Sense or sensibility—Ideological dilemmas in gamblers' notions of responsibilities for gambling problems

Abstract

The gambling market is a complex field of conflicting stakeholders and interests involving dimensions, such as economy, health, social inequality and morals. The division of responsibility between gamblers, the gambling industry and the regulating state for limiting the harmful effects of this activity, however, are unclear. The aim of this study was to explore how gamblers in the Swedish market attribute responsibility to various actors within the gambling field. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 gamblers experiencing extensive gambling problems. Based on a discourse analytical approach, five ideological dilemmas were identified, highlighting the tension between the, often contradictory, values that the participants need to relate to. On the individual level, the gamblers emphasize their own responsibility for their problem, thereby showing accountability in relation to themselves, their significant others and their peers as agents in recovery. On the corporate- and state levels however, the participants argue for a stronger public health approach, where the gambling companies should take further responsibility by living up to the legal regulations and where the state should ensure compliance and safeguard funding for treatment and research. The essential paradox between the individual responsibility discourse of self-regulation and the prevailing medical discourse of the gambler's incapacity for self-control signifies an impossible equation that imposes feelings of guilt and shame upon an individual who is concurrently considered as both responsible and incapable. In order to reduce harm, the gambling industry must be more proactive with coercive external control measures to fulfill the duty of care they claim to adhere to, and the regulating state must ensure its compliance.

The impact of responsible gambling framing on people with lived experience of gambling harm

“…First, this study demonstrated that gamblers generally conceptualized gambling as an issue of personal responsibility despite some acknowledgment of the gambling industry's role in contributing to harm. This supports the findings of previous studies indicating that gamblers have internalized personal responsibility (Marko et al, 2022 ; Samuelsson and Cisneros Örnberg, 2022 ; Savard et al, 2022 ). This study also shows that the focus on personal responsibility for action still remains after experiencing harm and that even when the role of the gambling industry is acknowledged, blame is ultimately placed on the individual.…”

“…Research conducted in Australia (Marko et al, 2022 ), Canada (Savard et al, 2022 ) and Sweden (Samuelsson and Cisneros Örnberg, 2022 ) shows that gamblers largely view gambling as an issue of individual responsibility. This internalizing of personal responsibility among gamblers is a concern because it contributes to the problematization and stigmatization of people who experience problems with gambling (Alexius, 2017 ; Miller and Thomas, 2018 ).…”

Definitions and assessments of recovery from gambling disorder: A scoping review

“…By acknowledging and admitting his or her problem/disorder, the problem gambler could initiate an empowerment process whereby he or she could take responsibility for his or her own gambling behaviour and engage in his or her own recovery process ( Nixon & Solowoniuk, 2006 ; Nuske & Hing, 2013 ; Pickering et al., 2020 ). In the study conducted by Samuelsson and Cisneros Örnberg on ideological dilemmas regarding responsibility, participants highlighted the necessity of taking responsibility for their gambling behaviour to become an active agent in the recovery process, whereas blaming gambling companies or the regulating state or considering oneself to be a victim were viewed as unhelpful for promoting active change and as irrational in some way ( Samuelsson & Cisneros Örnberg, 2022 ).…”

“…(2020) Italy Qualitative 15 male participants Semistructured interviews, analysed using cluster analysis 1/Gambling as dissociation; 2/Materialism; 3/Escape from social difficulties; 4/Awareness; 5/Closeness Samuelsson et al. (2018) Sweden Qualitative 40 participants Semistructured telephone interviews, analysed using thematic analysis 1/Harm levels (no harm, low harm, harm, and substantial harm gamblers) and patterns of change (stable, decreasing, fluctuating, and increasing); 2/Configurations of change and harm: (1) Stable, low-frequency gambling with no or minor harm; (2) High frequency of gambling with occasional harm, decreasing; (3) Periodic gambling with moderate harm, fluctuating pattern; (4) High-frequency gambling with substantial harm, increasing Samuelsson and Cisneros Örnberg (2022) Sweden Qualitative 37 participants Semistructured interviews, which featured a discourse analytical approach Five different ideological dilemmas were identified: 1/Individual responsibility vs. medical brain disease (notions of capacity and control); 2/Agent of recovery vs. victim of the gambling industry (tension between presenting gambling companies as unscrupulous exploiters, which implies a position of the gambler as a victim, and being a self-governing subject, which implies taking responsibility for one's actions and choices with the aim of proving one's ability to oneself, one's significant others and one's peers); 3/Corporate social responsibility vs. gambling as an ordinary commodity; 4/External control vs. the will to gamble in the moment; 5/Stricter regulation vs. freedom and personal integrity Syvertsen et al. (2020) Norway Qualitative 9 participants Semistructured interviews, based on a phenomenological approach, and analysed using thematic analysis 1/Shared narratives and understanding; 2/Keeping it relevant to problem gambling: (1) Complete sharing; (2) Finding solutions; 3/Changes over time Toneatto et al.…”