risk factors for problematic gambling a critical literature review

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.

Springer Medicine

Open Access 01-03-2009 | Original Paper

Risk Factors for Problematic Gambling: A Critical Literature Review

Authors: Agneta Johansson, Jon E. Grant, Suck Won Kim, Brian L. Odlaug, K. Gunnar Götestam

Published in: Journal of Gambling Studies | Issue 1/2009

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this issue 1/2009.

Original Paper

Assessing the Reliability of the Gambling Functional Assessment

Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of a spanish translation of a measure of dsm-iv diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling, the prevalence and types of gambling among undocumented mexican immigrants in new york city, primed for change: facilitating factors in problem gambling treatment, evaluating the problem gambling severity index, barriers to help-seeking for a gambling problem: the experiences of gamblers who have sought specialist assistance and the perceptions of those who have not.

• Medical Journals
• Webcasts & Webinars
• CME & eLearning
• Newsletters
• ESMO Congress 2023
• 2023 ERS Congress
• ESC Congress 2023
• EHA2023 Hybrid Congress
• 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting Coverage
• Advances in Alzheimer’s
• About Springer Medicine
• Diabetology
• Endocrinology
• Gastroenterology
• Geriatrics and Gerontology
• Gynecology and Obstetrics
• Infectious Disease
• Internal Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine
• Rheumatology

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

Search life-sciences literature (43,860,155 articles, preprints and more)

• Full text links
• Citations & impact
• Similar Articles

Risk factors for problematic gambling: a critical literature review.

Author information, affiliations.

• Johansson A 1

ORCIDs linked to this article

• Odlaug BL | 0000-0001-5407-0686

Journal of Gambling Studies , 01 Mar 2009 , 25(1): 67-92 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-008-9088-6   PMID: 18392670 

Abstract 

Full text links .

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-008-9088-6

References 

Articles referenced by this article (63)

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd edition, revised. (DSM-III-R). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

American psychiatric association. (2000). diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4rd edition, text revision. (dsm-iv-tr). washington, dc: american psychiatric association., real and laboratory gambling, sensation-seeking and arousal..

Anderson G , Brown RI

Br J Psychol, 401-410 1984

MED: 6487928

Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Manual for the beck depression inventory. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.

Altered dopamine function in pathological gambling..

Bergh C , Eklund T , Sodersten P , Nordin C

Psychol Med, (2):473-475 1997

MED: 9089839

Pathological gambling and platelet MAO activity: a psychobiological study.

Blanco C , Orensanz-Munoz L , Blanco-Jerez C , Saiz-Ruiz J

Am J Psychiatry, (1):119-121 1996

MED: 8540570

A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling.

Blaszczynski A , Nower L

Addiction, (5):487-499 2002

MED: 12033650

Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in Switzerland.

Bondolfi G , Osiek C , Ferrero F

Acta Psychiatr Scand, (6):473-475 2000

MED: 10868471

Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers.

Breen RB , Zimmerman M

J Gambl Stud, (1):31-43 2002

MED: 12050846

Arousal and sensation-seeking components in the general explanation of gambling and gambling addictions.

Int J Addict, (9-10):1001-1016 1986

MED: 3793306

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics, citations of article over time, alternative metrics.

Article citations

Exploring the relationships between psychological variables and loot box engagement, part 1: pre-registered hypotheses..

Close J , Spicer SG , Nicklin LL , Uther M , Whalley B , Fullwood C , Parke J , Lloyd J , Lloyd H

R Soc Open Sci , 10(12):231045, 20 Dec 2023

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 38126068 | PMCID: PMC10731324

Order of first-play in simulated versus monetary gambling.

Russell AMT , Hing N , Newall P , Greer N , Dittman CK , Thorne H , Rockloff M

J Behav Addict , 12(4):992-1005, 30 Nov 2023

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38032384 | PMCID: PMC10786233

Screening and Treatment for Co-occurring Gambling and Substance Use: A Scoping Review.

Yarbakhsh E , van der Sterren A , Bowles D

J Gambl Stud , 39(4):1699-1721, 26 Jul 2023

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 37493839 | PMCID: PMC10628029

Gender and maladaptive personality correlates in problem gambling and over-indebtedness: Novel findings from a cross-sectional study in Sweden.

Komzia N , Bäckström M , Håkansson A

Heliyon , 9(8):e18844, 01 Aug 2023

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 37701411 | PMCID: PMC10493418

Impulsivity, Gambling-Related Cognitions, Cognitive Reappraisal and Gambling Behaviour in a Malaysian Sample.

Tan GSL , Tam CL

J Gambl Stud , 07 Aug 2023

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 37544960

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Personality and problem gambling: a prospective study of a birth cohort of young adults.

Slutske WS , Caspi A , Moffitt TE , Poulton R

Arch Gen Psychiatry , 62(7):769-775, 01 Jul 2005

Cited by: 108 articles | PMID: 15997018

Comorbidity, family history and personality traits in pathological gamblers compared with healthy controls.

Mann K , Lemenager T , Zois E , Hoffmann S , Nakovics H , Beutel M , Vogelgesang M , Wölfling K , Kiefer F , Fauth-Bühler M

Eur Psychiatry , 42:120-128, 23 Dec 2016

Cited by: 19 articles | PMID: 28364687

The influence of substance dependence and mood disorders on outcome from pathological gambling: five-year follow-up.

Hodgins DC , el-Guebaly N

J Gambl Stud , 26(1):117-127, 04 Jul 2009

Cited by: 34 articles | PMID: 19578984

[Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance dependance: A clarification].

Bosc E , Fatséas M , Alexandre JM , Auriacombe M

Encephale , 38(5):433-439, 15 Jun 2012

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 23062458

Gambling and substance use disorders: current status and future directions.

Am J Addict , 16(1):1-9, 01 Jan 2007

Cited by: 49 articles | PMID: 17364415

Funding 

Funders who supported this work.

NIMH NIH HHS (1)

Grant ID: K23 MH 069754-01A1

3 publication s

Europe PMC is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Risk factors for problematic gambling: A critical literature review

• Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
• Administration (AHS)

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

This article is a critical review of risk factors for pathological gambling categorized by demographics, physiological and biological factors, cognitive distortions, comorbidity and concurrent symptoms, and personality symptoms and characteristics. There is also a varia section (availability, parents playing, sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, age of onset, and playing duration). The review found very few well established risk factors for pathological gambling (i.e. more than two studies to support the conclusions). Well established risk factors included demographic variables (age, gender), cognitive distortions (erroneous perceptions, illusion of control), sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, comorbid disorders (OCD, drug abuse), and delinquency/illegal acts. An understanding of risk factors for pathological gambling should enhance prevention and treatment approaches.

Bibliographical note

• Experimental studies
• Pathological gambling
• Risk factors
• Significance

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Publisher link

• 10.1007/s10899-008-9088-6

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Gambling Psychology 100%
• Schedule of Reinforcement Psychology 50%
• Comorbidity Psychology 25%
• Demographics Psychology 25%
• Drug Abuse Psychology 25%
• Critical Review Psychology 25%
• Illusion Psychology 25%
• Delinquency Psychology 25%

T1 - Risk factors for problematic gambling

T2 - A critical literature review

AU - Johansson, Agneta

AU - Grant, Jon E.

AU - Kim, Suck W

AU - Odlaug, Brian L.

AU - Götestam, K. Gunnar

N1 - Funding Information: Acknowledgements This research was supported in part by a Career Development Award (JEG-K23 MH069754-01A1).

PY - 2009/3

Y1 - 2009/3

N2 - This article is a critical review of risk factors for pathological gambling categorized by demographics, physiological and biological factors, cognitive distortions, comorbidity and concurrent symptoms, and personality symptoms and characteristics. There is also a varia section (availability, parents playing, sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, age of onset, and playing duration). The review found very few well established risk factors for pathological gambling (i.e. more than two studies to support the conclusions). Well established risk factors included demographic variables (age, gender), cognitive distortions (erroneous perceptions, illusion of control), sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, comorbid disorders (OCD, drug abuse), and delinquency/illegal acts. An understanding of risk factors for pathological gambling should enhance prevention and treatment approaches.

AB - This article is a critical review of risk factors for pathological gambling categorized by demographics, physiological and biological factors, cognitive distortions, comorbidity and concurrent symptoms, and personality symptoms and characteristics. There is also a varia section (availability, parents playing, sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, age of onset, and playing duration). The review found very few well established risk factors for pathological gambling (i.e. more than two studies to support the conclusions). Well established risk factors included demographic variables (age, gender), cognitive distortions (erroneous perceptions, illusion of control), sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, comorbid disorders (OCD, drug abuse), and delinquency/illegal acts. An understanding of risk factors for pathological gambling should enhance prevention and treatment approaches.

KW - Experimental studies

KW - Pathological gambling

KW - Risk factors

KW - Significance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59849091845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59849091845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10899-008-9088-6

DO - 10.1007/s10899-008-9088-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 18392670

AN - SCOPUS:59849091845

SN - 1050-5350

JO - Journal of gambling studies

JF - Journal of gambling studies

• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2020

Risk factors for gambling and problem gambling: a protocol for a rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

• Caryl Beynon 1 ,
• Nicola Pearce-Smith 1 &
• Rachel Clark   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2800-2713 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  9 , Article number:  198 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

4738 Accesses

3 Citations

84 Altmetric

Metrics details

Gambling and problem gambling are increasingly being viewed as a public health issue. European surveys have reported a high prevalence of gambling, and according to the Gambling Commission, in 2018, almost half of the general population aged 16 and over in England had participated in gambling in the 4 weeks prior to being surveyed. The potential harms associated with gambling and problem are broad, including harms to individuals, their friends and family, and society. There is a need to better understand the nature of this issue, including its risk factors. The purpose of this study is to identify and examine the risk factors associated with gambling and problem gambling.

An umbrella review will be conducted, where systematic approaches will be used to identify, appraise and synthesise systematic reviews and meta-analyses of risk factors for gambling and problem gambling. The review will include systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2019, in English language, focused on any population and any risk factor, and of quantitative or qualitative studies. Electronic searches will be conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycInfo, NICE Evidence and SocIndex via EBSCO, and a range of websites will be searched for grey literature. Reference lists will be scanned for additional papers and experts will be contacted. Screening, quality assessment and data extraction will be conducted in duplicate, and quality assessment will be conducted using AMSTAR-2. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise the results.

The results of this review will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the risk factors associated with gambling and problem gambling. It will be used by Public Health England as part of a broader evidence review of gambling-related harms.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019151520

Peer Review reports

Gambling is increasingly being identified as a public health problem [ 1 , 2 ]. Harms associated with gambling are wide-ranging and include harms not only to the individual gambler but to their families and close associates as well as wider society [ 3 , 4 ]. The global prevalence of problem gambling has been reported to range from 0.7 to 6.5%, and studies from across Europe have reported a high participation in gambling [ 5 ]. In 2018, a survey conducted in England by the Gambling Commission reported that almost half of the respondents had participated in gambling in the 4 weeks prior to being surveyed [ 6 ]. In addition, 0.7% of respondents were classified as ‘problem gamblers’ and an additional 1.1% of respondents were classified as ‘moderate risk’ gamblers, defined as ‘those who experience a moderate level of problems leading to some negative consequences’ [ 6 ]. The threshold for being considered a ‘problem gambler’ within this particular survey is high—a person has to score 8 or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) or 3 or more according to the Diagnostic or Statistical Manual-IV [ 7 ]. So the number of people experiencing problem gambling could well be higher.

Risk factors are traits or exposures that increase the possibility that an individual will develop a condition and can be fixed or variable [ 8 ]. The risk factors for gambling and problem gambling are broad and have been reported in numerous systematic reviews and primary studies. At an individual level, risk factors include (but are not limited to) fixed biological factors, such as gender and impulsivity, and behavioural factors such as levels of participation in gambling, excessive use of alcohol and use of illicit drugs and propensity towards violent behaviour [ 9 ]. Broader factors related to the family environment [ 10 ] and gambling availability have also been identified [ 11 ]. A scoping search identified a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of risk factors for problem gambling, largely focused on specific risk factors or types of risk [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] although one focused on specific populations [ 12 ]. No systematic reviews, meta-analyses or umbrella reviews were identified examining all risk factors for all populations. In order to understand the breadth of possible risk factors driving gambling and problem gambling behaviours, there is a need to collate this review-level evidence. This work is part of a broader review examining gambling-related harms [ 13 , 14 ].

The overall aim of this umbrella review is to identify the risk factors associated with gambling and problem gambling. The research questions are as follows:

What risk factors are associated with gambling?

What risk factors are associated with different levels of gambling intensity?

This review adopted a rapid review methodology [ 15 ] to identify, appraise and synthesise systematic reviews and meta-analyses, defined here as an ‘umbrella’ review [ 16 ]. The use of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses enables a broad examination of best available evidence in a timely way and is useful for addressing the high-level questions set out for this review, where multiple risk factors are expected to be identified. This review protocol is being reported in accordance with reporting guidance provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement [ 17 ] (see checklist in Additional file 1 ). The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019151520). The review will be conducted using EPPI-Reviewer 4.

Definitions of terms

There are multiple definitions of the term ‘gambling’, but for the purpose of this review, gambling is defined (as set out by the Gambling Act 2005) as ‘… any kind of betting, gaming or playing lotteries. Gaming means taking part in games of chance for a prize (where the prize is money or money’s worth), betting involves making a bet on the outcome of sports, races, events or whether or not something is true, whose outcomes may or may not involve elements of skill but whose outcomes are uncertain and lotteries (typically) involve a payment to participate in an event in which prizes are allocated on the basis of chance.’ [ 4 ].

There is no single definition for ‘harmful’ or ‘problem’ gambling, and this can be measured in several ways. For example, reports prepared for the Gambling Commission estimate problem gambling according to scores derived from 2 different instruments: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The DSM-IV contains 10 diagnostic criteria and possible scores are between 0 and 10; a score of 3 or over indicates problem gambling. The PGSI contains 9 diagnostic criteria and a score of between 0 and 27 is possible; a score of 1–2 is ‘low risk’, 3–7 is ‘moderate risk’ and 8 and over is ‘problem gambling’ [ 7 ]. In the USA, the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) is commonly used, where positive answers to three out of twenty gambling-related questions are considered indicative of problem gambling [ 18 ]. In order to capture the breadth of literature available, no one definition will be adopted and this review will include papers which define ‘harmful’ or ‘problem’ gambling in different ways.

In the context of this review, a risk factor is defined as any factor investigated as being associated with gambling (including initiation, escalation, urge or intensity), either causally or otherwise. Where the evidence shows the link to be causal (rather than an association), this will be reported.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been developed using an adapted version of the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework, as set out in Table 1 .

It is expected that two types of study will be identified for inclusion: (i) those that focus on the gambling population and explore all risk factors and (ii) those that focus on a specific risk factor.

Additional inclusion criteria:

Language: English (other languages will not be included, due to the team’s inability to translate)

Publication date: 1 January 2005–4 September 2019. 2005 was selected as a cut-off as in this year the Government issued proposals to reform the law on gambling [i.e. the Gambling Act] and the Economic and Social Research Council/Responsibility in Gambling Trust provided £1 million of funding for research on problem gambling—significantly increasing capacity for research on this topic in England [ 19 ].

Publication type: peer reviewed and grey literature

Setting: reviews of studies which are based within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Where studies set in non-OECD countries are also included, more than half of included studies must be from OECD countries and inclusion/exclusion will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Search strategy

A comprehensive search will be undertaken using multiple methods to identify both published and grey literature. The search strategy was developed by a Senior Information Scientist in PHE and quality assured by a second Information Scientist.

Electronic searches

The following databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, Social Care Online, NICE Evidence and SocIndex via EBSCO. The number of papers retrieved from each database will be recorded. The full MEDLINE search is presented in Additional file 2 ; this will be adjusted for use in other databases. The search will look for terms in the title, abstract, author key words and thesaurus terms (such as MeSH Medical Subject Headings in MEDLINE) where available. The review filter will be used for all databases except for SocIndex (which does not have a validated one). For SocIndex, a set of search terms will be created in order to restrict the search to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Grey literature

Reports and other relevant literature that may not be published in databases will be sought by searching Google and websites such as those listed here (years 2005 to 2019). If a website provides a review summary, effort will be made to find the full study report.

Gamble Aware InfoHub

Gambling Commission

GambLib (Gambling Research Library)

National Problem Gambling Clinic

Gordon Moody Association

Gamblers Anonymous

Gambling Information Resource Office Research Library

Advisory Board for Safer Gambling

Gambling Watch UK

Australian Gambling Research Centre

Gambling Research Exchange Ontario

Citizens Advice Bureau

Be Gamble Aware

Problem Gambling, Wigan Council

Gambling Compliance

Child Family Community Australia

International Centre for Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviours

Gambling and Addictions Research Centre

Alberta Gambling Research Institute

Responsible Gambling Council

Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand

Gambling Commission New Zealand

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation

Handsearching

Reference lists of retrieved papers will be searched for additional relevant papers which fulfil the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In addition, if any umbrella reviews are identified, the reference lists will be scanned for inclusion.

Consultation with experts

Once a list of included studies is available, this will be shared with the project Expert Reference Group to check for additional studies. This group includes national and international topic experts.

Screening and selection procedure

A pilot screen will be undertaken whereby each reviewer will independently screen the same 100 randomly selected references/papers and indicate which should be included/excluded. Reviewers will obtain the full paper if this is needed for them to make their assessment. Any discrepancies indicate inconsistencies in understanding of the inclusion/exclusion criteria between reviewers, and this stage will allow these to be identified, discussed and resolved. If necessary, the inclusion/exclusion criteria will be modified, and the changes will be recorded in a decision log.

References will be divided between four reviewers. The title/abstract of every reference will be screened independently by two reviewers (‘review pairs’) according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and each reference will be coded as either ‘included’ or ‘excluded’. EPPI-Reviewer will be used to measure inter-rater agreement for all reviewer pairs; agreement of 90% or over will be considered acceptable. If the agreement is less than 90%, the reason will be explored and rectified and screening will be repeated, in line with the guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on title/abstract screening [ 20 ].

The full articles of the remaining references will be obtained. Full articles will be divided between reviewers and screened using inclusion/exclusion codes set up in advance by the Project Team. Ten percent of the papers screened by each reviewer will be reviewed independently by a second reviewer using the ‘parent’ codes: include and exclude (i.e. rather than specific exclusion codes such as ‘date’, ‘geography’, ‘study type’). A threshold of 80% agreement will be considered acceptable in line with criteria outlined in the AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool [ 21 ]. A decision on what steps should be taken if the agreement is less than 80% will be made by the Project Team should this situation arise.

Data extraction

Data extraction tables will be used to extract the relevant information from each study. These will include the following information: authors, date, country, the PICO-S elements and the relevant results. Authors will be contacted by the reviewers to ask for missing information or clarification where necessary, and where information is considered essential. Data extraction tables will be pilot tested before being used and signed off by the Expert Reference Group. All reviewers will extract the data from a set of eligible studies; 10% of all papers will be randomly selected and the data from these will be extracted independently by a second reviewer. Agreement between reviewers for data extraction will be checked to ensure this is acceptable (at least 80%). A decision on what steps should be taken if the agreement is less than 80% will be made by the Project Team should this situation arise. The Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus tool [ 22 ] will be used to extract data on the broad dimensions of inequality.

Quality assessment (risk of bias)

The quality of systematic reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR2 checklist [ 21 ]. Each paper will be independently assessed by two reviewers, and disagreements will be resolved through discussion. If required, a third person will be brought in to resolve ongoing disagreements.

Method of synthesis

Given the broad scope of this review, included studies are likely to be heterogeneous, and therefore, a narrative analysis will be conducted with text used to summarise and explain findings [ 23 ]. Studies will be summarised according to themes. An appraisal of the quality of the literature will be included. Differences by sub-group will be examined where this is reported in the literature to integrate a focus on equity, using the Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus tool [ 22 ]. The body of evidence will be assessed according to the four principles laid out in the CERQual approach which are (1) the methodological limitations of the studies which make up the evidence, (2) the relevance of findings to the review question, (3) the coherence of the findings and (4) the adequacy of data supporting the findings [ 24 ].

This rapid umbrella review will identify and examine the breadth of risk factors associated with gambling and problem gambling. The findings of this review will be utilised as part of a broader review of evidence conducted by Public Health England on gambling-related harms. A full report of this work will be shared and discussed with government departments and published on our government website GOV.UK. The results of this review will also be submitted for publication in a peer review journal.

Any deviations to the protocol considered necessary will be discussed by the Project Team prior to being implemented and documented in a decision log (stored in Excel) for later reporting.

A number of limitations are anticipated. The reliance on existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses is impacted by the quality of their methods and reporting—whilst we are assessing this, if the quality is poor, our ability to fully utilise their results will be limited. In addition, there may be a large number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if they are focused on different risk factors, the results may be difficult to synthesise.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews

Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Problem Gambling Severity Index

Public Health England

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols

South Oaks Gambling Screen

Gambling Commission. Young People & Gambling 2018. Gambling Commission: Birmingham; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Wardle H, Reith G, Langham E, Rogers RD. Gambling and public health: we need policy action to prevent harm. BMJ. 2019;365:l1807.

Article   Google Scholar  

Langham E, Thorne H, Browne M, Donaldson P, Rose J, Rockloff M. Understanding gambling related harm: a proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:80.

Wardle H, Reith G, Best D, McDaid D, Platt A. Measuring gambling-related harms: a framework for action. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science; 2018.

Calado F, Griffiths MD. Problem gambling worldwide: an update and systematic review of empirical research (2000-2015). J Behav Addict. 2016;5(4):592–613.

Gambling Commission. Gambling participation in 2018: behaviour, awareness and attitudes. Birmingham: Gambling Commission; 2019.

Conolly A, Davies B, Fuller E, Heinze N, Wardel H. Gambling behaviour in Great Britain in 2016. Evidence from England, Scotland and Wales. London: NatCen Social Research; 2018.

Offord DR, Kraemer HC. Risk factors and prevention. Evid Based Ment Health. 2000;3(3):70–71.

Dowling N, Suomi A, Jackson A, Lavis T, Patford J, Cockman S, et al. Problem gambling and intimate partner volence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(1):43–61.

McComb JL, Sabiston CM. Family influences on adolescent gambling behavior: a review of the literature. J Gambling Stud. 2010;26(4):503–20.

Johansson A, Grant JE, Kim SW, Odlaug BL, Götestam KG. Risk factors for problematic gambling: a critical literature review. J Gambling Stud. 2009;25(1):67–92.

Dowling NA, Merkouris SS, Greenwood CJ, Oldenhof E, Toumbourou JW, Youssef GJ. Early risk and protective factors for problem gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Clinical psychology review. 2017;51:109–24.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Public Health England. Gambling-related harms evidence review: scope 2020. Available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications/gambling-related-harms-evidence-review/gambling-related-harms-evidence-review-scope .

Beynon C, Pearce-Smith N, Clark R. Harms associated with gambling: abbreviated systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews. 2020;9(1):148.

Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2016;14(1):83.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

Welte JW, Barnes GM, Tidwell M-CO, Hoffman JH, Wieczorek WF. Gambling and problem gambling in the United States: changes between 1999 and 2013. Journal of gambling studies. 2015;31(3):695–715.

Economic and Social Research Council. Annual report and accounts, 2006-07. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council; 2007.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.

Shea B, Reeves B, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Br Med J. 2017;21:4008.

Cochrane Methods Group. PROGRESS-Plus 2019. 2019. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/projects/evidence-equity/progress-plus .

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowdon A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Lancaster University: Lancaster; 2006.

Cochrane Methods Group. CERQual: A new approach for supporting the use of qualitative evidence in decision making 2019. 2019. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/news/cerqual-new-approach-supporting-use-qualitative-evidence-decision-making .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following people who either supported the development of the methods or provided feedback on the protocol:

Jenny Mason, Mary Gatineau, Fionnuala O’Toole, Alyson Jones, Dr Robyn Burton, Marguerite Regan, Clive Henn, Dr Felix Greaves, and Professor John Marsden.

This review will be funded by Public Health England.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Public Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London, SE1 8UG, UK

Caryl Beynon, Nicola Pearce-Smith & Rachel Clark

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CB and RC developed the methods. NPS developed the search strategy. All participated in drafting the manuscript. RC will be the guarantor of the review. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Clark .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

PRISMA Checklist

Additional file 2.

MEDLINE search. Full search conducted in MEDLINE, enabling replication of review

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Beynon, C., Pearce-Smith, N. & Clark, R. Risk factors for gambling and problem gambling: a protocol for a rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Syst Rev 9 , 198 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01455-x

Download citation

Received : 23 January 2020

Accepted : 14 August 2020

Published : 27 August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01455-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Umbrella review
• Systematic review
• Problem gambling
• Risk factors
• Public health

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Attitudes, Risk Factors, and Behaviours of Gambling among Adolescents and Young People: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis

Affiliations.

• 1 College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia.
• 2 Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Social Work, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6000, Australia.
• PMID: 33499418
• PMCID: PMC7908209
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18030984

Gambling is occurring in a rapidly changing landscape, with new trends and technologies affecting gambling behaviour and problem gambling across a range of populations. Gambling activity among adolescents and young people has received considerable research attention due to a high prevalence of gambling reported among these groups in recent years. Despite legislation worldwide to constrain gambling among adolescents and young people, modern technology, such as online gaming apps and online gambling venues, has significantly increased their exposure to the risks of problem gambling. It is important, therefore, to have up to date information about what is currently known about gambling and to explore gaps in our knowledge. This gap analysis presents the results of a systematic approach to reviewing the current literature on gambling behaviour, attitudes, and associated risk factors for gambling and problem gambling among adolescents and young adults (aged 10-25 years). The review included studies published between January 2015 and August 2020 and included 85 studies for final synthesis. Findings reveal further research is needed on the implications for young people of emerging technologies and new trends in gambling in the digital age. The current gap analysis reveals that this should include more research on the development and impact of both treatment and intervention strategies, and policy and regulatory frameworks from a public health perspective.

Keywords: adolescent; gambling; problem gambling; review; youth.

Publication types

• Gambling* / epidemiology
• Public Health
• Risk Factors
• Young Adult

Risk Perception in Gambling: A Systematic Review

• Review Paper
• Published: 19 March 2013
• Volume 30 , pages 253–276, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• Michael Spurrier 1 &
• Alexander Blaszczynski 1  

3729 Accesses

51 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Perception of the consequences of risk affects motivation and behaviour. In gambling, distorted expectations and preferences towards outcomes are associated with significant social and clinical harms. A systematic review was conducted to examine the relationship between gambling risk perception and behaviour. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria. Studies provided evidence that disordered gamblers hold both more optimistic overall perceptions of risk, and a mixture of more positive and more negative specific outcome expectations. Preliminary evidence suggests a range of contextual and individual differences moderate risk perception affecting decision-making. Disordered gamblers appear to sustain motivation to gamble, despite more negative expectations and experiences, via cognitive processes that result in preferential emphasis on positive over negative outcomes. Given potential differences in the perception of risk between various categories of gamblers, clinicians should take into account how gamblers in treatment view gambling as a risky behaviour. Improving the accuracy of such perceptions may reduce the propensity for risk-taking behaviours.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

An expert map of gambling risk perception.

Michael Spurrier, Alexander Blaszczynski & Paul Rhodes

Not Too Much, Not Too Often, and Not Too Many: the Results of the First Large-Scale, International Project to Develop Lower-Risk Gambling Guidelines

Matthew M. Young, David C. Hodgins, … Louise Nadeau

Perception of Gamblers: A Systematic Review

Andrea Wöhr & Marius Wuketich

Aarons, G. A., Brown, S. A., Stice, E., & Coe, M. T. (2001). Psychometric evaluation of the Marijuana and Stimulant Effect Expectancy Questionnaires for adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 26 (2), 219–236.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82 (4), 463–496.

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health, 26 (9), 1113–1127.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (1), 142–161.

Anderson, A., Sisask, M., & Varnik, A. (2011). Familicide and suicide in a case of gambling dependence. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 22 (1), 156–168.

Google Scholar  

Auslander, B. A. (1999). An exploratory study investigating variables in relation to juvenile sexual reoffending . Auslander: The Florida State University.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–1182.

Baudinet, J., & Blaszczynski, A. (2012). Arousal and gambling mode preference: A review of the literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8 (8). doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9304-2 .

Binde, P. (2009). Gambling motivation and involvement: a review of social science research . Ostersund: Swedish National Institute of Public Health.

Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97 (5), 487–499.

Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, S. (2006). Risk and the subjectivity of preference. Journal of Risk Research, 9 (3), 225–242.

Clarke, D., Tse, S., Abbott, M. W., Townsend, S., Kingi, P., & Manaia, W. (2007). Reasons for starting and continuing gambling in a mixed ethnic community sample of pathological and non-problem gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 7 (3), 299–313.

Cooper, J. (2012). Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol 1) . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.

Cotte, J. (1997). Chances, trances and lots of slots: Gambling motives and consumption experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (4), 380–406.

Crockford, D. N., & el-Guebaly, N. (1998). Psychiatric comorbidity in pathological gambling: A critical review. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43 (1), 43–50.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Dean, D. H. (2011). A path model of perceived financial risk in casino blackjack. Young Consumers, 12 (1), 15–26.

Delfabbro, P. (2004). The stubborn logic of regular gamblers: Obstacles and dilemmas in cognitive gambling research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20 (1), 1–21.

Delfabbro, P., & Thrupp, L. (2003). The social determinants of youth gambling in South Australian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 26 (3), 313–330.

Delfabbro, P., Lahn, J., & Grabosky, P. (2006). It’s not what you know, but how you use it: Statistical knowledge and adolescent problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22 (2), 179–193.

Delfabbro, P., Lambos, C., King, D., & Puglies, S. (2009). Knowledge and beliefs about gambling in Australian secondary school students and their implications for education strategies. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25 (4), 523–539.

Derevensky, J., Sklar, A., Gupta, R., & Messerlian, C. (2010). An empirical study examining the impact of gambling advertisements on adolescent gambling attitudes and behaviors. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8 (1), 21–34.

Dhillon, J., Horch, J. D., & Hodgins, D. C. (2011). Cultural influences on stigmatization of problem gambling: East Asian and Caucasian Canadians. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27 (4), 633–647.

Fisher, S. (2000). Developing the DSM IV criteria to identify adolescent problem gambling in non-clinical populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16 (2), 253–273.

Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 286–299.

Fortune, E. E., & Goodie, A. S. (2011). Cognitive distortions as a component and treatment focus of pathological gambling: A review. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26 (2), 298–310.

Freidenberg, B. M., Blanchard, E. B., Wulfert, E., & Malta, L. S. (2002). Changes in physiological arousal to gambling cues among participants in motivationally enhanced cognitive-behavior therapy for pathological gambling: A preliminary study. Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback, 27 (4), 251–260.

Gawin, F. (1991). Cocaine addiction: Psychology and neurophysiology. Science, 251 (5001), 1580–1586.

Gillespie, M. A., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2007a). I. Adolescent problem gambling: Developing a gambling expectancy instrument. Journal of Gambling Issues, 19 , 51–68.

Gillespie, M. A., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2007b). II. The utility of outcome expectancies in the prediction of adolescent gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Issues, 19 , 69–86.

Gilovich, T. (1983). Biased evaluation and persistence in gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (6), 1110–1126.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goldberg, J., & Fischhoff, B. (2000). The long-term risks in the short-term benefits: Perceptions of potentially addictive activities. Health Psychology, 19 (3), 299–303.

Goldberg, J., Halpern-Felsher, B., & Millstein, S. (2002). Beyond invulnerability: The importance of benefits in adolescents’ decision to drink alcohol. Health Psychology, 21 (5), 477–484.

Goldstein, R. Z., Craig, A., Bechara, A., Garavan, H., Childress, A. R., Paulus, M. P., et al. (2009). The neurocircuitry of impaired insight in drug addiction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (9), 372–380.

PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Goudriaan, A. E., Oosterlaan, J., de Beurs, E., & Van den Brink, W. (2004). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review of biobehavioral findings. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28 (2), 123–141.

Grant, J. E., Brewer, J. A., & Potenza, M. N. (2006). The neurobiology of substance and behavioral addictions. CNS Spectrums, 11 (12), 924–930.

Hall, H. V., & Poirier, J. G. (2001). Detecting malingering and deception: Forensic distortion analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press; US.

Hing, N., & Breen, H. (2008). Risk and protective factors relating to gambling by employees of gaming venues. International Gambling Studies, 8 (1), 1–23.

Hing, N., Breen, H., & Gordon, A. (2012). A case study of gambling involvement and its consequences. Leisure Sciences, 34 (3), 217–235.

Howard, M., McMillen, C., Nower, L., Elze, D., Edmond, T., & Bricout, J. (2002). Denial in addiction: Towards an integrated stage and process model–Qualitative findings. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 34 (4), 371–382.

Inglin, S., & Gmel, G. (2011). Beliefs about and attitudes toward gambling in French-speaking Switzerland. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27 (2), 299–316.

Jacobsen, L. H., Knudsen, A. K., Krogh, E., Pallesen, S., & Molde, H. (2007). An overview of cognitive mechanisms in pathological gambling. Nordic Psychology, 59 (4), 347–361.

James, W. H., Lonczak, H. S., & Moore, D. D. (1996). The role of denial and defensiveness in drug use among adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 5 (2), 17–42.

Jarcho, J. M., Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2011). The neural basis of rationalization: Cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6 (4), 460–467.

Jessor, R. (1998). New perspectives on adolescent risk behavior . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johansson, A., Grant, J. E., Kim, S. W., Odlaug, B. L., & Gotestam, K. (2009). Risk factors for problematic gambling: A critical literature review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25 (1), 67–92.

Jones, B. T., Corbin, W., & Fromme, K. (2001). A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction, 96 (1), 57–72.

Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20 (2), 171–180.

Kim, W. (2012). Acculturation and gambling in Asian Americans: When culture meets availability. International Gambling Studies, 12 (1), 69–88.

Kuentzel, J. G., Henderson, M. J., & Melville, C. L. (2008). The impact of social desirability biases on self-report among college student and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24 (3), 307–319.

Lambos, C., & Delfabbro, P. (2007). Numerical reasoning ability and irrational beliefs in problem gambling. International Gambling Studies, 7 (2), 157–171.

Lee, H. P., Chae, P. K., Lee, H. S., & Kim, Y. K. (2007). The five-factor gambling motivation model. Psychiatry Research, 150 (1), 21–32.

Leigh, B. C. (1999). Peril, chance, adventure: Concepts of risk, alcohol use and risky behavior in young adults. Addiction, 94 (3), 371–383.

Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen: a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144 (9), 1184–1188.

Li, S., Zhou, K., Sun, Y., Rao, L. L., Zheng, R., & Liang, Z. Y. (2010). Anticipated regret, risk perception, or both: Which is most likely responsible for our intention to gamble? Journal of Gambling Studies, 26 (1), 105–116.

Lipkus, I. M., Eissenberg, T., Schwartz-Bloom, R. D., Prokhorov, A. V., & Levy, J. (2011). Affecting perceptions of harm and addiction among college waterpipe tobacco smokers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 13 (7), 599–610.

Luengo, A. F. A., Encinas, F. J. L., Herranz, G. R., Gonzalez, B. R., Sastron, O. F., & Mendoza, M. G. (2000). Analysis of thought verbalizaiton in pathological gamblers while playing slot machines: Descriptive study. Psicothema, 12 (4), 654–660.

Magura, S., & Kang, S.-Y. (1996). Validity of self-reported drug use in high risk populations: A meta-analytical review. Substance Use and Misuse, 31 (9), 1131–1153.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224–253.

Milosevic, A., & Ledgerwood, D. M. (2010). The subtyping of pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30 (8), 988–998.

Mishra, S., Lalumiere, M. L., & Williams, R. J. (2010). Gambling as a form of risk-taking: Individual differences in personality, risk-accepting attitudes, and behavioral preferences for risk. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (6), 616–621.

Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (6), 949–971.

Myrseth, H., Brunborg, G. S., & Eidem, M. (2010). Differences in cognitive distortions between pathological and non-pathological gamblers with preferences for chance or skill games. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26 (4), 561–569.

Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Gambling motivations, money-limiting strategies, and precommitment preferences of problem versus non-problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26 (3), 361–372.

Nussbaum, D., Honarmand, K., Govoni, R., Kalahani-Bargis, M., Bass, S., Ni, X., et al. (2011). An eight component decision-making model for problem gambling: A systems approach to stimulate integrative research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27 (4), 523–563.

Oei, T. P., & Jardim, C. L. (2007). Alcohol expectancies, drinking refusal self-efficacy and drinking behaviour in Asian and Australian students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 87 (2–3), 281–287.

Orford, J., Griffiths, M., Wardle, H., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2009). Negative public attitudes towards gambling: Findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey using a new attitude scale. International Gambling Studies, 9 (1), 39–54.

Peretti-Watel, P. (2003). Neutralization theory and the denial of risk: Some evidence from cannabis use among French adolescents. British Journal of Sociology, 54 (1), 21–42.

Potenza, M. N., Steinberg, M. A., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R. K., Lacadie, C. M., Wilber, M. K., et al. (2003). Gambling urges in pathological gambling. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60 (8), 828–836.

Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling . Melbourne: Media and Publications.

Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22 (7), 1009–1061.

Rebelo, F. R. (1999). Denial level and coping style in a substance abuse treatment population . Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.

Redish, A., Jensen, S., & Johnson, A. (2008). A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31 (4), 415–437.

Rinn, W., Desai, N., Rosenblatt, H., & Gastfriend, D. R. (2002). Addiction denial and cognitive dysfunction: A preliminary investigation. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 14 (1), 52–57.

Rockloff, M. J., & Dyer, V. (2006). The Four Es of problem gambling: A psychological measure of risk. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22 (1), 101–120.

Rockloff, M. J., Signal, T., & Dyer, V. (2007). Full of sound and fury, signifying something: The impact of autonomic arousal on EGM gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23 (4), 457–465.

Rosecrance, J. D. (1985). The degenerates of Lake Tahoe: A study of persistence in the social world of horse race gambling . Santa Barbara: University of California Santa Barbara.

Rosenthal, R. J. (1986). The pathological gambler’s system for self-deception. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2 (2), 108–120.

Sharpe, L. (2002). A reformulated cognitive-behavioral model of problem gambling: A biopsychosocial perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 22 (1), 1–25.

Sharpe, L. (2008). Understanding pathological gambling: Distinct pathways or individual formulations? In M. J. Esposito (Ed.), Psychology of gambling (pp. 147–162). Hauppauge: Nova Biomedical Books.

Shead, N., Callan, M. J., & Hodgins, D. C. (2008). Probability discounting among gamblers: Differences across problem gambling severity and affect-regulation expectancies. Personality and Individual Differences, 45 (6), 536–541.

Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25 (1), 211–222.

Skog, O. J. (2000). Addicts’ choice. Addiction, 95 (9), 1309–1314.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10 (4), 281–285.

Slutske, W. S. (2010). Why is natural recovery so common for addictive disorders? Addiction, 105 (9), 1520–1521.

Smith, G. T., Goldman, M. S., Greenbaum, P. E., & Christiansen, B. A. (1995). Expectancy for social facilitation from drinking: The divergent paths of high-expectancy and low-expectancy adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104 (1), 32–40.

Sobell, L. C., Klingemann, H. K., Toneatto, T., Sobell, M. B., Agrawal, S., & Leo, G. I. (2001). Alcohol and drug abusers’ perceived reasons for self-change in Canada and Switzerland: Computer-assisted content analysis. Substance Use and Misuse, 36 (11), 1467–1500.

Stacy, A. W., Widaman, K. F., & Marlatt, G. (1990). Expectancy models of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (5), 918–928.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (4), 672–695.

Tao, V. Y. K., Wu, A. M. S., Cheung, S. F., & Tong, K. K. (2011). Development of an indigenous inventory GMAB (Gambling Motives, Attitudes and Behaviors) for Chinese gamblers: An exploratory study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27 (1), 99–113.

Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance Use and Misuse, 34 (11), 1593–1604.

Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, A. (1997). Cognitive distortions in heavy gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13 (3), 253–266.

Toplak, M. E., Liu, E., Macpherson, R., Toneatto, T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). The reasoning skills and thinking dispositions of problem gamblers: A dual-process taxonomy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20 (2), 103–124.

Walker, M. B. (2005). Problems in measuring the effectiveness of cognitive therapy for pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21 (1), 79–92.

Wardle, H., Griffiths, M. D., Orford, J., Moody, A., & Volberg, R. (2012). Gambling in Britain: a time of change? Health implications from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10 (2), 273–277.

Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15 (4), 263–290.

Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10 (5), 481–500.

Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33 (1), 1–10.

Wickwire, E. M., Whelan, J. P., West, R., Meyers, A., McCausland, C., & Luellen, J. (2007). Perceived availability, risks, and benefits of gambling among college students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23 (4), 395–408.

Wickwire, E. M., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (2010). Outcome expectancies and gambling behavior among urban adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24 (1), 75–88.

Wohl, M. J. A. (2008). Belief in a lucky self: The role of personal luck in the facilitation and maintenance of gambling behavior. Psychologie Francaise, 53 (1), 7–23.

Wong, S., & Tsang, S. (2012). Development and validation of the Chinese adolescent gambling expectancy scale. International Gambling Studies, 12 (3), 309–329.

Wood, W. S., & Clapham, M. M. (2005). Development of the drake beliefs about chance inventory. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21 (4), 411–430.

Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an escape-based coping strategy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 80 (1), 107–125.

Yi, S., & Kanetkar, V. (2010). Implicit measures of attitudes toward gambling: An exploratory study. Journal of Gambling Issues, 24 , 140–163.

Yi, S., & Kanetkar, V. (2011). Coping with guilt and shame after gambling loss. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27 (3), 371–387.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology (A18), The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

Michael Spurrier & Alexander Blaszczynski

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Blaszczynski .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Spurrier, M., Blaszczynski, A. Risk Perception in Gambling: A Systematic Review. J Gambl Stud 30 , 253–276 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-013-9371-z

Download citation

Published : 19 March 2013

Issue Date : June 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-013-9371-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Pathological Gambling
• Risk perception
• Decision making
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research