Gambling careers: A longitudinal, qualitative study of gambling behaviour

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iart20

Download by: [University of Glasgow] Date: 13 June 2016, At: 05:40

Addiction Research & Theory

ISSN: 1606-6359 (Print) 1476-7392 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iart20

Gambling careers: A longitudinal, qualitative studyof gambling behaviour

Gerda Reith & Fiona Dobbie

To cite this article: Gerda Reith & Fiona Dobbie (2013) Gambling careers: A longitudinal,qualitative study of gambling behaviour, Addiction Research & Theory, 21:5, 376-390, DOI:10.3109/16066359.2012.731116

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2012.731116

Published online: 18 Oct 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 305

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

2013

Addiction Research and Theory, October 2013; 21(5): 376–390Copyright ! 2013 Informa UK Ltd.ISSN: 1606-6359 print/1476-7392 onlineDOI: 10.3109/16066359.2012.731116

Gambling careers: A longitudinal, qualitative studyof gambling behaviour

Gerda Reith1 & Fiona Dobbie2

1Department of Social and Political Science, Glasgow University, Adam Smith Building, Glasgow G12 8TT,UK and 2School of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK

(Received 11 July 2012; revised 11 September 2012; accepted 13 September 2012)

This article presents findings from a five year studyof ‘gambling careers’ designed to explore the waysthat individuals move in and out of problematicbehaviour over time. A longitudinal qualitativemethodology was used to investigate patterns ofstability and change in a cohort of 50 problem andrecreational gamblers. The study found that change,rather than stability, was the norm in gamblingbehaviour and identified four different trajectoriesof behaviour: progression, reduction, consistencyand non-linearity. Drawing on rich narrativeaccounts of respondents’ gambling behaviour, thestudy begins to suggest reasons for these differenttypes of movement, highlighting the role of materialfactors such as employment, environment and socialcontext in each. It concludes that gambling behav-iour is highly variable over time, and recommendsthat future research focus on patterns of behaviourrather than on ‘types’ of gamblers.

Keywords: Gambling careers, longitudinal qualitativeresearch, social factors, environment, sociology

INTRODUCTION

The natural course of gambling behaviour is littleunderstood (Nathan, 2003). Traditionally, pathologicalgambling has been regarded as a chronic, progressivecondition and pathological gamblers viewed as aminority of distinct ‘types’ of individual. These typesare generally characterised by a range of psychologicalfeatures which individualise the disorder and also tendto present it as static and unchanging (APA, 2000;NRC, 1999). However, more recent work has begun to

move away from this model and towards concepts ofbehaviour as something that is more fluid and variableand that can change over the life course. For instance, anumber of studies have explored the incidence of naturalrecovery from gambling problems (Hodgins, 2001;Hodgins & El-Guebaly, 2000; Hodgins, Wynne, &Makarchuk, 1999; Slutske, 2006), while others haveexamined the role of controlled gambling in therecovery from pathological behaviour (Slutske,Piasecki, Blaszczynski, & Martin, 2010). The findingsfrom these studies suggest that ‘non assisted recoverymay be a major pathway to recovery’ (Hodgins et al.,1999, p. 100). They also suggest that the self-correctingnature of problematic gambling may be similar to thecourse of other problematic behaviours which have beenfound to resolve over time, such as alcoholism (Nathan,2003; Sobell, Cunningham, & Sobell, 1996; Sobell,Ellingtad, & Sobell, 2000), cocaine use (Shaffer &Jones, 1989), heroin dependency (Stall & Biernacki,1986; Waldorf & Biernacki, 1981) and tobacco use(Schachter, 1982).

One of the most influential explanations of processesof recovery from problematic behaviour is the trans-theoretical model described by Prochaska andDiClemente (1983) and Prochaska, DiClemente, andNorcross (1992). It explains how individuals movethrough a series of stages, which may be non-linear andrelapsing, to move away from problematic patterns ofbehaviour. The stages describe the changes in attitudesas well as behaviours that individuals undergo as theyadopt new ways of living and have been applied to arange of behaviours including recovery from drug andalcohol addiction, smoking cessation and the adoptionof healthy eating habits (DiClemente, Prochaska, &Gibertini, 1985).

Another theoretical model has recently been pro-vided by Blaszczynski and Nower (2002), who

Correspondence: Gerda Reith, Department of Social and Political Science, Glasgow University, Adam Smith Building, Glasgow G128TT, UK. Tel: (44)141 330 3849. Fax: (44) 141 330 3554. E-mail: [email protected]

376

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

emphasise the heterogeneous and multidimensionalnature of problem gambling. They argue againstconceptualisations of the condition as either a ‘cate-gorical disorder or as an end point on a continuum ofgambling involvement’ (p. 489), proposing a ‘path-ways’ model instead. This is based on three distinctsub-groups of players which are characterised byspecific trajectories of behaviour: ‘behaviourally con-ditioned’, ‘emotionally vulnerable’ and ‘antisocialimpulsivist’. Although environmental factors such asavailability and family background are considered inthis model, the subgroups of gamblers are largelycharacterised by individual psychological and physio-logical features, such as impulsivity, irrational beliefs,depression, poor coping skills, arousal and neurologicaldysfunction.

From another perspective, some – although again,very little - work has investigated factors involved inthe shift from recreational to problem gambling.A study by Clarke et al. (2006), found that keyindicators in the transition from social to problemgambling included low socio-economic status, loss ofcontrol and alcohol and substance abuse. They foundthat social, cultural and environmental factors were thekey factors for starting gambling, while personalreasons such as stress and loneliness were the keyfactors for continuing problem gambling. In addition,ease of access to money and EGMs were important inthe shift to problem behaviour.

Deeper understanding of these issues requires lon-gitudinal research, which is relatively scarce in thefield of gambling. However, a small number of studieshave explored changes in behaviour over time.1 Indeed,a review of prospective studies concluded that gam-bling problems were unstable and multidirectionalrather than progressive and enduring (LaPlante,Nelson, LaBrie, & Shaffer, 2008). In one study,Slutske, Jackson, and Sher (2003) found that althoughthe prevalence of gambling remained relatively stableamong a cohort of students over 11 years, gamblingbehaviour at the individual level revealed considerablemovement, with problems appearing transitory andepisodic rather than chronic and static. Similarly,Abbott, Williams, and Volberg (1999, 2004) reportedthe resolution of gambling problems among a majorityof players over a seven year period in New Zealand,despite the fact that most did not receive specialisthelp. Severity of initial gambling problems, trackbetting and excessive alcohol use were found to befactors involved in the development of problems.Canadian studies by Wiebe, Cox, and Falkowski-Ham(2003) found that most respondents had resolved theirgambling problems in a 12-month period. They alsofound that some respondents who had not initially hadproblems developed them over the fieldwork period,although there was not enough data to assess factorsresponsible for the transition to problematic behaviour.

Hodgins and Peden’s (2005) study of pathologicalgamblers found that most were still gambling

problematically three and a half years later, with thefew who were not experiencing problems having hadless serious problems initially. They found that emo-tional and financial factors were involved in attemptsto stop gambling as well as in relapse, and that anumber of individuals experienced co-occurring sub-stance misuse and mental health problems.

Evidence from these studies suggests that gamblingbehaviour may be far more variable than previouslythought. However, little is understood about thisvariability, and explanations for change tend to becouched predominantly in terms of individual charac-teristics, such as personality type and a range ofpsycho-social factors. In addition, although theselongitudinal studies provide evidence for the fluidnature of behaviour, and sometimes begin to suggestcauses for patterns of behaviour change, their quanti-tative approach means that the motivations and mean-ings of behaviour change among the individualsinvolved remain largely hidden.

It is here that we come up against the limits ofquantitative methodologies. Such methods are based onpositivist approaches to knowledge, usually revealedthrough large-scale surveys and standard fixedresponse questions. Although these provide usefulinformation based on numerical data, they cannotunpick the complexity behind concepts such as recov-ery or the escalation of behaviour, nor can they shedlight on the meanings and motivations of the individ-uals involved. It is only qualitative methodologies thatcan supply a sense of meaning that goes beyondstatistical inference and begins to explore the livedexperience of behaviour. Very few studies haveattempted to do this, although the benefits of longitu-dinal qualitative research in other areas, such ascriminal careers (Farrell, 2000) and alcohol use(Vaillant, 1995) have been recognised, where thefocus on in-depth exploration of meanings and moti-vations have provided rich insights into behaviour(Thomson & Holland, 2003).

Our study attempts to provide a qualitative under-standing of behaviour change over time and to movebeyond the level of individual explanation to explorethe social processes involved in behaviour change. Theresearch set out to situate problem gambling, bothsocially; i.e. within the broader fabric of people’s lives,as well as temporally; i.e. as a particular phase, orphases, within individual ‘gambling careers’.

Earlier analysis of the onset of gambling behaviouramongst this sample found that low socioeconomicstatus, parental gambling and early gambling, as wellas socio-cultural and environmental factors, wereimportant elements in introducing individuals to gam-bling (Reith & Dobbie, 2011). This article continuesthe analysis to explore what happened to theseindividuals after they had begun gambling, and howtheir behaviour changed over the course of theirgambling careers.

GAMBLING CAREERS 377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

The study: Methods and sampleThis article presents findings from a five-year study of‘gambling careers’. It is based on a cohort of fiftygamblers, with varying levels of problematic and nonproblematic gambling behaviour, interviewed fourtimes between 2006 and 2011. Further details onmethodology can be found in previous publicationsfrom the study (Reith & Dobbie, 2011, 2012). To recapbriefly here: gamblers were recruited from around theGreater Glasgow area in the West of Scotland, an areawhich is characterised by pockets of relatively highlevels of unemployment and social deprivation.Participants were purposively selected to ensure asdiverse a sample as possible in terms of social class,age, gender and ethnicity, and were recruited from arange of venues, including casinos, betting shops andbingo halls, as well as through advertisements in a localnewspaper, a local counselling service and a branch ofGamblers Anonymous.

Interviews attempted to capture the ‘lived experi-ence’ of gambling by allowing respondents to articulatethe meanings of gambling in their own words, and soelicit the kinds of information that quantitative studiesalone cannot provide. Interviews were loosely struc-tured by topic guides and drew on a ‘narrative’approach, with the interviewer acting as a facilitatorto tease out the factors that had influenced participantsgambling behaviour and the place that it had in theirlives.

Transcripts of interviews were analysed using‘Framework’, a matrix-based approach to data man-agement developed by the National Centre for SocialResearch. Framework involves summarising and con-densing data under a number of broad themes, allowingconcepts to emerge from the data themselves ratherthan having them imposed by the interpreter. Thisenables the handling of large amounts of information ina rigorous manner, and allows researchers to conductboth thematic and case based analysis.

In addition to narrative interviews, each respondentcompleted a NODS questionnaire2 at the end of eachinterview. This helped us classify players into one ofthree groups: problem gamblers seeking help, problemgamblers not seeking help and recreational players. Atthe time of the first interview, 12 participants wereconsidered problem/pathological gamblers seekinghelp, with lifetime NODS scores of 3–4 and 5þ.These participants had recognised that their gamblinghad become problematic (at some point) and attemptedto control their gambling behaviour using self helptechniques, or more organised forms of support likeGamblers Anonymous or counselling. Twenty onewere classified as problem gamblers/pathological gam-blers not seeking help, with the same NODS scores of3–4 and 5þ. Participants in this group may not haveself-identified as having a problem, but their NODSscores indicated to us that their activity could beconsidered problematic. The third group, made up ofseventeen participants, were classified as recreational

players. These individuals did have not any concernsabout their gambling and had NODS scores rangingfrom 0 to 2 classifying them as ‘low risk’ or ‘at risk’.Respondents completed the full past year NODS screenat each interview.

From our starting sample of 50 participants, 38 tookpart in the first three interviews and 28 in the final one,making a total of 161 interviews. We are aware thatattrition is a problem in longitudinal studies, and ours isno exception. However, attrition of our sample wasfairly even and did not, as some have found (Wohl &Sztainert, 2011) show a bias towards the loss of thosewith the greatest problems.

An overview of key sample characteristics by eachsweep is shown in Table I.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The research produced complex data, with a largenumber of long, detailed interviews, covering a varietyof inter-related themes. In the initial analysis of thedata, presented here, we hope to identify broad patternsof behaviour, and start to untangle some of theprocesses behind them. More detailed analyses ofthese patterns will be the subject of future papers. Webegin by identifying four trajectories of behaviour andthen move on to explore some of the themes that areassociated with them.

Trajectories of behaviourWe mapped trajectories of behaviour by monitoringchanges in NODS scores over time. NODS scores werealso compared with individual narratives to check thatthey were giving us a plausible measure of change,which – in general – it appeared they did. However, wefound a couple of ‘outlier’ cases where NODS scoresdid not match narratives. For example, one participantadmitted in her second interview that she had fabri-cated her answers to the NODS checklist in her first.When this kind of disjuncture occurred, narrativeaccounts and NODS scores were compared by asecond researcher and, after discussion within theresearch team, the participant classified into an appro-priate group based on their narrative account, which webelieve provides a truer reflection of behaviour than aquantitative screen. Five participants who did not takepart in more than one interview and one respondentwho did not complete the NODS questionnaire atsweep 2 have been excluded from this analysis.Changes in NODS scores which pushed researchparticipants into a different classification category(e.g. recreational to problem play) were flagged andallowed us to assign individuals to one of four maincategories, the broad trajectories of which are illus-trated in Figure 1.

The first key point to note, from Figure 1, is thatchange in gambling behaviour was the norm. Stabilityor stasis, by contrast, was not. In other words, themajority of gamblers moved in and out of periods of

378 G. REITH & F. DOBBIE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

problematic, heavier or reduced play, even over therelatively short time periods covered by the research.

As a rule qualitative research does not supportpresentation of findings in a numeric format

(i.e. samples are not representative). However, in thisinstance we have added the number of participants ineach group so the reader can see the spread ofbehaviour across our sample.

. Trajectory C: Consistent behaviour (n¼ 15). Therewas no appreciable change in the gambling behaviourof participants in this trajectory during the fieldworkperiod. So, for example, if an individual startedwith a NODS classification of ‘problem player’or ‘recreational player’ etc., they finished as a‘problem player’ or ‘recreational player’ with novariation in between.

. Trajectory R: Reduction (n¼ 3). Participants in thistrajectory moved away from problem gambling orgambled less over the fieldwork period, and also hadlower NODS scores by the end of the study.

. Trajectory P: Progression (n¼ 8). Behaviour in thistrajectory saw movement towards increased levels ofgambling activity, with higher NODS scores by theend of the fieldwork.

Table I. Characteristics of the sample.

Sample characteristicNumber in samplesweep 1 (n¼ 50)

Number in samplesweep 2 (n¼ 45)



GenderMale 33 31 26 19Female 17 14 12 10

Age18–34 9 7 7 535–54 26 24 19 14

55þ 15 14 12 10

EthnicityWhite Scottish/British 43 38 34 26Asian/Indian 4 4 3 2Black 2 2 1 1Asian/Chinese 1 1 0 0

Marital statusMarried/cohabiting 18 18 16 15Divorced/separated 19 18 15 5Single 6 2 0 6Widow 3 3 3 2Other 4 4 4 1

Employment statusWorking 22 17 14 14Not working 16 17 14 7Retired 10 9 8 7Other 2 2 2 1

Socio-economic classificationa

A,B,C1 13 13 9 9C2,DE 37 32 29 20

Notes: aSocial class was measured using the NRS Social Grades. They were originally developed over 50 years ago for theNational Readership Survey but are now widely used across the UK. http://www.nrs.co.uk/lifestyle.html. C2, D, E (lower class),includes skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers. A, B, C1 (higher class) includes professionals, senior managers and top-level civil servants.

Time

Extent of problem

trajectory C (problematic)

trajectory C (abstinent)

trajectory R

trajectory P

trajectory NL

trajectory C (recreational)

Figure 1. Illustration of trajectories of change.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

. Trajectory NL: Non-linear behaviour (n¼ 18). Therewas no consistent pattern of behaviour in thistrajectory, with individuals having periods ofincreased problematic play followed by periods ofreduced problematic play and vice versa.

The lines shown in the diagram are illustrative,and should not be taken to imply uniformity inbehaviour, but rather to represent the general ‘directionof travel’.

As noted earlier, our 50 gamblers were initiallydrawn from three groups: problem gamblers seekinghelp, problem gamblers not seeking help and recrea-tional players. By the end of the study, however, thetrajectory mapping demonstrated considerable move-ment, with our initial groups being replaced by a morecomplex picture of four trajectories.

There were no obvious demographic patternsamong individuals across trajectories C, P and R interms of age, gender and social class. The non-lineartrajectory however, was more likely to include menand a greater representation of those from socialgroup DE. In general, employment patterns were moreunstable and insecure among those whose behaviourprogressed or was non-linear, with periods of unem-ployment and frequent changes of job common.Employment patterns were more stable among thosewhose behaviour was consistent or reduced, withfewer periods of unemployment and a tendencytowards long-term employment in the same job.Those whose behaviour was consistent or reducedwere also less likely to change the game they played.In contrast, those whose behaviour progressed or wasnon-linear were more likely to change the type ofgame they played and/or introduce new ones, espe-cially machines.

In the next section, we move on to explore some ofthe themes associated with different trajectories ofbehaviour, many of which overlap. As we shall see,sometimes the same factors could have differentialimpacts on individuals, with some contributing toboth the increases in gambling found in trajectory Pas well as the decreases found in R. Many of thesethemes were also associated with the fluctuations ofprogression and reduction seen in non-linearbehaviour.

ProgressionIndividuals whose gambling became more problematicover the fieldwork period were more likely to haveinitially been recruited as recreational gamblers.Key features of increasingly problematic gamblingwere inconsistent employment patterns, with mixedperiods of employment and unemployment, andfrequent changes of job being the norm. The was noobvious pattern in terms of changes to the type ofgames played during the fieldwork period but machinesfeatured more prominently among individuals whose

behaviour followed this trajectory than those whosebehaviour was consistent or reduced.

Some of the themes articulated by respondentswhose behaviour progressed over time are discussedbelow. It should be noted that these themes also applyto those individuals who experienced periods ofincreasingly problematic behaviour in a non-lineartrajectory.

Significant life eventsA key recurring explanation for both increased, as wellas curtailed, gambling behaviour was an experience ofa significant life event. We found several examples ofthese including bereavement, caring for sick relatives/friends, losing or changing job, birth of child, startingor ending a relationship. For example, one malerespondent in his mid 30s had enjoyed recreationalgambling since he was a teenager, placing small bets inbetting shops and playing the lottery every week. At hisfirst interview, his gambling behaviour was verycontrolled and he was classed as low risk. However,by wave 2, his father had died and he described how heentered a phase of heavier drinking which in turnexacerbated his gambling. As the betting shop was nextto the pub, his narrative also highlights the importanceof environmental factors on gambling behaviours, aswell as the role of alcohol.

INTERVIEWER: WHAT ABOUT YOUR GAMBLINGNOW, HOW HAS THAT BEEN?

The gambling . . . yes the gambling, when I went throughthe drinking . . . a couple of months after my dad died and Iwas gambling more because I was in that vicinity, they bothgo together. There’s a pub, there’s a bookie and they’re rightnext to each other.

(Male, 30s)

In trajectories of progression as well as non-linearlity, we frequently heard narratives in whichalcohol encouraged excessive play by hindering orreducing control over gambling behaviour. The co-occurrence of alcohol and gambling problems has beenwell-documented (Crockford & El-Guebaly, 1998;Stewart & Kushner, 2003). In addition, however,many narratives also documented the fact that alcoholpremises were often situated alongside gambling ones,providing an environmental association between thetwo types of behaviour that moves beyond the level ofthe individual. One male respondent had struggled tocontrol his gambling in betting shops over the course ofthe fieldwork and described how drinking interferedwith his judgement and control:

when you’re drunk all that [studying form] goes out thewindow, your only mindset is to try and win money as quickas possible. The drink clouds your judgement . . .. whenyou’re drunk you can’t stop and just say right I’m happy withthat win I’ll take that I’ll put that in my back pocket, it doesn’treally happen.

(Male, 20s)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

He went on to make the wider point that therelationship between alcohol and gambling wasentrenched in the environment:

I don’t think it’s a hidden factor I mean you just have to look atall the betting shops in Britain right they’re always strategi-cally placed about fifty yards away from a pub. I mean we’resitting in a bookies right now [the interview was beingconducted in a betting shop] - there’s a pub on either side of us

Changes in social and environmental networksChanges in social and environmental networks havebeen the focus of a previous article (Reith & Dobbie,2012) on beginning gambling. In terms of movementover the life course, we also found that such featurescould be associated with increases – as well asreductions – in gambling. Behaviour could also betipped into problems by changes in the environment,such as moving home or changing job in a way thatbrought individuals physically closer to gamblingvenues. For example, one respondent told us in hissecond interview that when he moved next door to abetting shop and a pub, gambling became ‘too conve-nient’ and ’money was like butter sliding through myfingers’.

The role of social networks was also a commontheme in accounts of increasingly problematic behav-iour. One betting shop gambler, for example, recountedmeeting up with an old friend in his second interviewwho started giving him racing tips leading to what hereferred to as a ‘bad patch’.

Em, gamblin’ wise, I had a bit of a bad patch. . ..I might havementioned the last time [last interview] my young brother is aJockey? - I met one of his old pals who still had a lot ofcontacts and . . . we were texting, phoning each other, andinitially eh the information I was getting was quite good, thehorses were winning, em then I started getting a bit greedyand started having stupid bets, em bearing in mind I’m onbenefits an that right, and I was having bets in excess of ahundred pounds

(Male, 20s)

FinancesOpportunities to gamble could be extended by positivechanges in financial circumstances resulting, for exam-ple, from ‘windfalls’ of various kinds or increases inwages. The former appeared to be especially problem-atic. For example, one female slot machine playerreceived a large payout from the sale of her home due tothe break-up of her marriage and over a short period oftime had spent a large proportion of it on slot machines.

I got £38,000 for the sale of my house . . .. I paid off somedebt and I was left with £28,000 and I am now down to£9,000 the rest has went on gambling.

(Female, 40s)

For her, simply having money beyond subsistencelevels was enough to encourage gambling, and in her

third interview, she said of her savings: I just think,I have got money in the bank so I don’t need it.

Another online gambler moved from recreational toproblematic patterns of playing when he activated hiscredit card:

I put a deposit on the credit card and [had] this big limit . . . Ithink that was really the start of the decline . . . it was onlywhen the credit card got involved and it gave you access to,you know, money that actually wasn’t yours . . .

(Male, 30s)

‘Escape routes’A further recurrent theme in accounts of escalatingbehaviour was the idea of gambling as a copingmechanism that allowed an escape from day-to-daystress or long-term mental health issues such asdepression. The co-occurrence of gambling withmental health problems has been well documented(Crockford & El Guebaly, 1998; Shaffer & Korn,2002). Some interviewees, for instance, moved fromrecreational to problematic behaviour as their gamblingincreased in response to stressful life circumstances,such as the loss of a loved one and feelings ofloneliness and depression. For example, one manincreased his online play over the course of the studyin response to the stress and boredom of a job he hated:

on the internet gambling there was a different feeling: beingrelaxed - [before] I was always tense. But I was always . . . sofocused on it [gambling] in a way that it was drowning out mybad memories of work. It was drowning out my sort of badpersonal memories, it was an escape, it was a complete escaperoute.

(Male, 40s)

His gambling escalated and by the time of his fourthinterview, as well as playing online, he was gamblingevery day in betting shops to experience similarfeelings of escape.

Machine gamblingWe found a link between increasingly problematicbehaviour and starting to play machines (or play themmore often), suggesting that beginning or increasingmachine gambling may increase susceptibility toproblematic gaming (Abbott et al., 1999; Breen &Zimmerman, 2002).

Three clear factors associated with machine gam-bling may help to explain these associations: physicallocation/convenience, financial gain and boredom. Forexample, the location of roulette machines (known asCategory B2s or Fixed Odds Betting Terminals[FOBTs]) in betting shops was cited as appealing bymany interviewees. This was the experience of a malerespondent, who explained that he started to play thesemachines in betting shops because he liked playingroulette and it saved a trip into the casino in town. Hesoon began spending larger sums of money on themand by his second interview was playing them every


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

day and his behaviour had moved from being describedas ‘at risk’ to ‘problematic’.

I find that recently over the past sort of four or five monthsI’ve been going and playing, playing them [FOBTs] moreregularly . . .. I’ve got into, you know, a habit.

INTERVIEWER: WHAT IS IT ABOUT THOSE

MACHINES THAT YOU LIKE?Eh, I think basically because it saves you, going into the

actual casino. You know it saves you travelling all the wayinto [the city] and way back home again. I think basically like

that’s it you know, mostly I would say, mostly forconvenience

(Male, 40s)

Bingo players who played both morning, afternoonand/or evening games appeared especially vulnerableto problems with machines. Many participants wouldfill the time in between games of bingo by playingmachines (either in the arcade area or mini bingo at thetable). However, playing machines was not just a wayof ‘killing time’: for some, their motive was financialgain. Physical proximity to machines and imitation ofother players encouraged an escalation of playing forone respondent who spoke of watching other peoplewinning on the machines and wanting to try her luck.

INTERVIEWER: SO WHY DID YOU START PLAYINGTHE MACHINES?

Just watchin’ people an you’re seein’ them winnin’money, and you say to yourself, I’m goin’ to try that as

well . . .(Female, 40s)

ReductionAlthough many respondents had short periods ofreduced play over the fieldwork period, somewhatsurprisingly, only three individuals reduced problem-atic playing overall. All were initially recruited asproblem gamblers not seeking help, and reduced theirgambling through informal means. Patterns of workwere fairly consistent and playing on machines was notcommon among them.

Reducing problematic behaviour is closely associ-ated with recovery from gambling problems in a moregeneral sense and is a complex area in its own right.We have devoted a separate paper to the analysis ofrecovery and reduction amongst individuals in thissample, based on the first three sweeps of interviews(Reith & Dobbie, 2012), and would direct interestedreaders to that for more detailed analysis. Here, wepresent the most significant aspects associated withreductions in gambling over the full five-year period.

Many of the themes evident in accounts of increas-ing gambling behaviour were also present in accountsof reducing problematic gambling, as we will see in thefollowing section. In addition, many of the themesassociated with the small number of people whoreduced their play over the fieldwork period also

applied to those who had periods of reduced play in anon-linear trajectory.

Social and environmental networksWe have already seen how changes in social andenvironmental networks can be associated with pro-gression of gambling problems. However, for somerespondents such changes could also be associated withreductions. For example, interviewees for whom thesocial aspects of gambling played a key role could findthemselves constrained by their own or others lack oftime or money caused, for example, by starting workand having less time to gamble or conversely, byhaving less money with which to finance their play. Atthe same time, while proximity to gambling venuescould encourage increased playing, moving away fromthem could have the opposite effect and work to reducesome individuals’ playing. One man gambled heavilyin betting shops and also occasionally played machinesand gambled online when he had been drinking, but hehad stopped by his second interview, when he alsochanged job. There was no longer a betting shop withinwalking distance of his new workplace and although hechecked where the closest one was, it would haveinvolved driving and there was nowhere to park.

there is no walking distance to go to the bookies, and when Idid go and look for a bookies. . . I couldn’t park. So that wasout . . . .

(Male, 30s)

The simple obstacle of parking helped him cutdown, but he also acknowledges other influences, sincepreviously gambling and drinking had ‘gone hand inhand’, and he had also cut down on the latter:

So that [new job] has definitely helped. Not going to the pubhas helped. Um . . . not seeing my old friends has helped’.

By his fourth interview, the friend he had visitedbookmakers’ with had emigrated to Australia, he hadstarted University, and was no longer visiting bettingshops at all. He attributed this change to returning tohigher education: ‘Since I started uni I’ve completelycut it out’, and has currently reduced all forms ofgambling except a weekly bet on the lottery.

Significant life eventsWhile significant life events could initiate a period ofincreasing gambling, they could also contribute toreduced activity for some respondents. For example, aman who had gambled on dogs and horses in bettingshops all his life temporarily reduced his activitiesduring periods of bereavement. His three sisters diedover an eight-year period, the final one on the same dayas her cousin, whom he was close to. Soon after, he hada heart attack. Each time he stopped gambling:

I have lost my sisters in the last eight years, three sisters . . . Itwas just three weeks after that [the final death] that I had myheart attack and [the doctors] said have you had anydramatic . . . experiences? I said yes I lost my sister and the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

very closest friend she could have on the same night. I meanwhat’s the odds? Nobody expected that, to die the two ofthem. That had a great impact on my life, that shook me. Thatshook me bad.

INTERVIEWER: HAVE THE THREE BEREAVEMENTSAFFECTED YOUR GAMBLING ACTIVITY EACH TIME?

Yeah. . . . when my last sister died I said I mustn’t let thisaffect me because of the first two. But again, I stoppedgambling for a month, or six weeks.

(Male, 60s)

FinancesThere were various situations in which participantscame to feel that the simple financial costs of gamblingwere not sustainable. This was especially apparentamong some bingo players, who felt that the cost ofbingo was increasing while the jackpot was diminish-ing. For example one female bingo player stoppedcoming to bingo in the morning because it was tooexpensive, telling us in her second interview:

I stopped coming [to bingo] in the morning so that I coulddo the afternoon because it was costing me too much, it’scosting me the same to come once you know, it was costingme too much to come the twice, morning and the afternoon soI’ve cut it down to afternoon, yea so I don’t come a Saturdayat all.

(Female, 70s)

Other financial factors involved prioritising moneyfor other things, such as paying for a holiday, a car, oran expanding family, or experiencing a sudden reduc-tion in income, which could lead to a correspondingreduction in gambling activity. For example, a bettingshop gambler stopped gambling altogether, when hehad a heart attack and was temporarily on sick leave:

I was getting the Government’s money rather than my wagesfrom the company. So I didn’t gamble the same. No, Idefinitely didn’t. In fact I would say I never gambled, I don’tremember gambling during that period five or six months offwork.

(Male, 40s)

‘Maturing out’Some participants reported that they had simply lostinterest in gambling, or ceased to derive any enjoymentor satisfaction (however fleeting) from it. Ageappeared to be a contributory factor here, with someparticipants speaking of starting to find gamblingvenues depressing, and feeling that they had grown outof them. One man spoke of his decision to stop going tothe bookies in his third interview because he started tofind them depressing places and felt he had grown outof them.

I just find bookies really depressing places. They are just fullof losers, full of the poor, no its just . . . I just find them grim,grim places, just kind of soulless voids as it were. I havegrown out of them probably.

(Male, 30s)

This kind of changed perception points to a phase of‘maturing out’, which has been applied to drug users(Winick, 1962), as well as, more recently, to gamblingbehaviour and involves the creation of new roles andidentities that overcome those based around gambling(Reith & Dobbie, 2012).

Informal supportSocial support from friends and family had a signif-icant impact on reducing gambling for many individ-uals. Often friends and family would play a key role inencouraging individuals to control their behaviour andprovide practical support to help them to do so. Forexample, many respondents cited significant otherslooking after their money, taking control of bankaccounts and wages and sometimes limiting theirspending to ‘pocket money’ in order to relieve themof responsibility and remove temptation. One mantold us:

My mum had my [bank] cards and my dad went in on payday - he lifted me £150 when we went in, he got £150 worthof fivers and I got given £5 every day. The fiver was to get meto my work and my lunch so for five months, that’s how Ilived.

(Male, 20s)

These practices were often carried out alongsideself-help strategies such as leaving cash and creditcards at home, putting limits on time or money spentgambling and installing blocking software on com-puters. Such practices emerged as important for themovement away from problems in reducing gambling,and also, as we will see, for the maintenance of stablebehaviour. For many, this kind of social support was anecessary corollary to formal treatment, which wasmade more effective by this kind of backup, while forothers, it functioned as a way of controlling behaviouron its own.

ConsistencyMost of the individuals whose behaviour was consis-tent throughout this study were initially recruited asproblem gamblers seeking help, while a smallernumber were recruited as recreational gamblers.Participants whose behaviour was consistent tendedto be employed, and many had jobs which they hadheld for many years. A number of them currentlyowned, or had owned in the past, their own businesses.In addition, there was little variation in the type ofgame they played at each sweep.

It is in this trajectory that we see individuals whohave experience of formal treatment for gamblingproblems. The majority of respondents (10) hadsustained recovery from gambling and either nolonger gambled at all, or played very little. Theseindividuals had high lifetime NODS scores, but scored0 in past year scores over the fieldwork period. Wedescribe them as Consistent: abstinent. A smallernumber (3) simply maintained behaviour at consistent


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

levels over the course of the study. We describe themas Consistent: recreational. Only two displayed con-sistently problematic behaviour. We describe them asConsistent: problematic. We will look at each of thesepatterns in turn.

Consistent: AbstinentThe dominance of individuals who had recoveredfrom gambling problems and were abstinent over thefieldwork period gives this consistent trajectoryits distinctive characteristics. For those individuals,counselling, Gamblers Anonymous and variousforms of self-help were significant in narratives ofstability.

Gamblers anonymousA number of individuals who had recovered fromproblematic gambling had done so through GA, andhad often not gambled at all for many years. Theyfound that GA provided a structure and rationale forlife without gambling, and in this, they possessed quitea distinctive profile, talking of themselves as ‘addicts’in narratives that articulated the impossibility of everbeing able to return to controlled playing. We foundrepeated references to the need to continually attendmeetings to maintain abstinence, with one woman whohad been gambling free for ten years describingmeetings like a ‘medicine’ for her illness:

I do what’s good for me and this [attending meetings] is goodfor me. I take medicines for illnesses and this [gambling] is anillness so this is my medicine

(Female, 30s)

Another described, how regular attendance at meet-ings was a necessary part of maintaining personalchange and a gambling-free identity. For one woman,GA was instrumental in her new conception of herselfas a non gambler, and fear of what might happen to herwithout them kept her going every week:

You must change, as well as go to meetings, but if you don’tgo to meetings, you’ll go off your head. I’d never go withoutmeetings and I know what happens to me when I don’t go tomeetings, I start to change back to the old person

(Female, 40s)

CounsellingFor some, counselling provided advice and support thatnot only helped reduce gambling in the past but alsocrucially, helped maintain stability in the present. Itwas experienced by the respondents in different ways.For example, one machine gambler sustained recoveryby forming obligations with her counsellor. In her thirdinterview, she described being tempted to gamble, butthe thought of letting down her therapist prevented herfrom doing so:

And [the counsellor] said to me, Linda you play a machineand I won’t be able to help you. So I went into the cafe and Ilooked and I was tempted, and then I thought I am going to let

Mary down if I do this. So I turned and walked back out. Andthat’s what I still keep thinking, I am going to let Mary down.And it’s really funny because I never thought of that with D[her husband], or my mum, or my mother-in-law. Iwasn’t . . . it wasn’t so much that I wasn’t caring about thembut I just felt Mary has really put a lot into me.

(Female, 30s)

In contrast, another young male respondent found incounselling someone to talk to at a crucial point in hisgambling career, when he felt suicidal: ‘if I didn’t talkto someone I would do something stupid’. However,the efficacy of this soon passed and he moved on toinformal types of support. By his second interview, hehad stopped going to counselling, and by his third wascoping on his own as he felt he was making hisproblems worse by continually thinking and talkingabout them.

Informal supportVarious types of informal support helped manyrespondents maintain consistent behaviour. The roleof friends and family in helping interviewees avoidsituations in which they would be tempted to gamble toexcess appeared as a powerful backup to the morestructured help they received from counselling and GA.As we have seen, many of these practices also appliedto those who reduced their behaviour. For example, oneex-machine player would make sure she was accom-panied on outings to ensure they were not tempted togamble. Such ‘chaperoning’ was common amongfemale respondents, with one describing how shewould be flanked by friends

when I go out with my friends and we’re going in somewhereand there’s fruit machines. . . it’s two [friends] at the front,two at each side and two at the back. It’s good to know thatthey’re there cause you never know if the temptation is goingto be there

(Female, 20s)

Consistent: RecreationalAs noted, the dominance of individuals who hadrecovered form problematic gambling gives this tra-jectory its distinctive characteristics. However, therewere some others who also displayed stability overtime, and although too few to generalise from, it isnevertheless worth considering some of the featuresthat characterise their behaviour in order to gain someinsights into other patterns of consistency. The keydistinguishing features of those displaying consistentrecreational behaviour appeared to be the socialmotivation for playing and the ability to controlmoney spent. These respondents talked of the enjoy-ment of meeting with friends when gambling, particu-larly in casinos and bingo halls, and the fact that thesevenues provided somewhere to go when other options(such as pubs, theatres and cinemas) did not appeal.

For example, one self-employed man went to thecasino twice a week with his wife and played roulette


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

machines in the betting shop next to his work everyday. Over the course of the fieldwork, he playedconsistently and never experienced any problems.Talking about casino gambling, he reported that heliked the feeling of belonging to a ‘club’, being able tomeet friends, being a regular, knowing the staff andbeing allowed to skip the queue.

Well it’s the only place we know where to go for our agegroup apart from going to the theatre or something like that.We leave [home] here at half eleven and its somewhere to go,I can go at half eleven at night and come out at four o’clock inthe morning . . . its leisure time. We would only be sitting herewatching the telly if we didn’t go’.

(Male, 50s)

As well as the excitement of winning, he liked thefact that ‘you can get coffee and tea and sit and talk’.He cited boredom and the desire to have a break fromwork as the main motivations for visiting the bettingshop, but was aware of the need to control expenditure,saying: ‘if I am not busy [at work], I’m bored. I usuallystart off with a pound and see if I can make somemoney, if I don’t I just leave it’.

Another key feature of consistent recreationalbehaviour is ongoing control of money: never tryingto win back losses. This player maintained control bykeeping his ‘gambling money’ separate from otherexpenditure:

Well um . . . I would say that . . . I have pocket money and Iwould say that I spend all the pocket money in the casinorather than spending it on something else . . . if I don’t havethe pocket money to spend I don’t spend it and that’s that.So . . . easy come easy go.

In addition, these respondents had developed indi-vidual strategies to ensure they did not lose controlwhen gambling, including setting limits to the time andmoney spent playing, only gambling with what was intheir pockets, and tailoring individual strategies to theirown situations. For example the woman discussedabove listened to music on her mobile phone duringbreaks in bingo games in order to distract herself fromplaying machines which she feared spending too muchmoney on. Meanwhile, an Asian casino gamblerensured that he always played on his own so as toavoid pressure from onlookers:

I like to play on my own, because when people are watchingyou, and you want to show off . . .. and maybe a couple ofgirls are watching you, you want to show them you are asmart guy, and um . . . so you put more money in showing off.And um. . .most of the time those people feel regretafterwards and I don’t want to be one of them so that’swhy I like to play on my own.

(Male, 30s)

Consistent: ProblematicOnly two respondents displayed consistently problem-atic behaviour over the study period. Unfortunately,one dropped out after two interviews and this, and the

small number, makes it impossible to generalise abouttheir experiences. However, neither of these individ-uals sought formal help to control their gambling,although one was trying to cut down. One played incasinos every day, the other primarily gambled onsports events. Both were male and winning money wasa significant factor for both. It is unfortunate that wecannot say more about their behaviour. However, whatis perhaps most striking is the very small number ofindividuals who gambled consistently problematicallyover the five-year period. We initially recruited thirtythree individuals with gambling problems (12 seekinghelp; 21 not). It is striking that only two of thosedisplayed consistently problematic behaviour over fiveyears, and that the dominant trends in the study wererather in the direction of non-linear or increasinglyproblematic behaviour.

Non-linearityParticipants initially recruited as problem gamblers notseeking help were more visible among those whosebehaviour followed a non-linear pattern. An obviousquestion presents itself in terms of this trajectory,namely: are the fluctuations of reductions and increasesof problematic behaviour that we see in it simply acombination of the factors associated with the increasesof, on the one hand trajectory P, and on the other, thedecreases associated with trajectory R? To a largeextent, the answer is yes. For many respondents, theirbehaviour would progress or reduce but then, unlikethose on a more linear upward or downward trajectory,it would even out again, becoming more, or less,problematic again. Many of the themes associated withprogression, as well as reduction, described so far alsocharacterise the non-linear pattern seen here. Theseinclude the role of social and environmental networks,significant life events and finances, which could bothstimulate as well as decrease gambling behaviour. Therole of alcohol, machines and the motive of escapewere also seen in terms of increasing problematicplaying. In addition, some of the individuals with nonlinear behaviour had tried to control and reduce theirbehaviour through various means, including GA,counselling and self-help practices. In particular,employment patterns for the non-linear trajectorywere similar to those whose behaviour progressed:mixed both in terms periods of employment/unem-ployment and frequent changes of job.

Rather than revisit themes already discussed interms of trajectories P and R, we illustrate the impact offactors associated with increasing and decreasingproblematic behaviour by focusing on a single player:a male casino gambler in his late 30s. At his firstinterview, he told us that he enjoyed the atmosphere,the social aspects and the status and respect he feltfrom staff in casinos. At this point, his gambling wascontrolled. However, over the next year, his companywent into liquidation; he separated from his wife andmoved into a bedsit. He began to work long hours in a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

hospitality job; he started going to the casino everynight as well as drinking heavily and his gamblingescalated. But, by his second interview, he hadmanaged to reduce his gambling with informal helpfrom his family. He also stopped drinking and madethe decision to move away from the area so that itwould be harder to go to the casino. A few monthslater, his behaviour was controlled. By the time of histhird interview, however, he was unemployed again,had lost communication with his ex-wife and wasunable to see his children. At this point, he startedspending more on machines, as he believed there wasno point keeping his money if he could not spend iton his children.

This narrative of non-linear behaviour displays arange of characteristics of the trajectories seen so far:the role of significant life events (loss of a job,marriage breakdown) and alcohol in progression; therole of social support and physical movement awayfrom the gambling environment in reduction and therecreational nature of gambling in the stable phase.

However, there are also some distinctive featurescharacterising the behaviour of individuals who dis-played non-linear behaviour. In particular, a majoritywere males aged between 35 and 54, of lower socio-economic status, who played in betting shops (the latterfeature possibly reflecting the age, class and gender ofindividuals in this particular trajectory). In addition, theuse of machines stands out in this pattern of behaviour.Again, rather than revisit themes already discussed wehave chosen to explore the distinctive features of thenon-linear trajectory through a focus on a single playerwho exemplifies many of the specific issues associatedwith it.

Our illustration concerns an unemployed malebetting shop gambler in his 30s. He had developedproblems with roulette machines and described goingon ‘benders’ (binges) with them when he was boredand depressed over the fieldwork period. In his firstinterview, he could control his gambling and hadvarious informal strategies in place to help himmaintain control of his money. As he describes it:

Before [he started playing machines], I was just gambling,plodding along, gambling, like most gamblers do . . .. I hadmoney in the bank, I had premium bonds, I had shares, Ialways bought things that I couldn’t touch so that I couldn’tgamble it, but that all went as soon as those roulette machinescame along.

(Male, 30s)

When he began playing roulette machines he lostcontrol and his gambling escalated. In his secondinterview, he told us:

I was just desperate basically and it was the roulette machinesthat done that to me. [Before] I wasn’t like desperate, I wouldnever steal off anybody for gambling, I would never commitcrime for gambling but the roulette machines just totallychanged me. That’s what destroyed me. I became veryaggressive . . ..

For two years from this point, he was in debt,pawned possessions, and his partner left him. Hesought help from GA, and also attended counsellingwhich helped him to reduce his gambling for periods oftime. Having access to his children (he was separatedfrom his wife) was an important factor in curtailing hisbehaviour, and he described being able to reducegambling over the weekend when he had custody ofthem, contrasting this with excess playing when theywent back to their mother:

not many things stop me [but] say I’ve got my kids frommaybe Friday to Sunday, by the time Sunday night comesI’ve kind of calmed down, that’s helped getting off thebender . . . my worst days is when I’ve had to take my kidsback [to his ex-wife]

This then, was an individual who was in control ofhis gambling in betting shops, but who quickly lostcontrol when he moved on to playing machines. Thisexperience of a rapid loss of control in relation tomachines occurred often amongst individuals with nonlinear behaviour. This respondent’s description of theway he felt about machines was typical of a number ofothers:

there’s something about them, I think they just suck mein . . . it’s as if they’re programmed for me

In this narrative, we can see the impact of variousfactors on the progressions and reductions in thebehaviour that characterised these episodes of bingeingand control. Playing on machines and periods ofboredom and depression fuelled progressions of prob-lematic play, while supportive social networks, respon-sibilities towards children and periods of self-helpthrough GA facilitated reductions. This pattern ofbingeing and reducing gambling went on, to a greateror lesser extent, in cycles driven by these factors,throughout the whole fieldwork period.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Although we began this study with three apparent‘groups’ of individuals, we ended it, five years later,with a very much more complex picture of trajectoriesof behaviour. From this, we can conclude that changein gambling behaviour over time is the norm. Stabilityor stasis, by contrast, is not. In other words, themajority of gamblers moved in and out of periods ofproblem, heavier or reduced play, even over therelatively short time periods covered by the research

One striking finding is the very small number ofindividuals who gambled consistently problematicallyover the fieldwork period. Despite high initial numbersof individuals with gambling problems, only tworespondents experienced consistently problematicbehaviour over five years. At the same time however,only a relatively small number of people displayedbehaviour that could be described as a trajectory ofrecovery over the same period. However, this does not


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

mean that our sample did not experience problems, orthat recovery did not occur. Rather, the pattern was fora larger number of individuals to dip in and out ofperiods of problematic play followed by periods ofreduced problems, in a non-linear pattern. Indeed, mostof the individuals we recruited who were experiencinggambling problems but not receiving treatment forthem tended to have these non-linear patterns ofbehaviour: a continual ebb and flow of progressionsand reductions of problematic playing over time.

At the same time, a relatively large proportion of thesample displayed consistent behaviour. However,of these, only a small number played recreationally.The others abstained from gambling altogether, havingpreviously had problems that they had sought help forfrom GA. So, most of the individuals we initiallyrecruited as problem gamblers seeking help remainedproblem-free, although this was achieved throughabstinence. Of those initially recruited as recreationalplayers, the general direction of behaviour was towardsproblematic play, or non-linearity.

These findings run counter to the many studies thatsuggest natural recovery may be widespread amongthose with gambling problems (Slutske, 2006).LaPlante et al. (2008, p. 57) concluded that ‘the currentevidence suggests that the general course of disorderedgambling is in the direction of improved classifica-tions’. Our research does not show this. While many ofour respondents had periods of recovery (or ‘improvedclassifications’), in a non-linear pattern, only a smallnumber could be said to be on trajectories ofimprovement overall.

Furthermore, although some studies have found thatindividuals can recover from gambling problems andreturn to controlled gambling (Blaszczynski,McConaghy, & Frankova, 1991; Slutske et al., 2010),this scenario did not apply to many of our respondents.Those who achieved consistent behaviour afterexperiencing gambling problems had tended to do soby maintaining abstinence. Many of those who dis-played consistent behaviour were individuals who hadrecovered from gambling problems through GA andhad high lifetime NODS scores but low past year ones.Similarly, in a 40-month study of pathological gam-blers, Hodgins and Peden (2005) found those who wererecovered and abstinent had initially had high clinicalscores. The suggestion may be, in both their study andours, that abstinence is a more feasible goal for thosewith greater problems, whereas those with less severeproblems may manage to attain controlled gambling.

In general, however, overall, our findings echo thoseof longitudinal studies that suggest the transitory andepisodic nature of gambling problems over time(Abbott et al., 1999, 2004; Slutske et al., 2003).

Exploring the factors involved in these patterns ofbehaviour has been an extremely challenging task.Accounts of change are characterised by complexityand interaction, with a variety of themes cross-cuttingparticipants’ narratives of how and why their gambling

changed over time. In practice, however, these wereoften inter-related, making it difficult to isolate singleinfluences. In addition, it is also clear that, at differentpoints or for different people, the same factors can haveeither positive or negative consequences for gamblingbehaviour, and this is especially the case in the themesthat characterise progression as well as reduction. Forexample, significant life events, social networks andfinances were involved in both reduced and increasedgambling behaviour. In one case, for instance, oneparticipant who had suffered bereavement begangambling more, while another in similar circumstancesgambled less.

Other factors, however, were less fluid. Machines,alcohol and insecure employment status were signifi-cant themes in narratives of progression and nonlinearity, while social support and stable employmentwere significant in narratives of recovery and consis-tency. For example, alcohol featured strongly intrajectories of progression and non-linearity, not onlyin terms of individual excess consumption, but also interms of its social environmental aspects. A widernormative culture of public bars and heavy drinkingmeant that alcohol consumption was frequent andeasily accessible, and, in many cases, went hand inhand with gambling. Many of our respondents whoexperienced increasing gambling problems also playedas a kind of ‘escape route’; a means of coping with oravoiding stress, trauma or boredom. The co-occurrenceof alcohol and mental health issues with gamblingproblems has been noted (Abbott et al., 1999;Crockford & El-Guebaly, 1998), and although we donot equate this with mental health problems in anystraightforward way, there are clearly some parallelsbetween these behaviours, which appear repeatedly inrespondents’ accounts of increasing gambling.

We found that increasing machine gambling wasassociated with progression and non-linearity, whilethose who did not play machines, or who played themless, appeared to have more consistent, less problem-atic patterns of behaviour. Again, the role of machinesin increasing problem behaviour has been noted innumerous studies, including those of behaviour changeover time (e.g. Abbott et al., 1999; Breen &Zimmerman, 2002; Winters, Stinchfield, Botzet, &Slutske, 2005). Clarke et al. (2006), for example, foundthat ease of access to money and EGMs were importantin the shift to problem behaviour. As in our study, theyfound that problem gamblers were more likely to haveswitched from other forms of gambling to machines,and to progress to severe problems more quickly thanothers whose main activities were other forms ofgambling. Roulette machines in betting shops appearedto be particularly problematic for a number of ourrespondents, many of whom quickly developed prob-lems when they switched from their traditional bettingshop games to these newer ones.

The role of employment emerged as an importantand intriguing factor in this study. Stable employment


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

patterns featured in both consistent behaviour andreduced patterns of behaviour, while insecure employ-ment, including unemployment, was associated withprogressions and non-linearity. Those displaying non-linear behaviour also tended to belong to lower socio-economic status groups. We can only speculate on theassociations involved here, but it may be that, as wellas greater financial hardship, a lack of familiarity withthe consistent, predictable wages that stable employ-ment provides may also encourage an attitude moreinclined to binge than save. The association that wefound between financial ‘windfalls’ and progressinggambling problems backs up this interpretation, and itmay well be that those without regular waged incomehave less resources to deal with ‘windfalls’ when theyappear. These are proposed here as tentative interpre-tations. Clearly, more research is needed to explorethese relationships in more detail.

Social support emerged as an important factor forreducing gambling and also for maintaining consistentbehaviour. The role of significant others, includingfamily and friends, motivated players to control theirbehaviour, particularly in terms of saving time andmoney to spend on children. A range of informalstrategies of control were also associated with reduc-tions in behaviour as well as the maintenance ofrecreational playing. These were tailored to individualsituations, and clearly rested on an awareness of thedangers of losing control, and the importance ofplaying within self-defined limits. The social aspectsof gambling – in terms of spending time with otherpeople and engaging in status and leisure-enhancingactivities – emerged as important factors in maintain-ing controlled behaviour among those who playedconsistently recreationally across the fieldwork period.

Longitudinal studies of gambling behaviour – espe-cially qualitative ones – are in their infancy. Thisresearch is an attempt to begin to explore thecomplexities behind behaviour over time that quanti-tative studies alone cannot capture. It has been ademanding task, and in many ways, the analysispresented here is merely a first step towards under-standing the processes at work. The research isinevitably limited by the constrains of all longitudinalqualitative research into complex phenomena.Although attrition was not severe, it neverthelessoccurred, and this means that we were not able tofollow the trajectory of every individual we initiallyrecruited. All research is located in a particular timeand place, and ours was no exception. Our sample wasselected from a British city, which has been char-acterised by post-industrial decline and pockets of highlevels of unemployment and social deprivation. Ourfairly high numbers of lower socio-economic statusrespondents reflects this situation. In addition, werecruited in the years immediately following theimplementation of the 2005 Gambling Act, whichsituates the study in a specific political-regulatorymoment. As such, the sample is characterised by

particular configurations of cultural norms and gam-bling opportunities, some of which may be generali-sable beyond their specific time and place, othersmaybe less so. All of these issues may limit the widerapplicability of the findings of the research. However,it is crucial to bear in mind that the purpose of thisstudy was not to make claims about all gamblingbehaviour, but rather, as with qualitative inquiry ingeneral, to explore the meanings and motivationsbehind the behaviour of the individuals in this partic-ular cohort in depth. As such, we hope we havesucceeded in providing some insights into the mean-ings of behaviour change over time.

Although most longitudinal studies have focused onpsychological characteristics, here we have examinedthe role of broader environmental and material factorssuch as social relationships and social environment.This does not mean that personal characteristics are notimportant, however: indeed, they are, as the fact thatdifferent individuals exposed to similar social circum-stances and events can react quite differently shows.All behaviour is made up of an interplay between thepersonal and the structural: the challenge here is tobetter understand these inter-relationships: a task wehope we have at least begun to address. From thisperspective, problematic gambling appears as neither acategorical nor a continuum based disorder; but nor canit be neatly characterised by sub-groups and theirpathways (cf. Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002). Rather, itemerges as behaviour that is extremely complex andhighly fluid. It appears to be influenced in multi-directional ways by a range of factors, which makescategorisations – and sometimes explanations them-selves – difficult. Indeed, it may be that the study hasraised as many questions as it has answered. We areaware that some readers may differ in their interpre-tation of some of our results, and, for example, regardfindings on non-linearity and abstinence as supportingthe view that problem gambling is a chronic relapsingcondition that is best resolved through abstinence.Increasing questions and differences in interpretationcannot be resolved by a single study but are, webelieve, outcomes which will hopefully stimulatediscussion, and which clearly demonstrate the needfor more research to explore the changing forms andmeanings of gambling behaviour over time. In partic-ular, longitudinal qualitative studies situated in differ-ent parts of the world and tracking the behaviour ofdifferent demographic and cultural groups exposed to awide variety of gambling opportunities are required.

Ultimately, it is clear from this initial study thatproblem gambling is not a fixed state and that problemgamblers are not particular ‘types’ of person. Oneimplication of this is that the population of ‘problemgamblers’ depicted in repeat cross sectional surveyscannot necessarily be regarded as discrete, even if theoverall prevalence of problem gambling remainsrelatively stable across the population as a whole.When we look at such surveys we should bear in mind


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

that it is likely we are not looking at the same peopleover time. From this, we urge an understanding ofgambling based on patterns of behaviour rather than‘types’ of gamblers. Such an understanding is tempo-ral, and can only be captured by longitudinal researchapproaches; ideally ones which utilise qualitativemethods and focus on social factors to explorechanging patterns of behaviour. Such patterns are, aswe have found, highly variable, and may includephases of problematic or reduced behaviour in trajec-tories that ebb and flow over time, influenced in myriadways by the social environments which gamblersinhabit, as well as the personal characteristics theybring to games.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to all the gamblers who gave up their timeto speak with us for the study, and to Anne Birch, IreneMiller and Fiona Rait at the Scottish Centre for SocialResearch for conducting some of the interviews on whichit is based. Special thanks go to Lesley Birse formanagement associated with the study, and to SimonAnderson for commenting on earlier drafts of this article.

Declaration of interest: The author reports no conflicts ofinterest. The author alone is responsible for the contentand writing of this article.

This research was funded by two grants from theEconomic and Social Research Council and theResponsibility in Gambling Trust/Responsibility inGambling Fund (Ref No ESRC RES 164-5 and Ref NoESRC 191 25 0003).

NOTES

1. See Slutske (2007) for a review.2. The NODS gambling screen was selected over more commonly

used screens as it has the advantage of having a short and easy toadminister version (the three item NODS CLiP) for initialidentification of our sample in the community. The full, past-year version of the screen was applied once the sample wasselected. This classifies individuals into four categories of gambler:low risk, at risk, problem gambler and pathological gambler.

REFERENCES

Abbott, M., Williams, M., & Volberg, R. (1999). Seven yearson: A follow up study of frequent and problem gamblers livingin the community: Report number two of the New Zealandgaming survey. Wellington, NZ: Department of InternalAffairs.

Abbott, M., Williams, M., & Volberg, R. (2004). A prospectivestudy of problem and regular non-problem gamblers living inthe community. Substance Use & Misuse, 39, 855–884.

APA (American Psychiatric Association) (1994). Diagnosticand statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV)(4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways modelof gambling and problem gambling. Addiction, 97,487–499.

Blaszczynski, A., McConaghy, N., & Frankova, A. (1991).Control versus abstinence in the treatment of pathologicalgambling: A two to nine year follow up. British Journal ofAddiction, 86, 299–306.

Breen, R., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset ofpathological gambling in machine gamblers. Journal ofGambling Studies, 18, 31–43.

Clarke, D., Tse, S., Abbott, M., Townsend, S., Kingi, P., &Manaia, W. (2006). Key indicators of the transition fromsocial to problem gambling. International Journal of MentalHealth Addiction, 4, 247–264.

Crockford, D., & El-Guebaly, N. (1998). Psychiatric co-morbidity in pathological gambling: A critical review.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 43–50.

DiClemente, C.C., Prochaska, J.O., & Gibertini, M. (1985).Self-efficacy and the stages of self-change in smoking.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 181–200.

Farrell, S. (ed.). (2000) The termination of criminal careers.Ashgate: Dartmouth.

Hodgins, D.C. (2001). Processes of changing gambling beha-vior. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 121–128.

Hodgins, D., & El-Guebaly, N. (2000). Natural andtreatment-assisted recovery from gambling problems: Acomparison of resolved and active gamblers. Addiction, 95,777–789.

Hodgins, D., & Peden, N. (2005). Natural course of gamblingdisorders: Forty-month follow-up. Journal of GamblingIssues, 14, 1–15.

Hodgins, D., Wynne, H., & Makarchuk, K. (1999). Pathwaysto recovery from gambling problems: Follow up from ageneral population survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15,93–104.

LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., LaBrie, R.A., & Shaffer, H.J.(2008). Stability and progression of disordered gambling:Lessons from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal ofPsychiatry, 53, 52–60.

Nathan, P.E. (2003). The role of natural recovery in alcoholismand pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19,279–286.

NRC (National Research Council) (1999). Pathological gam-bling: A critical review. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Prochaska, J., & DiClemente, C. (1983). Stages and processes ofself-change of smoking: Towards an integrative model ofchange. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51,390–395.

Prochaska, J., DiClemente, C.C., & Norcross, J.C. (1992).In search of how people change: Applications toaddictive behaviours. American Psychologist, 47,1102–1114.

Reith, G., & Dobbie, F. (2011). Beginning gambling: The role ofsocial networks and environment. Addiction Research andTheory, 19, 483–493.

Reith, G., & Dobbie, F. (2012). Lost in the game: Narratives ofaddiction and identity in recovery from problem gambling.Addiction Research and Theory, Epub ahead of print.doi:10.3109/16066359.2012.672599.

Schachter, S. (1982). Recidivism and self cure of smoking andobesity. American Psychologist, 37, 436–444.

Shaffer, H., & Jones, S. (1989). Quitting cocaine: The struggleagainst impulse. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Shaffer, H., & Korn, D. (2002). Gambling and related mentaldisorders: A public health analysis. Annual Review of PublicHealth, 23, 171–212.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

Slutske, W.S. (2006). Natural recovery and treatment seekingin pathological gambling: Results of two U.S. nationalsurveys. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 297–302.

Slutske, W.S. (2007). Longitudinal studies of gamblingbehavior. In G. Smith, D.C. Hodgins, & R.J. Williams(Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies(Chap. 6). Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press.

Slutske, W., Jackson, K., & Sher, K. (2003). The natural historyof problem gambling from age 18 to 29. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 112, 263–274.

Slutske, W., Piasecki, T., Blaszczynski, A., & Martin, N. (2010).Pathological gambling recovery in the absence of abstinence.Addiction, 105, 2169–2175.

Sobell, L., Cunningham, J., & Sobell, M. (1996). Recovery fromalcohol problems with and without treatment: Prevalence intwo population surveys. American Journal of Public Health,86, 966–972.

Sobell, L., Ellingtad, T., & Sobell, M. (2000). Natural recoveryfrom alcohol and drug problems: Methodological review ofthe research. Addiction, 95, 749–764.

Stall, R., & Biernacki, P. (1986). Spontaneous remission fromthe problematic use of substances. The International Journalof the Addictions, 21(1), 1–23.

Stewart, S., & Kushner, M. (2003). Recent research on thecomorbidity of alcoholism and pathological gambling.

Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 27,285–291.

Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (2003). Hindsight, foresight andinsight: The challenges of longitudinal qualitative research.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6,233–244.

Vailliant, G. (1995). The natural history of alcoholismrevisited. Cambridge and Massachusetts, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Waldorf, D., & Biernacki, P. (1981). The natural recovery fromopiate addiction: Some preliminary findings. Journal of DrugIssues, 11, 61–76.

Wiebe, J., Cox, B., & Falkowski-Ham, A. (2003). Psychologicaland social factors associated with problem gambling inOntario: A one year follow up study. Toronto, Canada:Responsible Gambling Council.

Winick, C. (1962). Maturing out of narcotic addiction. Bulletinon Narcotics, 14(1), 1–7.

Winters, K., Stinchfield, R., Botzet, A., & Slutske, W. (2005).Pathways of youth gambling problem severity. Psychology ofAddictive Behaviours, 19, 104–107.

Wohl, M., & Sztainert, T. (2011). Where did all the pathologicalgamblers go? Gambling symptamatology and stage of changepredict attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of GamblingStudies, 27, 155–169.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of G

lasg

ow] a

t 05:

40 1

3 Ju

ne 2

016

Gambling careers: A longitudinal, qualitative study of gambling behaviour

Documents

Transcript of Gambling careers: A longitudinal, qualitative study of gambling behaviour