Personal choice is a nuanced concept - Lessons learned from the gambling field. •

Public opinions and attitudes toward a state monopoly: a study of the finnish gambling system

BACKGROUND

Gambling regulated through a state monopoly is often justified for reasons of public health, that is, that monopolies are a more effective means of reducing potential harm. This focus on harm prevention has increased in recent years, particularly as a result of pressures arising from the growth of online gambling and of legislation designed to promote competition. While prior works have examined the role of stakeholders in influencing policy decisions and in public discussions of the monopoly systems, attention has been focused on those with direct financial interests; the opinions of the public have largely been absent from these discussions. In 2017 Finland restructured its monopoly order to improve efficacy of addressing gambling related harms; this restructuring offers a valuable insight into public perceptions of and attitudes toward the suitability of the Finnish system to address gambling-related harm.

METHODS

This work uses Structural Equation Modelling and compares attitudes toward the Finnish system between 2015 (pre-restructuring) and 2019 (post-restructuring).

RESULTS

Overall public opinion of the Finnish system as being suitable for addressing gambling harms declined between 2015 and 2019, despite the restructuring. Several predictors of attitudes were identified, however, the majority had small effect sizes, while the model explained little variance.

CONCLUSION

This work concludes that existing approaches to examining public opinions of gambling regulation should be amended to include additional predictors. Furthermore, it is likely that context-specific predictors should be included in models, in order to reflect the socio-cultural history of the population being investigated. Such predictors should be determined in respect to the population of interest but, for example, could include items measuring trust in authority, political orientation, cultural acceptance of gambling, or religious affiliation.

The lived experience of financial harm from gambling in Australia

The financial consequences associated with harmful gambling create significant health and social stressors for individuals, their families, and communities. However, there has been limited research exploring how people impacted by gambling harm conceptualise and experience the financial impacts on their lives. To help fill this gap, this study used in-depth qualitative interviews with gamblers harmed by their own gambling and affected others harmed by someone else's gambling. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to interpret the data. The study had three key findings. First, prior to experiencing harm, gamblers and affected others did not consider the financial risks associated with gambling and only recognised the risks once the financial losses negatively impacted other areas of their lives. Second, gamblers and affected others managed the day-to-day financial impacts of gambling by adjusting their financial priorities, reducing spending in other areas, or accruing debt. Finally, the financial impacts of gambling and the associated financial management strategies led to broader and long-term problems for gamblers and affected others. This study demonstrates that financial harms from gambling are complex and contribute to the stigmatisation of people who experience harm. Current educational messages and tools simplify this complex issue and may legitimise gambling as a leisure activity which can be managed by making 'responsible' financial decisions. Public health and health promotion initiatives must recognise this complexity, developing approaches that are independent from the gambling industry and informed by lived experience.

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

BACKGROUND

The framing of health issues influences how people think about and respond to these topics. Gambling has largely been framed as an issue of personal responsibility, with the gambling industry, governments and some researchers promoting responsible gambling strategies as a way to address gambling harm. While there is evidence that the internalization of personal responsibility can negatively impact gamblers, this study aimed to explore how people who have experienced gambling harm interpret and apply personal responsibility frames and 'gamble responsibly' messages in their lives.

METHODS

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom and telephone with 15 gamblers who had been harmed by their own gambling and six affected others who had been harmed by someone else's gambling. This study was informed by public health and critical qualitative approaches to inquiry. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four themes were constructed from the data. First, gamblers and affected others generally conceptualized gambling and gambling harm as being the responsibility of the individual because it was perceived as the outcome of individual behavior. Second, they attempted to apply responsibility to their own experience either as gamblers who tried to stop or reduce their gambling, or affected others who felt responsible for helping the gambler in their lives. Third, gamblers and affected others were negatively impacted when it was perceived the gambler could not 'control' their gambling or had not done enough to take responsibility. Finally, gamblers and affected others recommended responsible gambling strategies be reframed to be more effective at addressing gambling harm.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence further supporting research demonstrating that personal responsibility frames may have unintended or negative consequences for gamblers and affected others. It underscores the need to reframe public messages about gambling away from responsible gambling, and toward research-based messages that can complement broader legislative changes and other measures to protect individuals.

Gamblers' perceptions of responsibility for gambling harm: a critical qualitative inquiry

BACKGROUND

Gambling has traditionally been conceptualised as an issue of addiction and personal responsibility. While there are now clear public health models that recognise that gambling harm is caused by a range of socio-cultural, environmental, commercial and political determinants, government and industry messages about gambling are still largely personal responsibility focused. Given the well-recognised issues associated with personal responsibility paradigms, this study sought to understand how gamblers themselves conceptualised responsibility for gambling harm.

METHODS

A qualitatively led online panel survey was conducted with 363 adult gamblers in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Participants were asked to respond to what they thought were the causes of gambling harm, and what could be done to prevent harm. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Six common tropes were constructed from gamblers' responses: (1) Gambling in moderation; (2) Personal responsibility for rational behaviour; (3) Character flaws; (4) Personal responsibility to seek help; (5) More education is needed; and (6) Governments are responsible for action - but motivation and efficacy are questioned. Gamblers primarily understood gambling harm as being a matter of personal responsibility, and government responsibility was generally seen as limited to providing information to facilitate informed gambling choices.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that gamblers' perceptions of gambling harm are similar to the personal responsibility framings and tropes present in industry and government messaging strategies. Refocusing public communication strategies away from 'responsible gambling' messaging, and towards evidence-based approaches, will be an important part of addressing the harms associated with gambling.

Moving Away from Individual Responsibility: A Comment

In this comment, we suggest there has been a crusade among some gambling stakeholders to move the field away from personal responsibility influences and toward social setting effects. This perspective disproportionally attributes gambling-related negative consequences to the social setting rather than the gambler. We argue that personal responsibility is a pivotal issue during the emotional maturation of healthy adults and remains essential to understanding intemperate gambling. This comment explores this movement away from personal responsibility and briefly discusses some of the iatrogenic consequences that this position might create in a clinical setting.