Parental and peer influences on emerging adult problem gambling: Does exposure to problem gambling reduce stigmatizing perceptions and increase vulnerability?

Abstract

Research has identified 18 to 30 years olds as the biggest spenders on gambling activities, with significantly higher prevalence of gambling problems than other age groups. Identifying the factors that influence the development of gambling problems in young people is important for guiding prevention strategies. This study aimed to analyse how emerging adult problem gambling is influenced by the people around them. In particular, we explored whether perceived parental and peer problem gambling predicted emerging adult problem gambling, and whether reduced gambling self-stigma mediated these relationships. A community sample of 188 Australian gamblers aged 18 to 29 (M = 21.41, SD = 2.99) completed three versions of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) and the Gambling Perception Scale. Results indicated that perceived parental and peer gambling were positively related to emerging adult problem gambling. While reduced gambling helping stigma was related to higher problem gambling, stigma did not mediate the links between significant others' gambling and emerging adult problem gambling. We conclude that social influences are important in the development of problem gambling for young people, and that older male emerging adults who have a gambling mother are at most risk of problem gambling.Keywords: problem gambling, emerging adults, stigma, peers, parents RésuméLa recherche a établi que le groupe des 18 à 30 ans dépense plus que les autres tranches d'âge dans des activités de jeu et que la prévalence des problèmes de jeu y est beaucoup plus élevée. Il est important de déterminer les facteurs qui ont une influence sur l'apparition du jeu problématique chez les jeunes afin d'orienter les 30

Social influences normalize gambling-related harm among higher risk gamblers

“…Parental gambling behavior has been correlated with adolescents’ gambling attitudes and intention (Pitt et al., 2017), as well as their gambling behavior (Magoon & Ingersoll, 2006; Oei & Raylu, 2004; Wood & Griffiths, 1998). Of concern is where these influences have encouraged the early initiation of gambling during adolescence, which is a risk for future problematic gambling (Dowling et al., 2017; Gay, Gill, & Corboy, 2016; Griffiths, 2010; Magoon & Ingersoll, 2006). The intergenerational transmission of problem gambling is related to the perceived financial and self-enhancing benefits of gambling (Dowling et al., 2016).…”

Perception of Gamblers: A Systematic Review

“…Mostly, the respondents indicated that they would feel pity towards persons with gambling problems, with some anger and some fear (Hing et al 2015 , 2016e ). In Gay et al ( 2016 ) and Horch and Hodgins ( 2008 ), respondents felt anger and pity towards problem gamblers equally or almost equally strong, but lower levels of fear. Both eSports gamblers and casino gamblers attracted more fear than the Internet gamer (Peter et al 2018 ).…”

“… Descriptive analysis, variance analysis, logistic regression analysis Lang and Rosenberg ( 2017 ) US Population: willingness to affiliate with persons with various addictions 612 U.S. residents between the ages of 18 and 65 years Mechanical Turk Convenience n.a. 50% Bivariate analysis, variance analysis Gay et al ( 2016 ) AU Influence of environment on emerging adult problem gambling 188 Emerging gamblers Social media Convenience 21.41 70.7% Hierarchical regression analysis Horch and Hodgins ( 2015 ) CA PG on PG 155 Adults with gambling problems Newspaper advertisments, community posters Convenience 42.3 31% Binary logistic regression Konkolÿ Thege et al ( 2015 ) CA Population on various problem behaviours 4.000 Adults Ipsos Canadian Online Panel Representative n.a. 64.3% Descriptive analysis, bivariate analysis, discrimant function analysis, Pearson chi-square test Feeney ( 2013 ) US Adults on problem gambling Several surveys including 1.000 to 1.100 adults resp.…”

“…Whereas the Finnish social workers regarded the individual as responsible for recovery, their French counterparts disagreed (Egerer 2013 ). In most studies however, the individual was thought to be responsible (Blomqvist 2009 ; Gay et al 2016 ; Horch and Hodgins 2008 , 2015 ; Konkolÿ Thege et al 2015 ; Koski-Jännes and Simmat-Durand 2017 ; Koski-Jännes et al 2012 ; Miller and Thomas 2017b ).…”

“…Most participants wished to keep distance or at least "some distance" to persons in this condition (Hing et al 2015Lang and Rosenberg 2017;Rockloff and Schofield 2004), especially to persons whose condition had been officially diagnosed (Palmer et al 2018). In other studies, the desire for segregation was found to be low (Gay et al 2016;Horch and Hodgins 2008). Persons who were more familiar with persons experiencing gambling problems wanted less social distance (Dhillon et al 2011).…”