THE ROLE OF EXPERIENCE, COGNITION, PERSONALITY AND GENDER IN EXPLAINING

PSYCHOSOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF ADOLESCENT GAMBLING

Neven Ricijaš, Ph.D. Aleksandra Huić, M.A. Dora Dodig, M.A. Valentina Kranželić, Ph.D.

9th European Conference on Gambling Studies and Policy Issues, 2012

University of Zagreb Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences

Social context Gambling is illegal for minors (< 18 years of age) Expansion of places registered for gambling

About the project

“Habits and Characteristics of Adolescent Gambling in Croatian Urban Areas”

Supported by: University of Zagreb Ministry of Science, Education and Sport National Teacher Training Agency Croatian Lottery Ltd.

N=1.952 high school students from March to May, 2011 88 classes, 24 schools representative sample

Sample

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

23,3%

37,8%

38,9%

GYMNASIUM P.

4 YEAR VOCATIONAL P.

3 YEAR VOCATIONAL P.

Sample age varies from 14 to 20 years (M=16,56)

Instrument Construct Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory (Tremblay, Wiebe, Stinchfield & Wynne, 2010)

Gambling Problem Severity Subscale (GPSS) Score

Specific questions about gaining large amount of money with gambling and behavior after winning /loosing in gambling

won a large sum of money? when win, encouraged to continue when loose, encouraged to continue

Motivation for Gambling Scale (Ricijaš, Dodig, Huić, Kranželić, 2011)

Motivation for Gambling (entertainment and excitement, gaining money, to become a better gambler)

Gambling Cognitive Distortions Scale (Ricijaš, Dodig, Huić, Kranželić, 2011)

Cognitive distortions: 1. Illusion of control 2. Erroneous beliefs/Incorrect

understanding of probability

Frequency of Delinquent Behavior Scoring Instrument (Atlanta, Dahlber, Toal, Swahn & Behrens, 2005)

Risk and delinquent behavior

IPIP-50 (International Personality Item Pool) (Goldberg, 1992) Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999)

Personality traits (50% of participants) Cognitive styles (50% of participants)

IPIP-50 ZTPI Total

Boys 23,2% 22,1% 45,4%

Girls 27,5% 27,1% 54,6%

Total 50,7% 49,3% 100,0%

N=934

R E S U L T S

Life-time prevalence (N=1.952)

Life-time prevalence <=17 years of age (N=1.457)

Frequency of gambling >= 1x per week Whole sample

(N=1.952)

Sports betting 19,0%

Slot machines 6,2%

Virtual races 6,1%

On-line gambling WITHOUT MONEY 22,8%

Sample <=17 years (N=1.457)

18,2%

5,8%

6,2%

23,6%

Boys in sample (N=915)

37,4%

11,8%

11,7%

36,0%

Boys <=17 years

(N=663)

36,6%

11,0%

11,8%

37,1%

Aim of this research to explore the strength that experiences with

gambling activities, specific motivation for gambling, ways adolescents think about gambling, and broad personality dimensions have in explaining psychosocial consequences of adolescent gambling. also interested in whether these factors explain

boys’ and girls’ gambling risks in the same way.

1. PERSONALITY TRAITS Extraversion Agreeableness Consciousness Emotional Stability 2. GENERAL RISK & DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR SCORE 3. COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS Illusion of control Erroneous beliefs/Incorrect understanding of probability 4. MOTIVATION Entertainment and excitement Gaining money To become a better gambler 5. EXPERIENCE & BEHAVIOUR When win, encouraged to continue When loose, encouraged to continue Won a large sum of money?

GPSS Gambling Problem

Severity Subscale Score

Boys - IPIP PREDICTORS

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Consciousness

Emotional stability

Risk & delinquent behaviour

Illusion of control

Erroneous beliefs/Probability

Entertainment and excitement

Gaining money

To become a better gambler

When win, encouraged to continue

When loose, encouraged to continue

Won a large sum of money?

R²

1

,181**

-,146**

-,030

-,267***

,081***

2

,078

-,085

,045

-,193***

,361***

,186***

3

,061

-,053

,036

-,143**

,323***

,097

,197***

,242***

4

,024

-,055

,022

-,091

,189***

-,037

,091

,034

,286***

,313***

,414***

5

,002

-,013

,014

-,065

,141**

-,075

,019

,029

,110*

,241***

,289***

-,059

,260***

,538***

Girls - IPIP PREDICTORS

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Consciousness

Emotional stability

Risk & delinquent behavior

Illusion of control

Erroneous beliefs/Probability

Entertainment and excitement

Gaining money

To become a better gambler

When win, encouraged to continue

When loose, encouraged to continue

Won a large sum of money?

R²

1

,256***

-,193*

-,059

-,132*

,077***

2

,152*

-,115*

,016

-,068

,288***

,137***

3

,143*

-,108*

,017

-,049

,251***

,152*

,051

,163***

4

,105*

-,048

-,024

-,028

-,003

,049

-,007

-,084

,266***

,509***

,426***

5

,088

-,029

-,038

-,036

-,022

,022

-,027

-,137**

,179***

,403***

,188***

-,046

,214***

,483***

personality traits explain vulnerability for gambling problems

general risk behavior is a strong predictor and can especially predict boys’ gambling problems

cognitive distortions are not as strong predictor as motivation for gaining money and to become a better gambler

experience of gaining a large sum of money, with encouragement to continue when winning are the strongest predictors

Different gambling behaviour regarding gender!

Individual risk

factors

Accessibility and

Availability

Problem Gambling

Prevention programs

(knowledge, skills,

critical thinking)

Adequate laws/regulati

ons and Responsible

gambling strategies

Effective prevention

Thank you for your attention!

doradodig@gmail.com

CAGI (N=1.952)

“red light” high severity

“yellow light” low to moderate severity

“green light” no problem

12,3%

16,9%

70,9%

CAGI <=17 godina (N=1.457)

“red light” high severity

“yellow light” low to moderate severity

“green light” no problem

11,5%

16,4%

72,1%

“red light”

“yellow light”

“green light”

23,8%

27,2%

49,0%

“red light”

“yellow light”

“green light”

2,1%%

7,7%

90,1%

Boys N=915

Girls N=1.033

“red light”

“yellow light”

“green light”

12,3%

16,9%

70,9%

“red light”

“yellow light”

“green light”

1,3%

5,5%

93,2%

Croatia N=1.952

Age – 14 to 20 y. Representative sample

Canada N=2.374

Age – 12 to 18 y. Convenience sample

(Tremblay, J., Stinchfield, R., Wiebe, J. & Wynne, 2011, Personal correspondence)