Gambling and gambling policy in Norway—an exceptional case

Rossow, Ingeborg; Hansen, Marianne Bang

doi:10.1111/add.13172

Cited by 59 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the estimated prevalence was 7.6% for low level of problems, 2.3% for moderate problems and 0.6% for severe problems. This is lower than previous Norwegian prevalence studies, suggesting a downward trend in gambling problems in Norway, due probably to more strict regulations (see for an overview of gambling regulations in Norway and previous prevalence estimates). Our study indicates that the prevalence of problem gambling in Norway in 2013 was slightly lower than the mean prevalence rate globally .…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

Problem gambling and the five‐factor model of personality: a large population‐based study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Knowledge of the personality characteristics of individuals who develop gambling problems is important for designing targeted prevention efforts. Previous studies of the relationship between the five‐factor model of personality and gambling problems were based on small samples not representative of the general population. We estimated differences in neuroticism, extroversion, intellect, agreeableness and conscientiousness between non‐problem gamblers and individuals with low, moderate and severe gambling problems. Design Cross‐sectional survey. Setting Norway. Participants A total of 10 081 (51.5% female) individuals aged 16–74 years (mean age 46.5 years). Measures The Problem Gambling Severity Index, The Mini‐International Personality Item Pool and demographic variables. Differences between groups of gamblers were analysed by ordinary least‐squares regression models separately for each personality trait adjusting for gender, age, cohabitation, level of education and work status. Findings Gamblers with low, moderate and severe levels of gambling problems differed significantly from non‐problem gamblers in neuroticism (b = 0.16, 0.34 and 0.66, respectively, all P < 0.001) and conscientiousness (b = −0.13, −0.28 and −0.44, respectively, all P < 0.001). Moderate and severe problem gamblers differed from non‐problem gamblers in agreeableness (b = −0.21, P < 0.001 and b = −0.20, P = 0.028, respectively). In addition, gambling problems were much more prevalent among men than women, and more prevalent among those who live alone, individuals without tertiary education and among those who are unemployed or on disability pension. Conclusions A higher level of problem gambling severity appears to be associated with higher scores on neuroticism, and with lower scores on conscientiousness and agreeableness in the Mini‐International Personality Item Pool.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

Problem gambling and the five‐factor model of personality: a large population‐based study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…restricted hours, EGM features) since 2009. Data presented by Rossow & Hansen [12] reveal decreased gambling participation, decreased calls to the gambling helpline and decreased treatment participation post-restriction, but also evidence of a small substitution effect (increased helpline calls for problems with other types of gambling). Documentation of these impacts is an important contribution to the field.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The international coverage of this series was broad, and included submissions from Autralasia (Australia [5], New Zealand [6]), South America (Brazil [7]), North America (Canada [8], United States [9]), Europe (Finland [10], Sweden [11], Norway [12], France [13], Switzerland [14] , Czech Republic [15], Spain [16], the Netherlands [17], Germany [18], United Kingdom [19]) and Asia (Taiwan [20], China [21], Singapore [22], India [23] ). The selection of countries profiled was, of course, not random, so countries with relatively more gambling academic involvement are undoubtedly over-represented.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This distinction parallels general recognition that the latter can cause relatively more social and individual harm. Internet gambling is the latest regulatory challenge, as noted by the papers published in the series most recently [12][13][14][15]. Internet gambling involvement is growing, although it still represents a minority of the commercial market in most jurisdictions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The world of gambling: the National Gambling Experiences series

Hodgins

Petry

2016

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sweden, for example, has thousands of illegal gambling machines that are not controlled by the government (Svenska Spel, 2014). It is also possible to control online gambling via payment blocking, as happens in Norway, meaning that banks and other financial institutions are not allowed to process gambling payments to unauthorised operators (Rossow & Hansen, 2016). IP blocking of websites owned by unlicensed gambling operators is also practised in Denmark.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a need for personal gambling licences?

Nikkinen

2019

Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Licensing is currently the most popular option among regulators for controlling gambling operations. However, approximately 20% of operators are still public monopolies. Many forms of gambling (especially lotteries) are government operated even in countries with a licensing system. This creates an inherent conflict of interest, given that government is supposed to protect the wellbeing of its citizenry and to reap the benefits of gambling at the same time. At least in the gambling monopoly, however, addressing the unavoidable harm that results from gambling should be a priority. Industry self-regulation and reliance on "responsible gambling" rely too much on individuals to control their own gambling. It is suggested in this contribution that it is possible to provide more comprehensive consumer protection, recognising both the duty of governments to take care of their own citizens and the fact that industry self-regulation is not enough. Precommitment cards have been tested in various contexts, and have shown promise in terms of providing tools for individuals to restrict their own gambling. However, given the known shortcomings such as allowing the use of other cards that are not one's own, and other venues, it is clear that in themselves they do not guarantee effective prevention. Personal licensing is therefore explored as a move forward in this literature-based discussion. Although the system may be applicable to other contexts, the focus is on the Nordic countries. Given that the underlying justification for gambling monopolies is to control gambling-related harm, in the cases of Finland and Norway licensing could be combined with loyalty cards introduced by monopoly operators. This would provide a feasible alternative to current practices of responsible gambling.

show abstract

Gambling and gambling policy in Norway—an exceptional case

Cited by 59 publications

References 22 publications

Problem gambling and the five‐factor model of personality: a large population‐based study

Problem gambling and the five‐factor model of personality: a large population‐based study

The world of gambling: the National Gambling Experiences series

Is there a need for personal gambling licences?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About