
32. Betting money can become a problem like alcoholism and drug
79
addiction
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
33. Buying lottery tickets is a type of gambling
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
34. All pinball machines and electronic games are not considered as gambling activities
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
35. Gamblers have no control on the gains and losses in a gambling activity
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
36. At lottery, choosing numbers based on the numbers that came out most often during the year can be a good way to increase your chances to win
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
37. It is impossible to predict the winner or loser at any gambling activity
1------2------3------4 X
80
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
38. It is impossible to predict chances
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
39. If I play lottery 6/49, I have more chances to win if I choose my lucky numbers
1------2------3------4 X Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree Agree Know
40. Have you ever seen: (Fill in the blank for each question)
TV commercials advertising casino’s, lotteries or ProLine? Yes______No______
Newspapers advertising casino’s, lotteries or ProLine? Yes______No______
Magazines advertising casino’s, lotteries or ProLine? Yes______No______
Subway/billboard advertising casino’s, lotteries or ProLine? Yes______No______
TV commercials advertising on-line poker? Yes______No______
41. Are you more likely to buy a lottery ticket, Proline or instant scratch ticket if you have seen an advertisement for it?
81
Yes______No______
42. How easy it is buy a lottery ticket from the corner store? (Choose 1 answer)
1------2------3------4 X Very Difficult Somewhat Easy Don’t Difficult Easy Know
43. When choosing a lottery ticket or Proline, how important is:
A) Price of ticket:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
B) Colour:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
C) Type of Game:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
D) Name of the Game:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
82
E) Type of size of Prize:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
F) Size of Ticket:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
G) # of Games on Card:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
H) Ad’s for Tickets:
1------2------3------4 X Very Important Somewhat Not at Don’t Important Important All Know
44. Why do you gamble? (You can answer more than one answer)
a) Do Not Gamble b) For enjoyment c) To relax d) For excitement
83
e) To be with or make new friends f) Because I’m depressed g) To escape an unpleasant home, school, or work situation h) Because I’m lonely i)To feel older j) To make money k) To increase my skills l) To support my favorite sports team m) Other (please list) ______-
45. How would you rate yourself?
1------2------3------4------5------6------7 Non Social Problem Pathological Gambler Gambler Gambler Gambler
46. Do you have someone that you feel you can confide in and discuss general problems with?
Yes______No______
46b. If Yes, please indicate the person(s) (mark all that apply).
a) Friend b) Brother(s) or sister(s) c) Parent/Guardians d) Other relatives e) Teachers f) Minister, Priest, Rabbi g) Counselor/ Psychologist h) Other (please list) ______
47. How satisfied are you with your social life? (Number of friends and type of activities in which you do).
a) Not happy b) Satisfied c) Very Pleased
84
48. Have you ever been diagnosed with a learning disability or learning problem?
1) Yes 2) No
49. What type of student would you describe yourself as:
a) Fast learner b) Average learner c) Slow learner
50. Have you or anyone close to you ever been concerned that you might have any of the following: (mark all that apply)
a) Attention deficit disorder (ADD/ ADHD) b) Depression c) Learning Disability/ Learning Problems d) Alcohol use e) Substance use f) Other (please list) ______
51. Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. If you strongly agree, circle SA. If you agree with the statement, circle A. If you disagree, circle D. If you strongly disagree, circle SD.
A) On the whole, I am satisfied with myself
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
B) At times, I think I am no good at all
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
85
C) I feel that I have a number of good qualities
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
D) I am able to do things as well as most other people
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
E) I feel I do not have much to be proud of
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
F) I certainly feel useless at times
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
G) I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
H) I wish I could have more respect for myself
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
I) All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
J) I take a positive attitude towards myself
86
3------2------1------0 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
52. A) Do you generally do and say things without stopping to think?
Yes______No______
B) Do you often get in trouble because you do things without thinking?
Yes______No______
C) Are you an impulsive person?
Yes______No______
D) Do you usually think carefully before doing anything?
Yes______No______
E) Do you mostly speak before thinking things out?
Yes______No______
53. Below are some questions asking you about your favorite television shows and magazines.
A) What are your top 5 TV Shows – including sports – that you like to watch? 1)______
2)______
3)______
4)______
87
5)______
B) Do they ever talk about gambling?
Yes______No______
C) Do you ever see gambling ads or signs when watching them?
Yes______No______
D) Do you like to watch MuchMusic?
Yes______No______
E) Do you like to watch poker shows on television?
Yes______No______
F) What are your top 3 Magazines that you read?
1)______
2)______
3)______
54. We would like to know a bit about how you use the Web/Internet.
A) What are your top 5 WebSites that you visit regularly?
1)______
2)______
3)______
4)______
88
5)______
B) I use the Web/Internet (mark all that apply):
Daily Weekly Monthly Never
C) I mostly use the Web/Internet from (mark all that apply):
Home School Public Library or Employment Centre Internet Café Youth or community centre (agency) Work A friend or family member’s home I do not use the Internet Other. ______
D) What do you use the Web/Internet for most (mark all that apply)?
Looking up information for self or school Playing online poker Sending/reading email Playing games online (including cards) Talking/chatting with others online Other ______
E) How do you usually find out about websites (mark all that apply)?
Friends/brothers/sisters Radio Newspapers TV Magazines School Other ______
89
F) I trust the information I find on the Web/Internet (mark all that apply):
Very much Somewhat Not much Not at all
55. Finally, we’d like to know just a bit more about you for our study.
A) How old are you?
14 years or younger 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years 19 years or older
B) What grade are you currently in?
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
C) Are you female or male? 1) Female 2) Male
D) Other than Canadian, what is the main cultural group you identify with? If none, don’t answer.
Aboriginal North American (United States, Mexico….) Caribbean (Trinidad, Bahamas, Cuba….) South East Asian (China, Japan, Korean, Thailand….) Central Asian (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka….) Middle Eastern (Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, Jordan…) African (South Africa, Ghana, Egypt…) Central or South American (Peru, Ecuador, Chile….)
90
European (Portugal, England, Iceland, France, Italy….) Eastern European (Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia…) Australian, New Zealander or Pacific Islander (Tonga, Fiji….)
56. Do you have a part-time job?
Yes______No______
56b. If Yes, please indicate how much you make a week (roughly).
$25.00 or less $26.00 - $50.00 $51.00 - $75.00 $76.00 - $100.00 $101.00 - $150.00 $150.00 or more
You have finished the study! Thank you for your participation.
91
Appendix D: Frequency Tables
Gambling Misconceptions and Knowledge (scale items)
Strongly Strongly Don't Missing Best reflects how you feel about each Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know Total System Total of the following: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Misconceptions Scale Items When I'm betting, I must know the tricks 5.3 14.3 39.8 15.7 24.4 99.5 0.5 100.0 and strategies if I want to win (55) (148) (411) (162) (252) (1028) (5) (1033) Betting is a good way to obtain money 17.5 38.7 25.3 6.5 11.2 99.2 0.8 100.0 quickly (181) (400) (261) (67) (116) (1025) (8) (1033) Betting money is a good way to take up 14.6 39.0 30.6 3.4 11.8 99.4 0.6 100.0 a challenge (151) (403) (316) (35) (122) (1027) (6) (1033) 19.7 48.5 15.1 4.1 12.0 99.4 0.6 100.0 Anyone can stop betting easily (204) (501) (156) (42) (124) (1027) (6) (1033) When I gamble, I have more chances of 32.8 34.5 9.4 3.2 19.5 99.3 0.7 100.0 winning if I have my good luck charm with me (339) (356) (97) (33) (201) (1026) (7) (1033) If I lose while gambling, its because I 18.0 37.2 20.1 3.2 20.8 99.3 0.7 100.0 played badly (186) (384) (208) (33) (215) (1026) (7) (1033) If I gamble often at a game of chance 22.3 43.4 12.4 2.8 18.8 99.6 0.4 100.0 and money, I can become good and win more money (230) (448) (128) (29) (194) (1029) (4) (1033) Knowledge Scale Items I don't have more chances to win at the 11.5 25.4 20.5 9.6 32.5 99.5 0.5 100.0 lottery if I choose my numbers myself (119) (262) (212) (99) (336) (1028) (5) (1033) Betting money can become a problem 3.3 6.3 45.2 39.1 5.5 99.4 0.6 100.0 like alcoholism and drug addiction (34) (65) (467) (404) (57) (1027) (6) (1033) Buying lottery tickets is a type of 2.8 11.3 59.7 20.5 5.0 99.4 0.6 100.0 gambling (29) (117) (617) (212) (52) (1027) (6) (1033) All pinball machines and electronic 5.9 21.6 38.2 19.6 14.0 99.3 0.7 100.0 games are not considered as gambling activities (61) (223) (395) (202) (145) (1026) (7) (1033) Gamblers have no control on the gains 4.6 24.5 40.4 14.4 15.5 99.4 0.6 100.0 and losses in a gambling activity (48) (253) (417) (149) (160) (1027) (6) (1033) At lottery, choosing numbers based on 17.0 35.9 13.9 1.6 30.9 99.4 0.6 100.0 the numbers that came out most often during the year can be a good way to (176) (371) (144) (17) (319) (1027) (6) (1033) increase your chances to win It is impossible to predict the winner or 6.1 24.4 34.2 17.1 17.8 99.6 0.4 100.0 loser at any gambling activity (63) (252) (353) (177) (184) (1029) (4) (1033) 7.1 31.8 31.0 11.0 18.3 99.2 0.8 100.0 It is impossible to predict chances (73) (329) (320) (114) (189) (1025) (8) (1033) If I play lottery 6/49, I have more 25.2 41.3 7.6 2.2 22.9 99.3 0.7 100.0 chances to win if I choose my lucky numbers (260) (427) (79) (23) (237) (1026) (7) (1033)
92
Missing Yes No Total System Total Have you ever seen: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) TV commercials advertising casino's, 94.2 5.1 99.3 0.6 100.0 lotteries or ProLine? (973) (53) (1026) (7) (1033) Newspapers advertising casino's, 79.7 19.7 99.3 0.7 100.0 lotteries or ProLine? (823) (203) (1026) (7) (1033) Magazines advertising casino's, lotteries 73.7 25.3 98.9 1.1 100.0 or ProLine? (761) (261) (1022) (11) (1033) Subway/billboard advertising casino's, 74.3 24.8 99.1 0.9 100.0 lotteries or ProLine? (768) (256) (1024) (9) (1033) TV commercials advertising on-line 86.5 12.7 99.2 0.8 100.0 poker? (894) (131) (1025) (8) (1033)
Are you more likely to buy a lottery ticket, ProLine or instant scratch ticket if you have seen an advertisement for it? Frequency Percent Yes 402 38.9 No 618 59.8 Total 1,020 98.7 Missing System 13 1.3 Total 1,033 100.0
How easy is it to buy a lottery ticket from the corner store? Frequency Percent Very Difficult 46 4.5 Difficult 97 9.4 Somewhat Easy 247 23.9 Easy 389 37.7 Don't Know 244 23.6 Total 1,023 99.0 Missing System 10 1.0 Total 1,033 100.0
Somewha Very t When choosing a Importan Importan Importan Don't Missing lottery ticket or proline, t t t Not at all Know Total System Total how important is: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) 10.9 28.5 26.5 8.4 25.3 99.6 0.4 100.0 Price of ticket (113) (294) (274) (87) (261) (1029) (4) (1033) Colour 3.4 4.5 11.8 54.7 24.8 99.2 0.8 100.0
93
(35) (47) (122) (565) (256) (1025) (8) (1033) 16.9 33.6 21.0 7.7 20.2 99.5 0.5 100.0 Type of Game (175) (347) (217) (80) (209) (1028) (5) (1033) 6.2 15.5 25.0 30.6 22.4 99.6 0.4 100.0 Name of the Game (64) (160) (258) (316) (231) (1029) (4) (1033) 36.1 27.7 13.6 6.1 16.1 99.5 0.5 100.0 Type of size of Prize (373) (286) (140) (63) (166) (1028) (5) (1033) 4.8 6.6 18.3 46.3 23.4 99.4 0.6 100.0 Size of Ticket (50) (68) (189) (478) (242) (1027) (6) (1033) Number of Games on 8.7 24.3 27.3 12.3 26.9 99.5 0.5 100.0 Card (90) (251) (282) (127) (278) (1028) (5) (1033) 4.2 8.3 22.1 35.0 30.0 99.6 0.4 100.0 Ad's for Tickets (43) (86) (228) (362) (310) (1029) (4) (1033)
Why do you gamble?: Frequency Percent Do not Gamble 603 58.4 For enjoyment 354 34.3 To relax 104 10.1 For excitement 284 27.5 To be with or make new friends 153 14.8 Because I'm depressed 19 1.8 To escape an unpleasant home, school, or work situation 18 1.7 Because I'm lonely 14 1.4 To feel older 23 2.2 To make money 251 24.3 To increase my skills 131 12.7 To support my favourite sports team 98 9.5 Other 81 7.8 Total 1,033 100.0
94
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Items Strongly Strongly Missing Statements dealing with your Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Total System Total general feelings about yourself: % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) On the whole, I am satisfied with 1.2 8.1 57.6 32.0 98.9 1.1 100.0 myself (12) (84) (595) (331) (1022) (11) (1033) 18.6 35.2 40.0 4.9 98.7 1.3 100.0 At times, I think I am no good at all (192) (364) (413) (51) (1020) (13) (1033) I feel that I have a number of good 0.9 5.7 57.5 34.7 98.7 1.3 100.0 qualities (9) (59) (594) (358) (1020) (13) (1033) I am able to do things as well as most 0.7 6.0 57.5 34.6 98.7 1.3 100.0 other people (7) (62) (594) (357) (1020) (13) (1033) I feel that I do not have much to be 30.3 47.1 16.8 4.0 98.3 1.7 100.0 proud of (313) (487) (174) (41) (1015) (18) (1033) 21.4 35.7 35.3 6.2 98.6 1.4 100.0 I certainly feel useless at times (221) (369) (365) (64) (1019) (14) (1033) I feel that I'm a person of worth, at 2.0 8.5 53.6 33.3 97.5 2.5 100.0 least on an equal plane with others (21) (88) (554) (344) (1007) (26) (1033) I wish I could have more respect for 18.6 38.1 32.6 8.7 98.1 1.9 100.0 myself (192) (394) (337) (90) (1013) (20) (1033) All in all, I am inclined to feel that I 44.6 42.3 9.4 1.9 98.3 1.7 100.0 am a failure (461) (437) (97) (20) (1015) (18) (1033) I take a positive attitude towards 1.4 11.9 53.4 30.9 97.6 2.4 100.0 myself (14) (123) (552) (319) (1008) (25) (1033)
Missing Yes No Total System Total % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) Do you generally do and say things 47.5 50.6 98.2 1.8 100.0 without stopping to think? (491) (523) (1014) (19) (1033) Do you often get into trouble because you 39.8 58.6 98.4 1.6 100.0 do things without thinking? (411) (605) (1016) (17) (1033) 34.7 61.1 95.7 4.3 100.0 Are you an impulsive person? (358) (631) (989) (44) (1033) Do you usually think carefully before 65.4 32.0 97.5 2.5 100.0 doing anything? (676) (331) (1007) (26) (1033) Do you mostly speak before thinking 46.6 51.6 98.2 1.8 100.0 things out? (481) (533) (1014) (19) (1033)
Social Network:
Who can you confide in: Frequency Percent Friend 669 64.8 Brother(s) or sister(s) 366 35.4 Parent/Guardians 507 49.1 Other relatives 240 23.2
95
Teachers 125 12.1 Minister, Priest, or Rabbi 55 5.3 Counselor/Psychologist 61 5.9 Other 42 4.1 Total 1,033 100.0
How satisfied are you with your social life? Frequency Percent Not Happy 54 5.2 Satisfied 422 40.9 Very Pleased 551 53.3 Total 1,027 99.4 Missing System 6 0.6 Total 1,033 100.0
Have you ever been diagnosed with a learning disability or learning problem? Frequency Percent Yes 97 9.4 No 929 89.9 Total 1,026 99.3 Missing System 7 0.7 Total 1,033 100.0
What type of student would you describe yourself as? Frequency Percent Fast Learner 444 43.0 Average Learner 515 49.9 Slow Learner 65 6.3 Total 1,025 99.2 Missing System 9 0.9 Total 1,033 100.0
Have you or anyone close to you ever been concerned that you might have: Frequency Percent Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD/ADHD) 158 15.3 Depression 184 17.8 Learning Disability/Learning Problems 100 9.7 Alcohol Use 115 11.1 Substance Abuse 93 9.0 Other 86 8.3
96
Total 1,033 100.0
I mostly use the Web/Internet from: Frequency Percent Home 986 95.5 School 291 28.2 Public Library or Employment Centre 76 7.4 Internet Cafe 46 4.5 Youth or Community Centre (agency) 13 1.3 Work 33 3.2 A friend or family member's home 182 17.6 I do not use the Internet 4 0.4 Other 14 1.4 Valid 1,033 100.0
What do you use the Web/Internet for: Frequency Percent Looking up information for self or school 589 57.0 Playing online poker 40 3.9 Sending/reading e-mail 582 56.3 Playing games online (including cards) 336 32.5 Talking/chatting with others online 731 70.8 Other 123 11.9 Valid 1,033 100.0
How do you usually find out about websites: Frequency Percent Friends/brothers/sisters 898 86.9 Radio 75 7.3 Newspapers 84 8.1 TV 244 23.6 Magazines 177 17.1 School 312 30.2 Other 115 11.1 Total 1,033 100.0