Gambling motivation and involvement: A review of social

Motivation and involvement as
risk factors for problem gambling
A straightforward approach for using the knowledge gained by social, economic
and cultural studies in problem gambling research is to view motivational and
involvement factors as potential risk factors for problem gambling. Strong motivation
and high involvement does not necessarily mean problem gambling, but since
problem gambling presupposes high involvement, at least some of the factors that
determine the degree of involvement ought to be related to a heightened risk for
gambling problems.
It has been observed in gambling studies that the concept of an “at risk gambler”
is fuzzy and plagued with problems of definition [429]. However, a promising
approach to the issue of “at risk gambling” and risk factors is suggested by the
Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC) [430], who separate risk
factors for problem gambling into indirect and direct risks. The indirect risk factors
are: social, emotional and biological predisposition, as well as environmental
conditions (e.g. the accessibility of gambling and promotional activities of gaming
providers). The direct factors are separated into risk cognitions and risk practices.
Risk cognitions include the illusion of control, superstitions, and serious misunderstandings
about odds and probabilities. Risk practices include betting more than
intended, chasing losses, and procuring money for gambling in morally or legally
unacceptable ways. Risk cognitions and risk practices interact by reinforcing each
other.
This way of reasoning prompts a reconsideration of the relation between the categories
of “at risk” and “problem gambling”. The conventional view is that an accumulation
of a certain of number of symptoms of pathological gambling constitutes
“at risk” gambling (e.g. 1–2 points on the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS)
[431]), and when a certain number of additional symptoms are present, “problem
gambling” (a SOGS score of 3–4) or “pathological” gambling (i.e. a SOGS score of
5 or more) is assumed. The view suggested by the OPGRC is that, rather than viewing
certain behaviors as symptoms, they should be regarded as direct risk behaviors.
These are acts that may be unwise or impulsive but that, if not repeated too often,
may not mean more than a temporary lapse of judgment of the kind that all of us
experience when excited or not fully focused.
Thus, some of the behaviors usually viewed as signs of problem gambling are
considered instead to be direct risk factors. Problem gambling as such (including
pathological gambling) is defined as “the constellation of negative consequences
that result from risk practices.” These problems affect problem gamblers, people in
their social network, and society at large [430]. For example, borrowing money to
gamble is a direct risk factor for developing gambling problems, but even in combination
with other risk factors it need not be a problematic behavior. The person
may himself or herself lend money to others in gambling environments; borrowing
and lending small sums of money may be a way to reaffirm social belonging and
G A M B L I N G M O T I VAT I O N A N D I N V O LV E M E N T 65