online and offline pathological gambler: characterizing and comparing
TRANSCRIPT
INTRODUCTION:
Pathological Gambling has been included in DSM III (APA) as an
impulse control disorder since 1980, as in CID (WHO) although it is
increasingly considered like a behavioral (non-chemical) addiction. It
seems to be a dependency quite different from others in some aspects.
The interest for this study comes from the absence of information on
the area of problem gambling. There is no information on diagnosis,
prevention and treatment for Portuguese gambling culture. The
following questions should be answered: Are problem and
pathological online gamblers different from those offline (Griffiths,
2010) and is online gambling more attractive and dangerous than
offline gambling (Shaffer. 2009)?
OBJECTIVES:
The aim of this study was to evaluate and understand the
characteristics of the following groups: Offline gamblers and online
gamblers grouped into recreational; abusive and pathological. We
wanted to compare them and examine significant differences in socio-
demographics; gambling behavior; coping strategies and sense of
personal values. Understanding how these characteristics are different
or not, by type of game as poker; slots; sport, among others. This
study will also help prepare/adapt future, new prevention programs
and protocols in primary, secondary and tertiary online and offline
gambling. .
METHOD:
A site was built for hosting two questionnaires: one for online
gamblers and one for offline gamblers in Portugal .
Sample: Currently 1820 but only 1365 were analysed (to date) and
grouped in 2 main categories with 3 subtypes each, following SOGS
classification; 1) Online gamblers: a) pathological; b) abuser and c)
recreational; 2) Offline gambler: a) pathological; b) abuser and c)
recreational. Data were analyzed using SPSS. All these numbers may
change due to (a) more questionnaires being answered and (b) some
questionnaires will be eliminated due to repetition and uncompleted
filling.
Instruments: Socio-demographics; Gambling behavior history; South
Oaks Gambling Screen; Lesieur & Blume,(1992); Toulousana coping
scale reduced (UAL, 2009); New value’s scales, reduced version
(Nunes, Tap & Hipólito, 2009).
ABSTRACT:
Gambling is growing worldwide via new forms of (i) approach, (ii) offer,
(iii) availability and (iv) diversity. In most countries, abusive and
pathological gambling is following this growth. This includes (i) online
sports betting, (ii) poker tournaments and (iii) virtual casinos. This
study attempts to build the profile of the Portuguese online and offline
gambler in three categories: recreational; abusive and (in particular)
pathological. Online and offline gamblers are compared and
characterized to see which is more addictive (and why). Two different
questionnaires for online and offline gamblers were placed on a site to
collect information on several levels: socio-demographics; gambling
behaviors; motivations; co-morbidities; coping strategies; values and a
gambling screen (SOGS) to assess their degree of pathology. Our data
follows some international recent findings, showing that online and
offline pathological gamblers may not be so different than expected. In
this sample, more Offline Pathological Gamblers (OFPGs) were
represented than Online Pathological Gamblers (ONPGs). Online
abusive gamblers were more represented than offline abusive
gamblers. ONPGs seem to be similar to OFPGs in some areas: they
play more at same hours of the day; they feel gambling increases skills
decision taking and concentration; they report time goes very fast; they
particularly enjoy the feeling of euphoria and secondly escape; they
substitute activities like work and/or sex with gambling; they have
significant association with anxiety; depression and hyperactivity, and
OFPGs are different in the following areas: they have less stability in
relationships with father and mother, they have more suicidal ideation
and also play more online than ONPGs play offline.
RESULTS:
There was a higher representation of OFPGs in the offline group than
ONPGs in the online group. There was a greater association between
offline gamblers and dependency than with online gamblers. The result
is in opposite direction with abusive online gamblers which showed
higher percentages and were younger .
Online gamblers were a younger age in the abuse group (15,5% vs
8,1%) and there was less recreational gambling online among seniors
over 50 years (20,7% vs 32,8%). More women were recreational
gamblers.
Almost 30% of online abusers and pathological gamblers used mobile
phones to bet. OFPGs also gambled online more than ONPGs gambled
offline (slots) and had twice as much alcohol and cocaine abuse, and
three times more tobacco use. OFPGs had 50% mor suicidal thoughts
but equal numbers of attempts.
Sample Results by Groups: Online Gamb. Offline Gamb.
Recreational Gamblers 248 199
Abusive Gamblers 348 262
Pathological Gamblers 148 160
TOTALS (1365) 744 621
CONCLUSIONS:
All groups showed differences in age, gender, etc.
- Results showed online gambling addiction may be inferior or less
problematic as reported in some international data (Shaffer, 2009).
- Highest figures of young people among online abuse may be
representative of future pathological gamblers (use-abuse-
dependency).
- ONPGs and OFPGs had many similarities but also many differences
that need further explanation.
-10%
00%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Offline Online
Jogador recreativo Jogador abusivo Jogador patológico
Distribution of online and offline type of gamblers: was significantly
different, χ2 (2) = 6,864, p=0,032. There was a bigger proportion of
pathological gamblers offline thsn offline (25,5% vs 19,7%).
References:
- British Gambling survey, (Wardle et al, 2007)
- Griffiths, M. (2010). The Psychosocial impact of internet gambling in
Great Britain, et al. presentation London NHS conference in 2010.
-Shaffer, H. (2009). Computer, Internet and Gambling Addiction: A
critical Revue., Harvard Medical School.
Online and Offline Portuguese Pathological Gamblers:
Characterizing and Comparing CIP-Lisbon Autonomous University Hubert, P., Griffiths, M. & Sommer, M.
* Nottingham Trent University
Mail: [email protected]