CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE
UNFAIR DEAL
CONCERN OF THE STUDY
The concern of this thesis
is the pathologising of the people who experience
difficulties with poker-machine playing. Even though gambling has undergone a
radical change in social construction, the social heading for problem gamblers
remains the same. People with gambling-related problems are still labelled
‘compulsive’ and ‘addicted’, marginalised as ‘deviants’, and ‘treated’ under a
medical or counselling model. The gaming industry, sectional interests, and
political representative reinforced the deviance.
The Australian Gaming
Industry, and particular political representative, claim that: the industry is
not to blame for the ‘addicted gamblers’ problems; that the industry’s actions
are in no way related to the development of excessive gambling; the advertising
and marketing strategies are designed to lure the recreational gambler and
promote social gambling only; and that no-one is coerced into gambling because
each person has the freedom to make their own choice as to whether to gamble or
not.
It is the contention of
this thesis that; the Australian Gaming Industry and particular political
representatives are to blame for the gambling problems; that the industry’s
actions have a direct relationship with the development of problem gambling;
and the advertising and marketing strategies are designed to seduce every potential
gambler. Rather than being a leisure activity of choice, it is contended that
the opportunity for poker machine players to make informed ‘free’ choices
regarding their participation in the activity is eroded by emotional and
psychological manipulation, and calculated misinformation which is lacking in
truth.
Ms McGregor, the Australian
Hotel’s Association communications manager, told the Social Development
Committee into gambling, ‘Only 1.16 per cent of all gamblers had an addiction
problem and ultimately people were responsible for themselves’ (Coorey,
In his defence against
petitions in Port Pirie, which are calling for the reduction of the number of
machines and hotel trading hours, the licensee of the Port Pirie ‘International
Hotel’ told the local newspaper,’ that people did not have to play poker
machines if they did not want to ‘(The Recorder, Port Pirie Newspaper, 1997).
Lloyd Williams, chairman of the Crown Casino, told a press-conference held
prior to the opening of the new Crown that ‘1% of the community has got
compulsion of one form or another, whether it be streaking, drugs, or
gambling’. That’s a community problem (McKue, 7th
May 1997). Jeff Kennett,
The Australian Hotels
Association and the Licensed Clubs Association claim that they are the most
responsible gambling hosts in Australia because they have set aside $1.5
million a year to ‘voluntary’ contribute to the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund,
and have run its on-site Smart Play and Guidelines programs to promote
responsible gambling. Ms McGregor said ‘What else can you do? We’ve taken the most responsible action we can’ (Coorey, 8th May 1997).
However, the responsible
action is in the best interest of the gaming industry, as the funding is
minimalist, residualist, and a powerful control mechanism.
Firstly, the industry is
seen to be dealing responsibly and ‘caringly’ with the gambling problem which
reduces community and legislative resistance to the spread of the industry.
Secondly, the funding, administered through Family and Community Services, was
established for the provision of rehabilitation services for gamblers and their
families. The funding objectives are quite clear: ‘All the gambling resource
centres are required to provide financial counselling, therapy for problem
gamblers, their families and significant others and community education and
information’ (Department of Family & Community Services, ‘Gamblers
Rehabilitation Fund’ March 11th 1996).
The funding objectives are pathologising measures for they aim to ‘cure’ the ‘sick’,
and they hold the gambler individually responsible for the social issue of
problem gambling. The gambling industry, the profit makers, and the government
are thus exonerated of their responsibilities and remain blameless for the
‘problem gambling’ which this thesis contends they have caused.
Thirdly, by funding the
services the industry maintains control of the problem gambling arena. Funding
budgets are mechanisms for control, and power remains centralised in the
industry. Challenges to the gaming industry and the governments are severely diminished.
How data is presented, what data is disclosed, policies of the services, the
staff, the models of intervention, which information is given to the general
public and the education programmes, are necessarily in accordance with the
industries agenda.
When considering the
massive profits generated from gambling, this voluntary contribution of $1.5
million is an inexpensive method to further the interests of the industry. When
a player feeds all of his/her money into the poker machine, the individual is
doing precisely what the gaming industry has set out to incite. Yet the player
is then scape-goated as deviant, and the gaming
industry can then claim their innocence. Thus the entrepreneurs and
corporations remain legitimated.
Another powerful method of
control and legitimation is the gaming industry’s utility of two social
constructions. The industry asserts that the gambling population consists of
two categories – the ‘social majority’ and the ‘pathological few’. These
constructs have serious political and social implications, and serve the vested
interests of the gaming industry for several notions are created by the
dividing constructs.
Firstly, is the notion that
problem gamblers exist ‘outside’ of the gaming structures as an
aberration of gambling, rather than as a natural outcome. Therefore the
gambling industry can stay legitimated in its actions, and continue to expand.
Secondly, that these people are ‘sick’ thus the gaming industry and the
governments cannot be held responsible for gambling related problems, and thus
will not have to change their actions.
Thirdly, the distinction
contains two qualitative and quantitative typology’s
of people: social gamblers who constitute the majority and who do
not experience problems with gambling; and the pathological few who
suffer from compulsive gambling. The notion is created that, except for a
dysfunctional few, no-one else who participates in poker machine playing
experiences problems with the activity. Explicit is the idea that there are two
types of people. One is ‘sensibly’ engaged in a leisure activity whereas the
other is out of control; that one is adjusted whereas the other is maladjusted;
and that one is healthy whereas the other is sick’ (Walker, 1995, p.134).
Because the gamblers are different, with one type ‘sick’ implied is that
gambling is one homogeneous activity. Thus the activity cannot be problematic
for the problems are contained only in a few ‘pathological’ people who have the
gambling-related problems. The problems are perceived as minimal by the
quantitative categories. Thus the number of people suffering
gambling-related problems remain safely skewed, the deviance status of
the ‘few’ is reinforced, and the gambling activities, along with the gaming
industry remain unscrutinised and supported.
This thesis argues that the
situation is exploitation and ‘morally reprehensible’ because –
- (a) poker machines are one of the most seductive
forms of gambling and are much more psychologically addictive than other
forms of gambling (b) poker machines are programmed for punters to lose
but are presented as a financially profitable activity ©excessive gambling
is always associated with rapid and repeated betting in a single session.
This
continuous form of gambling is the most financially dangerous. Poker machines provide for continuous betting and are the most
rapid; and is an involvement in which financial ruin is inevitable.
2. The gaming industry and the venues are
well aware of the direct relationship between the structural characteristics of
the machines, and the tempo of the machines, and increased expenditure, and
they purposefully employ strategies, not just to seduce people into playing,
but to promote persistent playing which incurs financial loss by –
- Incentives and promotions
- Training staff to keep people at the machines
- Deceitful advertising
- Appeals to rational motives of individuals
The gaming industry, does
not provide correct information to both players and the general
Public regarding poker machine playing.
- The gaming industry, supported and promoted by
the government, abuse the knowledge of the
Human
sciences to tap into ‘universal human potentialities’ to encourage poker
machine playing and incite persistent and continuous gambling.
This thesis argues that
problems experienced in poker machine playing, rather than being due to
gamblers’ personal deficits are a result of: the psycho-structural
characteristics of the machines; the duplicitous vision of gaming; purposeful
inciting of continuous participation employed by the industry; and the erosion
of players’ informed choices by the industry’s calculated misinformation, and
psychological and emotive manipulation.
Aim of the
Research
The aim of the research is
to show that problems caused by poker machine playing are located in the gaming
industry, and that the industry and the governments are responsible for the
deleterious impacts of the activity. Revealing the structural causation of
gambling problems fulfils the purpose of this study which is to depathologise those who experience difficulties with poker
machine playing.
Hypothesis
The hypothesis that has
guided the following research is that :
Rather
than being the result of pathology within the individual, problems experienced
with poker machine playing are a natural outcome of
involvement in the activity.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on a
critical structural approach and adopts both quantitative and qualitative
methodologies. It has been informed by an integration of socio-economic
theories. The view taken is that individuals do not operate in a vacuum.
Rather, they are socially circumscribed and socially patterned (Mills, 1959,
p.161). The interplay between the human potentiality and the environment can
only be understood with the larger structural framework. Mills asserts:
‘When
we understand social structures and structural changes as they bear upon more
intimate scenes and experiences, we are able to understand the causes of
individual conduct and feeling of which [men] in specific milieu are themselves
unaware’ (1959, p.162).
The view taken in this
thesis is that ‘freedom of choice’ is an erroneous concept. Choices are
influenced by the social forces of the time (Hegel, in Singer, 1983), as is the
‘freedom to choose’. The closest state to ‘freedom of choice’ is having the
opportunity to make informed decisions.
The choice of the critical
structural approach has been made for three reasons. Firstly, the new gambling
industry is wrapped in advanced corporatist economic rationalist values and
principles. Secondly, to avoid victim research, and finally to countervail the
continual denial and avoidance of acknowledging and changing structural causes
of social problems.
Economic Rationalism
Economic rationalism is a
theory, which provides an ideological justification for laissez-faire
capitalism. Economic rationalism is a device for redistribution from poor to rich
(Rees, Rodley & Stilwell, 1993). Humanitarian,
social and ethical considerations are subjugated to narrow economic imperatives
(Rees, et al., 1993). Economic rationalism is serving to increase the
disparities between rich and poor, and is thus threatening the social fabric of
out society. The new gambling industry is an example par excellence of
corporatist economic rationalist policies.
Victim Research and Structural
Causes of Social Problems
Victim research is research
on the ‘victims’ of our society. It diverts the focus of attention away from
structural causes of social ills, and scape-goats those who have been labelled
as ‘victims’ or ‘problems’.
The focus on victims keeps
the dialogue alive in the minds of society, and is a dialogue that is translated
into personal deficits and pathological theories. At the same time, social
structures are ‘normalised’, legitimated, and remain unquestioned. For example,
structural unemployment is translated to ‘dole-bludgers’, and for the single
mother economic and patriarchal inequalities are transformed into both
‘dole-bludger’ and ‘bad-mothering’. The single mother is subjected to parenting
skill courses, and the unemployed to ‘diaries’ to demonstrate employment
sought. Poverty research abounds, while in-depth study of the rich is scarce.
The philosophy informing
‘victim’ research is individualism, and central tenant of capitalism.
Individualism conceptualises people as separate and independent individuals.
‘Individuation is based on the right of human beings to be treated not just as
human but as this human with [his] personal differences’ (Wijeyewardenc,
1967, p.104, cited in Meededuma, 1993). Individualism
assumes that the relevant features of individuals are given and they are
independent of social context and influence (Tesh,
1988). As a consequence, individuals are considered rational, self-directing,
and responsible for themselves.
However, once a philosophy
of emancipation, individualism has since undergone a process of perversion. It
now frees people to exploit one another, and propagates the blaming of
individuals for their predicament and holds individuals personally responsible
for social problems. Blaming the individual purposefully diverts attention from
structural causes of social issues and prevents the changing of structures.
Meanwhile, those in power and the main beneficiaries of our system are
legitimated, bracketed off from being questioned, and exonerated of their
responsibilities.
Individualism sees the
individual as the unit of social analysis. Research focuses on the individual
in a vacuum. Where sociological impacts are researched, the individual is still
pathologised for not coping with the situation, or
the sociological impacts are also pathologised – for
example, dysfunctional families. Individualism also influences how research is
reported. For example, the gaming industry reports that 1.16% of the population
have a gambling problem which is not only incorrect, but creates the impression
that the number is minimal. There are approximately 100,000 ‘problem gamblers’
in
The new gambling package is
underpinned by the perverted philosophy of individualism. It provides the
frame-work for the social construction and consequential treatment of those who
experience problems with gambling. Causative factors are sought within the
individual, and personal deficit theories are employed to provide explanations
for the excessive gambling. Individuals are pathologically labelled as
‘compulsive’, and/or ‘addicted’ and treated as ‘diseased’ and in need of ‘curing’
within the medical and counselling models. At the same time, the structural
causes of gambling problems are denied while their implementation is
legitimated, as are the implementors.
Gambling research is
primarily ‘victim’ research. Why people gamble is the main focus. Pathological
theories dominate gambling research resulting in the blaming of the individual
for the problems inherent in gambling and the faming industry’s actions.
Social
research ‘is increasingly used in policy formulation and as a means for policy
justification’ (Jamrozik, 1991, p.1). Governments translate or
selectively ignore research, which does not suit their ideologies or political
purpose: thus research is abused. Therefore, structural approaches are most
appropriate in social research.
Theories, which place major
responsibility on structural factors, is an economic
threat to industry, commercial enterprise, and government, whereas
individualistic theories maintain the status quo. To protect vested interests
and with minimal dissent, those in power translate their theories into
ideological absolutes, a translation which provides the freedom and social
support to act in accordance with those values. Having the
power to define society’s values, those with the power ‘capture people’s hearts
and minds in a commonsensical, seemingly untheorised
way which secures their consent to being dominated without being conscious of
it’ (Dominelli, 1988, p.8). They construct and
superiorise ideologies which them ‘manipulate, trick,
or force the majority into acceptance’ (Saul, 1997, p.24). An illusion of
reality is created by ideologies case as ‘absolutes’ containing ‘highly
sophisticated rational constructs’ and ‘new social headings’ that open every
doorway to crushing and denigrating any forms of equality, democracy or equity
(Saul, 1997, p.30).
Within the ideologies those
in power construct themselves as ‘right’, as having cure-all solutions, and as
caring and concerned for society with actions that are translated to represent
the interests of the general public. Thus people’s hearts and minds embrace a
‘passive certitude’ (Saul, 1997,p.37) to the extent that subordinated groups
watch and accept the ‘ruling class’ expand their power and wealth, while
believing it is for the dominated groups ‘own good’.
Such is the pervasiveness
of ideological manipulation, that the likelihood of questioning the
‘structures’ is seriously diminished. Those who do criticise the structures are
labelled ‘heretics’ (Pusey, 1991,p.44).
And ‘the heretic today merely finds [his] career shattered and [himself] cast
to the margins of corporatist society’ (Saul, 1997,p.174). Thus, vested
interests and power differentials are maintained and protected, and the
structural causes of social problems are denied, avoided and remain unchanged.
Research Methods
Previous to the
introduction of the new gaming industry, gambling problems have not been on the
list of social issues. It is a newly developed ‘current’ problem. Social work
literature has not yet addressed the problem. Thus, information for this study
has by necessity been gathered and collated from many different sources,
including key informants and current media – newspapers and television. This
thesis has combined the benefit of the following methods –
Secondary
Research –
- A substantial review of the gambling literature
– books and journals
- A substantial review of the media – newspapers,
television, magazines (for eg, Time Magazine) and advertising
- Review of reports, submissions and documentation
Primary
Research –
- Discussions with key informants
- Field observation, including participant
observation
- Questionnaire survey
The Field Observation
The aim
of the field observation was to observe and experience the poker machines, and
observe the marketing methods by which venues seduce people into playing
the machines. ‘Marketing methods’ entails incentives and promotions and design
of the venue.
During a one week period 19
venues were visited in the
Data collected was through
a study of advertisements, promotions and incentives, venue design and layout,
the poker machines, and discussions with bar and gaming staff. I also played
the poker machines in several venues.
A number of categories for
data analysis had already been constructed before the observation study. The
pre-constructed categories were :-
- The Venues – Physical and Affective Environment
- Structural Characteristics of the Poker Machines
- Incentives and Promotions
- The Utility of Human Sciences
The categories revealed
during the observations were –
- The Methods Used by Venues to Keep Players at
the Machines
- The Role of the Gaming Staff in Encouraging
Persistent Play
- Information Provided by the Venues Regarding
Gambling Activities
- Control and Responsibility of the Gaming
Industry
Presentation of data
collected is in the form of a descriptive analysis. Findings are compared to
the ideological construction of the gaming activity ‘a leisure activity of
choice’, and the gaming industry’s claim that problems with gambling is not a
result of the industry’s actions.
The Questionnaire Survey
A descriptive critical
analysis of the data collected as a result of the field observation revealed:
the marketing ploys of the venues to incite poker machine playing and
persistent playing; the psycho- structural characteristics of the poker
machines, the utility of the human sciences in inciting play and persistent
playing; the role of the gaming staff in encouraging persistent play; and the
deceitful information given to players by the venues. The next step in the
research was to gauge the effects of the results found in the field observation
on poker machine players. With a survey questionnaire the ‘other’ side of the
gambling activity was examined – the poker machine players, not as victim
research, but as evidence of the success of the gaming industry’s ploys.
The researcher conjectured
that involvement in poker machine playing manifested into – as a natural
outcome of the activity – changes in gamblers’ habits which saw ‘increases’ in
involvement and spending, and behavioural changes to protect themselves from
the machines.
The
Questionnaire
A questionnaire (Appendix
B) containing thirty-three questions was formulated with most questions as
forced choices (quantitative), with several open-ended (qualitative). The
questions were designed to: gauge how effective the gaming industry’s marketing
strategies are on poker machine players; and explore the impact that
involvement in poker machine playing has on players.
The questionnaire was in
five parts –
- Demographics and general gambling background
The
demographics sought were age and gender. Gender was established to ascertain
whether there were gender differences in poker machine playing. Age was
requested to discern which age groups participated in poker machine playing.
General gambling background gave the researcher the gambling history and
current gambling habits of the respondents. Frequency of play was sought by Q3
‘How often do you gamble on poker machines’. Respondents were categorised into
involved gamblers and occasional players for the purpose of establishing that
involvement in poker machine playing entails changes in gambling habits as a
result of the nature of poker machine playing. Renowned gambling researchers’
(Dickerson, 1984; Walker, 1995) criteria for establishing regular gamblers and
occasional gamblers were used. Involved (regular) gamblers are those who gamble
once a week or more, while occasional gamblers gamble three times a month or
less.
- Motivations for Playing
Motivations
for starting to play the poker machines were sought to discover which marketing
appeals were particularly successful with questions such as Q15 ‘Why did you
start playing the pokies’.
- Promotions, Marketing, Venue
This
group of questions was used to discover the impact of the promotions, marketing
strategies, and the venue, on poker machine playing. For example, Q21d asked
"Do you ever stay playing the poker machines in
order to win the extra prizes etc?’
- Poker Machine Characteristics
Questions
such as Q19 ‘Do you have a favourite machine?’ and Q33 "Do you feel as if
you nearly win?’ sought to gauge the impact of the structural characteristics
of machines on players.
- Changes in Gambling Habits
The
purpose of the questions regarding changes in gambling habits was to ascertain
whether poker machine playing culminated in, as a matter of involvement,
further increases in gambling participation. Many questions relating to the
money aspects were used in order to gauge what ‘financial’ actions were
necessitated by involvement in poker machine playing. For example Q30 asks
‘Have you ever used the Eftpos machine at the venue
to withdraw money to play the pokies?’ Questions were formulated to examine
whether players found it necessary to protect themselves from the machines and
if mechanisms to defend themselves were employed. Q28 asks ‘Have you at any
stage found it necessary to only take a limited amount
of money with you when going to play the pokies?’
Analysis of Data
Data was analysed using
SPSS for Windows and the results are presented both in tabulation form
(Appendix C) and text and selected tables (Chapter 7).
Distribution of the
questionnaires
The initial aim of the
researcher was to deliver the questionnaires in three
The next attempt in seeking
permission for questionnaire distribution was by a friend who approached the
manager he knew of a local hotel. I was again refused permission. Finally,
permission was obtained through another friend who is a regular and the ‘mate’
of the manager of a central north suburban hotel. A time for questionnaire
distribution was negotiated by telephone between the manager and myself. The manager requested that I did not enter the
gaming room because the manager did not think it polite to disturb players
during their ‘play’. Thus the questionnaires were handed to people entering and
leaving the gaming room.
One hundred and five
questionnaires were distributed at this hotel. The hotel is situated in a low
to lower-middle class area, and constitutes a large number of aged pensioners.
Each questionnaire had a covering letter (Appendix A) and both were folded into
a pre-postage paid self-addressed envelope. I arrived at
Approximately one in four
people I approached declined. Ten respondents filled out the questionnaire in
the Hotel. Fifty-one questionnaires were posted to my home address, making the
return sixty-one (58%).
Of the players who declined
most were polite in their refusal. However, some were not and ignored me and
‘sped’ away, while others exclaimed ‘no’ in what appeared to be a fearful
manner and retreated quickly. Others appeared quite anxious at my mentioning
poker machine playing. Noticeably these people were women. Four women who declined,
one who took the envelope but returned it unopened later, quickly and
‘fearfully’ explained that they were ‘real addicts’ and that the questionnaire
would be too confronting.
The Respondents
Sixty-one people responded
to the questionnaire. There were 31 males and 29 females, and one missing
gender, data which has been included in the analysis. 82% of respondents were
between the ages of 35 and 74, half of whom were at the higher end of the age
range, reflecting the demographics of the suburbs surrounding the hotel. Thirty
respondents played the poker machines less than once a week (occasional
gamblers), while 30 people played once a week or more (involved gamblers).
There was one missing frequency data which has been included in the analysis.
Limitations of
the Study
Due to the survey being
conducted in one hotel only, there is a lock of randomness in the sample.
Therefore the results cannot be generalised to the wider South Australian
population for it is uncertain whether the gamblers obtained from this
particular location are representative of the gamblers who gamble in other
locations.
The characteristics of
those who refused the survey are unknown, therefore it
is uncertain once again how representative the sample is of poker machine
players. It could be that those who refused are different in some way from
those who did not. As indicated in the Research Methods section, it was
noticeable that many of those who refused the questionnaire appeared ‘fearful’
of the study.
The responses could also be
biased because gambling research (Delfabbro and Winefield, 1996) has shown that gamblers are unlikely to
give accurate indication of the full extent of their gambling.
Several questions were
retrospective, for example Q15 asks ‘Why did you first start to play the
pokies?’ The responses to these could also be biased because people may not
remember retrospectively, and then give the most logical or reasonable reasons
which may not necessarily be accurate.
DEFINITIONS
The
Gambler
Basically a gambler is one
who participates in the action of gambling. Gambling research has constructed
categories based on certain criteria – time, frequency, and money spent on
gambling, as well as the financial, social, familial, and legal problems
encountered. Labels range from social, occasional, regular, non-regular, heavy,
problem and excessive. Those who have sought help from treatment services and
medical services for associated gambling problems, are labelled pathological,
compulsive and/or addicted. The new politically correct term for the pathological
gamblers is ‘people experiencing problems with gambling’. The view of this
thesis is that the problems are inherent in the activity rather than in the
gambler, but ‘excessive gambling’ and ‘problem gambling’ are employed
throughout, with other labels used according to the literature reviewed.
Wowser
‘A
censorious person: a killjoy’ (Wilkes, G.A. – A Dictionary of Australian
Colloquialisms). A wowser is perceived by his opponents as a spoilsport ‘trying to
impose his puritan prohibitions on the whole community’ (Inglis,
1985,p.15).
Poker
Machines
‘Poker machine’
is the Australian name for the English ‘fruit-machine’ and the American
‘slot-machine’.
STRUCTURE OF THESIS
This
chapter (chapter
one) has discussed
the concern of this thesis and provided the aim and purpose of the research. It contains the research
methodology which discussed the theoretical frame-work for analysis and the
research methods utilised. A hypothesis was posed, and definitions and concepts
were also provided.
Chapter Two is a critical structural analysis
of the gaming industry and provides the context within which the research was
conducted.
Chapter Three is a literature review on
explanations for gambling. A critical review of the literature reveals that the
dominant theoretical approach for those suffering
gambling-related problems are personal deficit explanations.
Chapter Four addresses the issue of gambling
activities being a homogenous activity. It also provides a critique of
commercial gaming advertising.
Chapter Five addresses the two typologies of
gamblers which both legitimises the gaming industry’s actions and serves to pathologise those people experiencing difficulties with
poker machine playing. This chapter views gambling as a
process, which shows that gamblers are at different levels on a continuum of
involvement, rather than there being ‘different’ people.
Chapter Six provides a descriptive critical
analysis of the observational field study, and participant research.
Chapter Seven provides the results of the
questionnaire survey and a discussion of the results.
Chapter Eight concludes the thesis and discusses
social implications and implications for social workers in relation to the
problem gambling issue. Suggestions for social workers in
their practice is also offered.
CHAPTER 2: FROM A SIN, TO A VICE, TO A DISEASE, TO A SOCIAL VIRTUE
CHAPTER 3: TWO TYPES OF GAMBLERS? A LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 4: POKER MACHINES– THE LETHAL MONEY STRIPPERS
CHAPTER 5: THE SCAPE GOATED
CHAPTER 6: THE FIELD OBSERVATION
CHAPTER 7: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION
|
|
|
|