Reflections on the Results of the 4 th. Italian prevalence study

Transcription

1 Reflections on the Results of the 4 th Italian prevalence study Claudio Barbaranelli Sapienza University of Rome Department of Psychology -CIRMPA claudio.barbaranelli@uniroma1.it 1

2 OVERVIEW * Framework, Aims of the study and Methodology * Characteristics of Italian problem gamblers * Comorbidity of Problem Gambling * Knowledge and use of self-regulation tools * Conclusions and recommendations 2

3 The framework Three surveys have been conducted in Italy in 2008, 2010, 2012 on representative samples of Italian adult gamblers The aims of these surveys were to estimate the prevalence of problem gambling on the Italian population of adult gamblers Other aims were to identify the distinctive characteristics of Italian adult problem gamblers (gambling behaviors and habits, personal variables related to gambling, general personal variables) 3

4 Aims of 2014 Survey The 2014 survey was especially devoted on the assessment of comorbidity factors, with special focus on various indices related to psychological health and psychological distress Aim of this focus was to identify those characteristics that may be associated with problem gambling. We were interested also at gamblers perceptions and cognitions regarding knowledge of initiatives of sensibilisation, use of self-regulation tools, knowledge of bans This will eventually be conducive to evidence based recommendations for regulators and gaming industry 4

5 Methodology subjects representative of the total population of adult Italian gamblers (18 years and over), who gambled at least once for money in the last 12 months (about , GFK Eurisko, November 2014) Self-report questionnaire of about 250 items Gender: 57,6% Male, Average age: 48 years (SD =16,1) Education: 8% graduated; 31,9% high school; 42,6% junior high; 17,4% elementary or lower Geographical Area: 36% South+Islands; 41% North; 23% Center. Marital Status: 26,1% single; 60,4% married; 6,8% divorced; 6,4 % widow Occupation: 4,5% professional; 12,9% employee; 19,5% retired; 5% student; 22,4% worker; 13,7% housewife; 9,4% non-occupied 5

6 Screening of Problem Gambling PG prevalence was assessed using a combination of criteria derived from SOGS and PGSI They overlap only partially, thus evidencing different aspects of Problem Gambling. Their combined use may reduce the risk of misclassification

7 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers In the following slides profiles and patterns are discussed comparing: Problematic/Potentially Pathologic (Positive in both criteria), + Potentially Problematic (Positive in one criteria, intermediate in the other) Versus Non Problematic (Negative and/or intermediate in both criteria), + Low/Moderate at Risk gamblers (Positive in one criteria, Negative in the other) This will avoid to have too few SS when analyzing patterns of behaviors that may emerge with low frequency of occurrence (Wood & Williams, 2007) 7

8 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Patterns of game behavior Compared to non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers: - play multiple games: in the last 12 months (5 vs. 3), in the last 3 months (4 vs. 2) - spend more money on gambling: in one single day, in most of single games - play more online In the last three months 99% of problem gamblers and 97% of non problem gamblers gambled for money at least once Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path.= 101 8

9 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Patterns of game behavior Compared to non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers: - play more frequently - dedicate more time to gambling (1 hour vs. less than 30 daily) - started to gamble at a younger age (25 years vs. 31 years) - play less with friends and colleagues (7 % vs. 16%) Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path.= 101 9

10 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Behavior and Gambling Habits Compared to non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers: - have both parents (5.0% vs. 0.2%), the father (9.0% vs. 2.2%) and the mother (2.0% vs. 0.4%) who gambled excessively. - the partner (7.8% vs. 1.7%), the brother (6.9% vs. 1.3%), the sister (4.0% vs. 0.6%), the other relatives (21.8% vs. 4.8%), the close relatives of their partner (9.9% vs. 2.6%), friends (49.5% vs. 18.1%), colleagues (18.6% vs. 6.2%) and the neighbours (18.6% vs. 9.0%) also have (or had) problems with gambling. Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path.=

11 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Personal variables linked to gambling Compared to non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers: - Are more motivated to gamble for symbolic motives, for economic motives, and for hedonic motives - Have higher erroneous beliefs in their chances of winning because they overestimate: their control over the outcome of the game (illusion of control), the probability of a win if they continue to gamble (perseverance) - Have lower self-efficacy in regulating gaming activity Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path.=

12 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers "General" personal characteristics Compared to non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers: - are less satisfied with ourselves, with the relationship with their relatives and with their friendship network, and have a less positive attitude towards life. - have a higher propensity to take risk as a way of providing stimulation, excitement and arousal ("stimulating" risk). Declare more often to engage in risky behaviors ("declared risk ). - display a higher tendency to act on the spur of the moment ("motor impulsivity"), a lower capability to sustain attention and to focus on the task ("attentional impulsivity"), and a higher tendency to act without considering the future ("nonplanning impulsivity"). Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path.=

13 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Indicators of personal distress Compared to non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers: - Have higher levels of psychological distress and depression, and higher suicidal tendencies - Show higher consumption of cigarettes, substances, and alcohol and show more frequent antisocial behaviors - Had less positive childhood experiences - Experienced more negative events in the last 12 months (divorce, legal problems, retirement, big change in economic situation, frequent arguments with relatives, big changes in life conditions, big changes in occupational condition, violence) - Reported a higher propensity to compulsive buying Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path.=

14 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Indicators of personal distress 1 1,10 1,12 0,93 0,5 0,72 0,58 0,62 0,59 0 0,03-0,04-0,06-0,03-0,07-0,03-0,05-0,03-0,5-0,59-1 P ositive Childhood Expe rie nc e s P syc hologic a l distre ss De pre ssion S uic ida l Te nde nc ie s Alc ohol Consumption All differences are statistically significant S ubsta nc e Abuse Antisoc ia l Be ha viors Life Eve nts NON PROBLEM PROBLEM Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path.=

15 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Knowledge and use of self-regulation tools NON PROBLEM PROBLEM 80,00% 60,00% 48,67% 51,21% 43,92% 42,38% 40,00% 20,00% 22,61% 29,62% 35,35% 30,63% 10,53% 4,04% 0,00% Seen general information of the risk of gambling? Self excluded? Seen information on where to seek help Sought help for your gambling habits? If yes, did it happened during last year? Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path=

16 Characteristics of Problem Gamblers Knowledge and use of self-regulation tools NON PROBLEM PROBLEM 100,00% 80,00% 60,00% 52,90% 55,40% 45,50% 40,00% 40,80% 25% 20,00% 15,70% 11,50% 5,60% 0,00% Known associations providing assistance to people with gambling problems Know about sensibilization campaigns Know of selfassessment tests for problem gambling Did a selfassessment tests for problem gambling Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path=

17 Perception of Bans NON PROBLEM PROBLEM 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 80,00% 100,00% Slot Machine & Videolottery 8 1,4 0 % 83% Online gambling 6 8,4 0 % 6 0,4 0 % Sport Betting 7 1,2 0 % 7 6,8 0 % Scratch Lotteries (Gratta e Vinci 5 0,3 0 % 50% Lotto, Superenalotto 4 4,6 0 % 5 3,4 0 % Bingo 6 2,10 % 5 4,9 0 % National Lotteries 3 3,7 0 % 4 5,8 0 % Horse Betting 7 6,5 0 % 7 0,3 0 % Non-problem + Low/Mod. Risk = 1929, Problem + P. Path=

18 Conclusions and recommendations As in previous research, results show that problem gamblers are omnivorous gamblers: play more games, are not interested in or do not participate only in a single game, pass more time gambling, spend more money on gambling Due to this massive involvement on mostly any game available, responsible gambling tools and/or information should be available for every game at all time 18

19 Conclusions and recommendations The results allow to advance some reflections that might be useful in the planning of communicative interventions The percentage of participants aware of initiatives or of associations related to problem gambling significantily increased compared with that resulting from our previous studies. It would be helpful to think of communication strategies that use also traditional media (eg., TV that is for now just a vehicle for advertising on the games and not for social communication) and new media such as smartphones 19

20 Conclusions and recommendations As for the perception of the ban for minors to gamble to any game, especially games like Slots and Videolottery, online games, and Sports Betting on Horses are perceived as being forbidden to minors with very high percentages (generally between 70% and 80%), but they never reach to 100%. There are not significant differences between the different types of gamblers: we believe there is still much work to do for the operators to make it clear and well-known to gamblers the ban to minors 20

21 Conclusions and recommendations The results allow to advance some recommendations regarding education to responsible gambling Communication: Increase the ability to self-regulate own gaming behavior acting on the knowledge of the prohibitions, and on the ability to use tools for selfassessment and for self-limiting 21

22 Conclusions and recommendations The results allow to advance some recommendations regarding education to responsible gambling Providing information to reduce false beliefs relative to the odds of winning, to control the outcome of the game, etc 22

23 Conclusions and recommendations The results allow to advance some recommendations regarding education to responsible gambling Constructing informative and advertising messages clear and not misleading, through different communication media (not only the web, but also traditional media such as TV and new such smartphone) 23

24 Special thanks to Thomas Nillson & Jakob sustainableinteraction.se Roberta Fida and Michele Sapienza, Rome Stefania IGT THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION Claudio Barbaranelli Sapienza University of Rome Department of Psychology -CIRMPA claudio.barbaranelli@uniroma1.it 24