The Gambling Consumption Mediation Model (GCMM): A Multiple Mediation Approach to Estimate the Association of Particular Game Types with Problem Gambling

Overview

Journal J Gambl Stud

Date 2020 Jan 23

PMID 31965383

Citations 8

Authors

Tim Brosowski

Daniel Thor Olason

Tobias Turowski

Tobias Hayer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Bivariate associations of problem gambling with participation in particular game types often decrease when adjusting for demographics or consumption behavior (e.g., number of game types played). A summary of 14 peer-reviewed studies showed inconsistencies as well as conceptual and methodological challenges. The aim of this study was to expand previous research by a combination of (1) sophisticated feature-engineering, which disaggregates gambling intensity into facets within and beyond a game type of interest, and (2) the application of mediation models. Data comprised last year gamblers of three merged cross sectional Icelandic gambling surveys of 2007, 2011, and 2017 (N = 4422). For each of 15 game types (12-month time frame), a parallel multiple mediation model was applied to disaggregate bivariate associations of last year game type participation and problem gambling (Problem Gambling Severity Index) by six mediating mechanisms: (1) demographic problem gambling propensity, (2) number of game types played, (3) gambling frequency within the type, (4) maximum gambling frequency across all types beyond, (5) usual spending within the type, (6) maximum usual spending across all types beyond. Games showed two distinct profiles via which mediator they mostly impacted problem gambling: Electronic gaming machines offline, scratch cards offline, live betting online, and poker offline as well as online impacted problem gambling mostly via gambling frequency within, whereas all other types mostly impacted via the number of game types played. The applied mediation models answer the question by which mechanism game types impact problem gambling in a more exhaustive way than previous research.

Citing Articles

Colliding harms of gambling and gaming: A four-wave longitudinal population study of at-risk gambling and gaming in Finland.

Oksanen A, Vuorinen I, Hagfors H, Soares Mantere E, Savolainen I Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2024; 41(5):474-490.

PMID: 39430791 PMC: 11489959. DOI: 10.1177/14550725241253336.

Do breaks in online gambling affect neuropsychological arousal? Conceptual approach and lessons learned from the TESSA-pilot trial.

Schwarzkopf L, Bickl A, Daniel J, Papastefanou G, Neyer M, Gomes de Matos E Addict Behav Rep. 2024; 19:100530.

PMID: 38327759 PMC: 10848032. DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100530.

Development of the Online Problem Gaming Behavior Index: A New Scale Based on Actual Problem Gambling Behavior Rather Than the Consequences of it.

Auer M, Ricijas N, Kranzelic V, Griffiths M Eval Health Prof. 2023; 47(1):81-92.

PMID: 37243668 PMC: 10858630. DOI: 10.1177/01632787231179460.

Unambiguous evidence that over half of gambling problems in Australia are caused by electronic gambling machines: Results from a large-scale composite population study.

Browne M, Delfabbro P, Thorne H, Tulloch C, Rockloff M, Hing N J Behav Addict. 2023; 12(1):182-193.

PMID: 36729109 PMC: 10260219. DOI: 10.1556/2006.2022.00083.

Questions of value, questions of magnitude: An exploration and application of methods for comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.

Coutts J, Hayes A Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(7):3772-3785.

PMID: 36253595 DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01988-0.

References

Room R . Measuring drinking patterns: the experience of the last half century. J Subst Abuse. 2001; 12(1-2):23-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0899-3289(00)00038-9. View

Griffiths M . Gambling Technologies: Prospects for Problem Gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2003; 15(3):265-283. DOI: 10.1023/a:1023053630588. View

Currie S, Hodgins D, Casey D, El-Guebaly N, Smith G, Williams R . Examining the predictive validity of low-risk gambling limits with longitudinal data. Addiction. 2011; 107(2):400-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03622.x. View

Bischof A, Meyer C, Bischof G, John U, Wurst F, Thon N . Type of gambling as an independent risk factor for suicidal events in pathological gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016; 30(2):263-9. DOI: 10.1037/adb0000152. View

Ifrim S . Decoding Problem Gamblers' Signals: A Decision Model for Casino Enterprises. J Gambl Stud. 2014; 31(4):1671-93. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-014-9478-x. View

Olason D, Hayer T, Brosowski T, Meyer G . Gambling in the Mist of Economic Crisis: Results From Three National Prevalence Studies From Iceland. J Gambl Stud. 2015; 31(3):759-74. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-015-9523-4. View

Markham F, Young M, Doran B . The relationship between player losses and gambling-related harm: evidence from nationally representative cross-sectional surveys in four countries. Addiction. 2015; 111(2):320-30. DOI: 10.1111/add.13178. View

Dowling N, Smith D, Thomas T . Electronic gaming machines: are they the 'crack-cocaine' of gambling?. Addiction. 2004; 100(1):33-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00962.x. View

LaPlante D, Nelson S, LaBrie R, Shaffer H . Disordered gambling, type of gambling and gambling involvement in the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. Eur J Public Health. 2009; 21(4):532-7. PMC: 3139098. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckp177. View

10.

Preacher K, Hayes A . Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008; 40(3):879-91. DOI: 10.3758/brm.40.3.879. View

11.

Chan T . Understanding cultural omnivores: social and political attitudes. Br J Sociol. 2019; 70(3):784-806. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12613. View

12.

Abbott M . Commentary on Currie et al. (2017): Low-risk gambling limits-a bridge too far?. Addiction. 2017; 112(11):2021-2022. DOI: 10.1111/add.14017. View

13.

Afifi T, Cox B, Martens P, Sareen J, Enns M . The relation between types and frequency of gambling activities and problem gambling among women in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2010; 55(1):21-8. DOI: 10.1177/070674371005500104. View

14.

MacKinnon D, Krull J, Lockwood C . Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev Sci. 2001; 1(4):173-81. PMC: 2819361. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026595011371. View

15.

Currie S, Hodgins D, Casey D . Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index interpretive categories. J Gambl Stud. 2012; 29(2):311-27. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-012-9300-6. View

16.

Savage J, Slutske W, Martin N . Personality and gambling involvement: a person-centered approach. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014; 28(4):1198-211. PMC: 4274195. DOI: 10.1037/a0037413. View

17.

Shaffer H, Martin R . Disordered gambling: etiology, trajectory, and clinical considerations. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2011; 7:483-510. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-040510-143928. View

18.

Wardle H, Keily R, Astbury G, Reith G . 'Risky places?': mapping gambling machine density and socio-economic deprivation. J Gambl Stud. 2012; 30(1):201-12. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-012-9349-2. View

19.

Nelson S, LaPlante D, Gray H, Tom M, Kleschinsky J, Shaffer H . Already at the Table: Patterns of Play and Gambling Involvement Prior to Gambling Expansion. J Gambl Stud. 2017; 34(1):275-295. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-017-9711-5. View

20.

Studer J, Baggio S, Mohler-Kuo M, Simon O, Daeppen J, Gmel G . Latent Class Analysis of Gambling Activities in a Sample of Young Swiss Men: Association with Gambling Problems, Substance Use Outcomes, Personality Traits and Coping Strategies. J Gambl Stud. 2015; 32(2):421-40. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-015-9547-9. View