The Brief Addiction Science Information Source (BASIS)

The WAGER Vol. 5(50) - Gambling and The Golden Years

Many Americans socialized during the Depression were unwilling to engage in gambling since they lacked the monetary means and feared the negative stigma once culturally associated with all forms of betting. Times have changed, however, as the youth of yesteryear’s Depression have become the seniors of today’s economic boom. Indeed, many seniors (i.e., aged sixty-five and older) have embraced gambling as a form of entertainment. These seniors use both disposable income and retirement time to gamble. However, some seniors have not fully embraced gambling. Research conducted by McNeilly and Burke (2000) shows the dissimilar profiles of these two groups.

McNeilly and Burke (2000) divided senior research respondents (n=315) into two groups: the first consisted of community-dwelling seniors with active participation in bingo parlors and day bus trips to casinos (n=91); the second consisted of community-dwelling seniors not actively involved in gambling at the time they agreed to participate in the research (n=224). Characteristics of the two groups were shown to be quite different: the active gamblers (i.e., those with active participation in bingo parlors and casino bus trips) were more likely than their non-active counterparts to currently smoke (14.8% vs. 3.8%), drive a car (88.9% vs. 57.8%), eat fewer than two meals a day (15.6% vs. 3.4%) and do volunteer work on an occasional basis (40% vs. 20%). In contrast, the group of non-active gamblers were more likely to spend time reading books several times per week when compared with the active gamblers sampled (57.1% vs. 42.2%) (McNeilly & Burke, 2000).

McNeilly and Burke (2000) conducted additional comparisons using the South Oaks Gambling Screen-Revised (SOGS-R). The researchers discovered that active senior gamblers participate with greater frequency in other gambling activities than currently non-gambling seniors. For instance, on a “less than once per week” basis, the active senior gamblers gambled in casinos (63.6%), on card playing (24.7%), on dice games (8.1%), on bingo (14.9%) and on the lottery (26.7%) more frequently than the non-active senior gamblers. Moreover, active senior gamblers were found more likely than their counterparts to gamble on a “once a week or more basis” in casinos (23.9%), playing bingo (41.4%), and playing the lottery (17.4%) (McNeilly & Burke, 2000). Interestingly, McNeilly and Burke (2000) also discovered that the non-active gambling group of seniors reported gambling on card playing with greater frequency on a “once a week or more” basis than the active senior gambling group. Table 1 presents the differing responses to SOGS-R questions related to type and frequency of gambling activities between active and non-active senior gamblers in some, but not all, of the gambling activities examined by McNeilly and Burke (2000).

While the research conducted by McNeilly and Burke (2000) contributes to an otherwise limited body of knowledge about senior gamblers and their gambling, this work is problematic. For instance, the sample group of active senior gamblers consists of those who currently are involved in bingo parlor and casino day trip activities. As such, and as Table 1 so reveals, it seems obvious that this group would play bingo for money and gamble at a casino more than the non-active gambling group on both a “less than once a week” and “once per week or more” basis. More importantly, however, what still remains undetermined is whether active and continued engagement in bingo and casino gambling activities of the active senior gambling group is out of interest alone, or the problematic need to participate in gambling activities caused by active and continued participation in the bingo and casino gambling activities. Additionally, despite the fact that the non-active gambling group at the time of the study was not currently engaged in gambling activities, it remains unclear whether and to what extent this group’s past gambling experience has effected their current SOGS-R response scores.

Indeed, if a participant in the non-active gambling group was not currently gambling at the time of the study but did actively gamble beforehand, are the differences in gambling frequency per gambling activity between active and non-active gambling seniors shown in Table 1 reflecting the participants surveyed or the current status of the participants’ gambling behavior at the time of the study? This discrepancy is not clearly addressed in the research. Despite these limitations, the work of McNeilly and Burke (2000) remains a significant contribution to the study of elderly gambling.

Their profile of both active and non-active senior gamblers might be the first step in identifying problem and pathological gambling among elderly populations. Moreover, their data inspire topics for future research, including the reasons why non-active gambling seniors gamble on card playing with greater frequency on a “once a week or more” basis than the active senior gamblers. Globally, the research conducted by McNeilly and Burke (2000) indicates that the study of elderly gambling requires more attention in order to address not only the potential harms gambling can cause the elderly, but to evaluate effective means of treatment designed solely with elderly issues in mind in preparation for the array of gambling issues this population might one day present.

References

McNeilly, D. P., & Burke, W. J. (2000). Late life gambling: The attitudes and behaviors of older adults. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(4), 393-415.

The WAGER Vol. 5(49) - They Don't Eat Quiche, But They Like Dogfighting

Research suggests that in the southern region of the United States men widely subscribe to a traditional gender role that emphasizes masculinity in terms of aggressiveness, competitiveness and strength (Hurlbert & Bankston, 1998; O'Neil, 1982; Hantover, 1978). A study conducted by Evans, Gauthier and Forsyth (1998) argues that this masculinity is often associated with dogfighting, a highly competitive gambling sport illegal in all fifty states. More fittingly, within the context of gambling disorders, this research points to the importance that studies of cultural influence might play in helping to explain the emergence and maintenance of problem and pathological gambling.

Data collected in Louisiana and Mississippi from interviews conducted with men who fight dogs for sport (n=31) as well as ethnographic observations from fourteen dog fights and pre-fight meetings indicate that dogs employed for dogfighting are the means by which some of their owners develop, express and validate their masculinity (Evans et al., 1998). Indeed, through their dog's fighting prowess, dogfighters attain status as true dogmen. Specifically, the rules of dogfighting dictate dogs that show "gameness," or, as dogmen consider it, "an awesome persistence that flows from an invincible will" (Jones, 1988, p. 249), reflect positively on their owner. Dogmen consider that dogs with gameness express masculine characteristics in the fight (i.e., aggressiveness, competitiveness, and strength). These characteristics, in turn, are ascribed to their owner, bringing him status and prestige within the dogfighting subculture (Evans et al., 1998).

If, however, a dog shows signs of cowardice (i.e., a low threshold for pain and an inclination to quit the fight), the animal is dubbed a "cur." Dogmen perceive cur dogs as humiliating for men who own them. As a result, curs are killed. In a sport that symbolizes masculinity, according to Evans et al. (1998), there is no place for cowards. Table 1 illustrates statements from dogmen that support the conclusions of Evans and her associates.

While the research conducted by Evans et. al. (1998) is arguably sociologically significant, it does not address what might be a cultural and causal relationship between dogfighting, masculinity, and gambling among betting spectators1. Indeed, there is arguably a culture of masculinity that influences both the dog fighting and gambling that accompanies it. Theoretically, this culture of masculinity seeks to distribute masculine honor and status more than monetary gain. It creates an environment within which bettors consider winning money as important, but solidarity and respect from peers is paramount.
Like dogmen, betting spectators are usually men who have previously or soon will fight dogs in competition (Evans et al., 1998). Within dog fighting subcultures, bettors are likely to wager based upon their perception of a dog's representation of traditional masculine traits rather than on logical and educated deductions regarding the dog's chances to actually win the dogfight. Indeed, a gambling spectator who wrongly bets on a "cur" dog might be perceived as less of a man-similar to the cur's owner-since the betting spectator failed to recognize the dog's weaknesses, perhaps indicating to others within the close-knit dogfighting subculture the bettor's lack of masculine traits.

On the contrary, a spectator who bets on a dog with "gameness" is perceived as masculine (similar to the dog's owner). If a dog exhibits aggressiveness, competitiveness, strength and the will to never quit, but is defeated in the fight, some gamblers might lose money, but none will lose respect for their masculinity.

Although the causal associations between dogfighting, masculinity and gambling are still hypothetical, this area of research reflects important considerations with regard to the influence that gambling behavior within dogfighting subcultures has on those who participate in such activities. In addition, this research can clarify to what extent a connection between dogfighting, masculinity, and gambling exists and the comparative strength of this connection in dogfighting cultures throughout the United States.

The considerations raised by studies of cultural influence on gambling are vitally important to understanding the very nature of disordered gambling. For example, if less emphasis is placed on winning money and more on picking a masculine dog, win or lose, can habitual dogfighting-only gamblers still develop into problem or pathological gamblers? Moreover, if those who gamble on dogfights also gamble at other gaming venues like casinos and horse tracks, to what extent does their desire to meet traditional and culturally predetermined masculine ideals influence the extent of their gambling? Future research on gambling needs to address these questions since an improved understanding of these influences might reveal the very nature of gambling disorders.

[1] The reader should note that this is not a criticism of Evans et al. (2000), as the examination of this possible relationship was never identified as part of the study's original research hypotheses.

References

Evans, R., Gauthier, D.K., and Forsyth, C.J. (1998). Dogfighting: Symbolic expression and validation of masculinity. Sex Roles, 39(11/12), 825-838.

Hantover, J. P. (1978). The Boy Scouts and the validation of masculinity. Sociological Issues, 34, 184-195.

Hurlbert, J. S. and Bankston, W.B. (1998). Cultural Distinctiveness in the Face of Structural Transformation: The "New" Old South. In D. R. Hurt (Ed.), Social Change in the Rural South: 1945-1995. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Jones, M. (1988). The Dogs of Capitalism Book I: Origins. Cedar Park, TX: 21st Century Logic.

O'Neil, J. M. (1982). Gender role conflict and strain in men's lives. In K. S. N. B. Levy (Ed.), Men in Transition: Theory and Therapy. New York: Plenum Press.

Op-Ed/Editorials - Governments Join War Against Card Counters

Professor I. Nelson Rose
Whittier Law School
Costa Mesa, CA.

Law-makers around the world are beginning to agree with casino executives that drastic measures are needed to prevent skillful players from beating the game of blackjack.

State legislatures, casino regulators, attorneys general and judges have let casinos impose special rules against card-counters which would have been unthinkable as recently as ten years ago.
Examples can be found virtually everywhere blackjack is played for money.

A case gaining worldwide attention has been pending in Australia for more than a year. On May 4, 1999 Andrew Scott "lodged a submission (in America we would say "filed a petition") with the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority (AVCGA)."

Casinos in the U.S. often prohibit skilled blackjack players completely. The Crown Casino in Melbourne did something slightly different to Scott. It put him on its "restricted players" list.
"Restricted" is an accurate description of how Scott was treated. He was not barred. But he could only bet $25 (US$14) a hand, no more, no less.

For a card counter, especially one whose opening bet was normally $100 (US$59), being restricted to relatively low flat bets was the same as being thrown out the door.
Just to make sure Scott got the message, the casino took other counter-measures, such as shuffling after only half a deck had been dealt.

There is no doubt that everything the Crown Casino did to Scott was perfectly legal. State casino regulators in Victoria, like their counterparts in New Jersey and other jurisdictions, had expressly given casinos permission to foil skillful players. VCGA Blackjack Rule 5.12 reads, AA gaming shift manager may limit a player to the minimum wager displayed on the sign at a blackjack table. Blackjack Rule 4.5 allows the dealer to put the cut card in the middle of a deck or multi-deck shoe.

Understanding the value of publicity, both to his case and his business (Scott teaches card counting for $1,500 (US$880) for a weekend), he publicly challenged Crown chief executive, Lloyd Williams, to a $100,000 (US$59,000) game.

A series of hearings have been held on Scott's petitions, the most recent was scheduled for April 2000, for the VCGA agreed to "hold an enquiry into the rules and conduct of blackjack games."

Scott complained of discrimination, of being treated differently from other players, which, of course, he was. Many players, and even casino executives, might think it was unfair. But, neither life nor the law requires that everything be "fair."

Scott's solicitors, from the leading law firm of Slater & Gordon, had to find a specific law that was being violated. Because the casino was acting under rules formally adopted by its regulator, Scott's lawyers had to attack the rules themselves. The best was to have a rule thrown out is to show that it violates a higher law.

In this case, Scott's solicitors are arguing that the Blackjack Rules violate the Casino Control Act of 1991. A regulator's rules are improper if they conflict with a law passed by a state legislature.
This Act, like all gaming laws, says it is designed to ensure "gaming in the casinos is conducted honestly." The argument is that being deprived of the right to play blackjack under the same rules as everyone else in the casino is not honest.

I am writing this before the VCGA issues its ruling. But my guess is that the regulator will determine that there is nothing dishonest in discriminating against card counters.

Casino lawyers know what arguments work. The issue of whether the game is dishonest is handled easily enough. The casino is not cheating and it is not telling any lies.

A player may talk about fairness. But casino games are not designed to offer equal odds to both sides of the tables, let alone to give players an advantage over the house.

Then the casino lawyers will show why rules allowing anti-counter measures are necessary. Economists and other experts can demonstrate through computer simulations that card counters can bankrupt a casino.

If what the experts say is true, regulators who allows unfettered card counting will be regulating themselves out of their jobs, and regulating the industry they are sworn to protect out of existence. Most importantly, government regulators operate in a small world. They spend much of their work and leisure time talking to representatives of the industry, and almost never to regular gamblers. Casino executives, lawyers and lobbyists tell horror stories about all the damage that card counters, particularly counting teams, can do to a casino.

Players are not organized. So, there is no one to tell the regulators the other side of the story.
Scott might win - he has vowed to spend up to $200,000 ($US118,000) - fighting his case. But a victory here would not set any precedent.

Few players are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the right to count cards.

The WAGER Vol. 5(48) - The Third-Person Effect

With the holiday season in full tilt, so too is the traveling season. This year as the holiday drive wears on, look carefully at the billboard advertisements you are passing and consider their impact on you and your passengers.

Research conducted by Youn, Faber and Shah (2000) examined a model of mass communication called the Third-Person Effect and its possible connection to gambling advertising. In particular, they studied pro-censorship attitudes toward gambling. The Third-Person Effect contends that people perceive the power of a media message as having less effect on themselves and greater impact on others (Davison, 1983). In addition, the theory argues that this effect discrepancy between self and others might lead those not affected by media messages to support speech censorship (Gunther 1995; McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997; Rojas, Shah, & Faber, 1996).

In applying the Third-Person Effect to gambling, Youn et al. hypothesized that some adults (i.e., 18 years of age and older) believe they are unaffected by advertising campaigns for casinos and lotteries while simultaneously believing that this same advertising has an adverse effect on other adults.[1] As such, those contending they are unaffected might support censorship of gambling advertising (Youn et al., 2000).

To test these hypotheses, Youn et al. conducted a survey in a large midwestern city where both casino and lottery gambling are legal. Investigators interviewed adult respondents (n=194) to determine both their casino and lottery gambling behavior. In addition, participants completed a self-administered questionnaire with a 5 point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” that rated casino and lottery gambling advertising’s power over themselves and other adults. The survey included the same Likert-type scale to determine censorship attitudes derived from two questions: one concerning attitude toward restricting advertising, and the other addressing attitude toward a complete ban on advertising.

Youn et al. (2000) found that the study participants were ordinary gamblers, defined as those whose median casino and lottery gambling was 3.0 and 2.0 times per month respectively. Moreover, the results of paired t tests on these means revealed a statistically significant relationship between the Third-Person perception and both casino and lottery advertising. Table 1 indicates that people perceive the power of media messages about casino and lottery gambling as having less effect on themselves and greater impact on others.

With regard to the Third-Person Effect and its hypothesized connection to advertising censorship, Youn et al. (2000) found that, for both casino and lottery advertising, the perceived effects of gambling advertisements on other adults seemingly predicted people’s desire to censor these adds (b=0.30, p <.001 for casinos; b=0.23, p<.001 for lotteries).

While these findings are statistically significant, the impact of this research remains limited. For example, the research fails to address potentially important differences in advertising power among various forms of advertising (e.g., radio, television, and billboards). In terms of casino and lottery gambling, the prevalence of the Third-Person Effect arguably might be more powerful for television advertising compared with billboard advertising. In addition, the sample population of “ordinary gamblers” might not be representative of the rest of the population. Indeed, the Third-Person Effect’s influence over non and compulsive gamblers remains unclear. Finally, the study’s results might reflect only the attitudes of the particular Midwestern city within which the research was conducted. It is likely that there are important regional differences regarding the influence and prevalence of casino and lottery advertisements throughout the United States.

Despite these concerns, Youn et al. (2000) provide an important foundation upon which future scientists and public policy makers can build a better understanding of the influence of gambling advertisements and censorship. Future research in this area needs to focus specifically on the relationship between the Third-Person Effect and both problem and pathological gamblers.

[1] The reader should note that Youn et al. (2000) also examined the relationship  between the Third-Person Effect, gambling, and children. For the purposes of this WAGER, however, only data on the Third-Person Effect, gambling, and adults is presented.

References

Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.

Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 70(1), 27-38.

McLeod, D. M. E., W.P. Jr., Nathonson, A.I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24(2), 153-174.

Rojas, H. S., D.V.; Faber, R.J. (1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163-185.

Youn, S. F., R.J.; Shah, D.V. (2000). Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person effect. Psychology and Marketing, 17(7), 633-649.