CHAPTER 3: TWO TYPES OF GAMBLERS?
A LITERATURE REVIEW
‘…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).
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a critical
review of professional gambling literature pertaining to gamblers. The review
reveals that personal deficit theories, although many and varied, tend to be
the dominant theoretical approach that guides present knowledge and treatment
of excessive gamblers. Environmental factors are researched, but are generally
confined to familial conditioning in the form of dysfunctional families, or
role-modelling by dysfunctional others. Subjects for research are mostly those
who have sought help from Gamblers Anonymous, and those who are patients in
clinical setting s for their gambling problems.
Why people gamble is the
main concept within the gambling literature, with the main focus on excessive
gamblers. From the critical review of the literature the author conceptualised
that the population for inquiry is divided mainly between ‘social’ and
‘pathological’ gamblers. For the social gamblers general theories of gambling
are applied. The excessive gambler is not so fortunate.
For the purpose of gambling
research, sub-categories, for example, occasional, regular, frequent, heavy,
excessive have been formulated by researchers, the criteria based on levels of
time, frequency, and expenditure on gambling. However, the sub-categories are
still subjected to the different theoretical approaches. The excessive gambler
is subjected to personal deficit theories, while the remainder are collapsed
into a category of a healthy homogeneous group of social gamblers who gamble as
a result of cultural influences or healthy psychological and emotive
motivations. Thus, the literature creates two types of gamblers – social and
pathological, a distinction that is particularly useful for the gaming
industry, as illustrated in the introduction of this thesis.
GENERAL THEORIES OF GAMBLING
The main explanations given
for ‘social gamblers’ participation in the activity are provided by social
learning theories, reference groups, and the cultural context within which
people exist. Where psychological theories are applied, ‘social gamblers’ are
translated as ‘healthy’.
It has been shown
conclusively that the amount of gambling in a community increases with the
introduction and legalisation of new forms of gambling (Haig, 1985). The more
available and accessible, the more people will participate, which infers
gambling is a popular past time. Positive attitudes held by a culture toward
gambling encourage the activity. For example, in a country like
Grichting (1986) found that
for those he researched, religious affiliation was the prime determinant of the
level of participation in gambling. Catholics are disproportionately heavy
gamblers and become more so as they perceive themselves as more religious.
Protestants do gamble, but tend to gamble less as they claim a higher degree of
religiosity. The Protestant work ethic’s view on gambling was that it ‘broke
the nexus between work, merit and reward: it was opposed to accumulation of
property through hard work, which was central to capitalism’ (Fox, 1988, p.86).
Many cultural and
subcultural factors influence the individual through the agency of reference
groups. Gender differences in gambling are highly influential.
Work groups and social
peers also influence the individual’s gambling participation. Socio-economic
status influences the level of participation, the type of gambling activity and
the amount of money available to spend. These differences are not
characteristics of the individual, but rather of the socio-economic reference
groups to which they belong. Socio-economic status determines leisure pursuits,
so leisure is a class-based activity (Jamrozik, 1991). Gambling as leisure is
therefore a class-based activity. The wealthy will attend the socially
acceptable venues for their class, while the ethos of mate-ship and the pub
mentality of the ‘working class man’ see them attend ‘pubs’ to gamble (Walker,
1995, p.124). Gambling is primarily about money so differences between classes
exist in the level of participation and the amount of money available to spend
on gambling.
However, the differences in
the amount of money available to spend does not mean that the less affluent spend
less because there is no correlation at all between amount spent of gambling
and income (Delfabbro and Winefield, 1996). Rather, it means that for the less
affluent, a greater part of their income is spent, and are more likely to
experience difficulties with gambling sooner than those with a larger ‘pot’ to
lose.
Cornish (1978) identified
the family as an important training ground for gambling. Children learn about
the excitement of gambling by watching the reactions of their parents.
Furthermore, parents involve their children in gambling by asking their advice,
and giving them a role in the actual gambling activity – for example filling
out the tickets and holding the money. Vicarious learning of gambling is a
serious issue when considering the negative impacts of gambling and the
proliferation of the gambling activities today.
Extensive advertising and
television teaches the viewer about gambling – where to go, how exciting
gambling is, and more importantly what the prize can mean in one’s life. In this
way gambling behaviours are communicated as appropriate ‘and the salience of
the payoff is increased’ (Walker, 1995, p.125).
According to Thomas (1901,
in Dickerson, 1984) people gamble because it is in their very nature. The
ability to manage unpredictable events is an instinctive one of evolutionary
importance. The absence in organised society of risk results in this
instinctive drive finding satisfaction in gambling. Wykes (1964) claims that
gambling in the sense of placing bets is part of a cultural pattern (an
exceedingly ancient one), rather than being instinctual. Competition is
inherent in gambling, and although ‘the baby’ is born with the competitive
spirit as children’s games display, the fasciation with the elements of risk
and the chance of gain develops later in the child’s life through cultural
experience. Wykes (1964, p.28) states ‘Gambling is a mental phenomenon as fire
is a physical one…’
Smith and Abt (1984) also
claim that gambling for economic gain and the passion to win is a soialisation
process. In their research of gambling as play they found that play is a kind
of gambling in itself. Children’s games contain elements of chance and skill
but children’s games such as marbles, and children’s card playing, card
flipping, and ball-games are played for fun. Even though the games provide the
opportunity to test their prowess, and their luck, the rewards are intrinsic.
However, play reflects the dominant culture within which it is participated. In
the Western culture both materialism and competition are two distinguishing
feature, thus paly and games, and particularly their commercialisation, have
undergone significant changes. Instead of being make-believe, pointless other
than its intrinsic meaning (Huizinga, 1955), a necessary occupation separate
from the rest of life, and a source of joy and amusement (Caillois, 1979), play
now has consequence in the real world, and serves as a means of competition and
economic gain. ‘In a world that encourages great expectations while offering
diminishing opportunities for fulfillment, the playing of gambling games
provide a form of recreation that is a product of and a contributor to
prevailing cultural myths’ (Smith and Abt, 1984, p.122). Thus, the notions of
taking chances and testing skill are inherent in human beings, as they are also
elements in play and gambling, but ‘playing’ for money and with the necessity
to ‘win against’ are the products of a socialisation process.
Kusyszyn (1984), sees
gambling as legitimate adult play and is ‘without doubt psychic play pleasure
for the vast majority of persons who gamble’ (1984, p.133). He views gambling
as a functional play activity that provides a convenient means of satisfying
two basic human needs – the confirmation of existence and affirmation of worth.
Players are provided with opportunity to learn self-control, to act upon free
choice, and to take full responsibility for their actions. These self-growing
elements provide a sense of identity and the creation of one’s sense of worth.
The feelings of euphoria, high arousal, excitement and stimulation provide
players with feelings of ‘really living’ and confirm their existence. Players
experiencing fantasy and dreams of luxury, both of which are not generated by
the routine of everyday life. Players are empowered as they have mastery over
their own gambling destiny.
To win money (Walker,
1995); excitement (Caldwell, 1985b); it is where the ‘action’ is (Goffman,
1969); and pleasure, leisure and socialisation (Dickerson, 1984), have been
provided as reasons for gambling. Moody (1985, in Walker, 1995) even suggests
that money could be dispensed with all together because the ‘thrill’ that comes
with gambling is the main reason why people gamble. Devereux (1968, p.53, in
Caldwell, 1985, p.22) describes gambling as an activity ‘directed toward a
consciously recognised economic end’ and an ‘expressive activity enjoyed as an
end in itself’.
THE EXCESSIVE GAMBLER
Although, as Rosecrance
(1985) avers that the medicalisation of heavy gambling was the consequence of
social and political motivation in order to get a better ‘deal’ for the
excessive gambler for they could be ‘treated’ rather than morally punished or
incarcerated by the law, the causative factors of excessive gambling remain
located within the individual.
Psychoanalytic theories
Psychoanalytic theories
explore central explanatory concepts of neurosis, sexual, tension, guilt, and
masochism. Freud’s psychoanalytical theory assumed that excessive gambling is a
substitute for masturbation –
The
‘vice’ of masturbation is replaced by the addiction to gambling; The
irresistible nature of the temptation, the solemn resolutions, which are
nevertheless invariably broken, never do it again, the stupefying pleasure and
the bad conscience which tells the subject that he is ruining himself
(committing suicide) – all these elements remain unaltered in the process of
substitution’ (Halliday & Fuller, 1974, p.172).
Freud’s analysis has been
questioned because of inherent cultural (Halliday & Fuller, et. Al., 1974)
and gender biases (Walker, 1989), and where the excessive gamble feels guilty
after failing, the masturbator feels guilty at the success of the activity
(Walker, 1995). However, Wykes (1964) notes that in a letter to his wife,
Dostoyevski, a classic gambling figure in the universal history of gambling,
wrote that he experienced orgasm on losing a large sum at roulette one night.
Excessive gambling has been
interpreted as a quest for mother’s love (Matussek, 1953, in Dickerson, 1984),
a defence against depression, and as an unsuccessful defence against an
underlying anal fixation (Halliday et. Al., 1974). However, there is no
evidence supporting depression as a cause of heavy gambling (Walker, 1995).
Depression is a result of devastating losses, and the temporal order of the
depression and the gambling is difficult to untangle (Walker, 1995).
Bergler’s (1957, in Hess
and Diller, 1969, p.24) psychodynamic theory of gambling motivation asserts
that the compulsive gambler is a ‘genuine neurotic, high in anxiety and moved
by unconscious aggression and rebelliousness, ruled by the ‘pleasure
principle". This pleasure seeking behaviour results in strong feeling of
guilt, which can be assuaged only through self-punishment, accomplished by
continual gambling and inevitable losing. This theory sees the gambler as a
neurotic who transfers his anxiety onto the gambling game itself rather than
confronts the real source of his anxiety. However, anxiety is also a symptom of
the financial losses incurred by excessive gambling. Like depression, the
temporal order is difficult to establish.
Gambling as a Compulsion.
Bolen and Bolen (1968, in
Dickerson, 1984) viewed pathological gambling as a complex symptom to be found
in a wide variety of psychiatric disorders rather than a specific disorder in
its own right. However, in 1980 the American Psychiatric Association defined it
as a separate disorder. Excessive gambling was diagnosed in the Diagnostic
Statistical Manual (DSM) 111 (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) as a
compulsion listed with other impulsive behaviours such as kleptomania, and
obsessive-compulsive disorders. The term ‘compulsive gambler’ was born.
Essential features of pathological gambling were diagnosed as being chronic and
progressive failure to resist impulses to gamble and behaviour that
compromises, disrupts, or damages personal, family, or vocational pursuits
(American Psychiatric Association, 1980).
In the following decade it
became clear to the medical community that excessive gambling did not have the
characteristics of a classical compulsive neurosis (Dickerson, 1984). Where
compulsions are banes in life, activities that the patient does not look
forward to, gamblers look forward to the prospect of gambling (Lesieur, 1990,
in Walker, 1995).
Excessive
Gambling as an Addiction.
The trend shifted to seeing
problem gambling as an addiction. The revised DSM 111 (American Psychiatric
Association, 1987) defined problem gambling in terms of criteria which are very
similar to those for alcohol and drug dependence. DSM 1V (American Psychiatric
Association, 1991) continued with the core idea that pathological gambling is
similar to psychoactive substance dependency (Walker, 1995).
However, the addiction
model was defined in terms of consumption of drugs, but gambling is an activity
rather than an ingestion of substances (Walker, 1989). Also, the model demands
a biological and physiological base, but the neurochemical explanations offered
for the actions of drugs have not been satisfactorily generalised to excessive
gambling (Carlson, 1990). Finally, theories of drug addiction emphasise the
avoidance aspects of the behaviour, whereas theories of gambling emphasise the
positive reinforcements associated with the activity (Walker, 1989).
Theories of addiction broadened
as similarities of behaviour were discovered between a whole range of excessive
behaviours and drug addiction. For example, excessive eating (Orford, 1985),
loving too much (Norwood, 1988), jogging and exercise (Solomon, 1980, in
Walker, 1995), and computer games (Brown, 1990 in Walker, 1995). Excessive
gambling was then incorporated into the more general framework of addictions.
Parallels of behaviour were
‘Progression, preoccupation, loss of control and disregard for the
consequences’….(Lesieur and Blume, 1993, p.98.). Individuals were secretive
about their behaviour and became socially isolated. They used their dependency
as a relief of anxiety, boredom, and depression. Furthermore, people suffering
from these disorders exhibited similar patterns of affective illness (Lesieur
and Blume, 1993). Also all disorders produce serious health problems, as well
as social difficulties. They suffer from serious ill health, and socially from
enormous debts, illegal activity, and loss of employment (Lesieur and Blume,
1993).
Jacobs (1986) extending the
addiction model established an Addictive Personality Syndrome (APS) which
contained two specific sets of inter-related predisposing factors that were
characteristic of persons with a high potential for developing an addiction –
the addicted personality. Based on addiction being defined as ‘a dependent
state acquired over time to relieve stress’ (Jacobs, 1986, p15) the
predisposing factors were: an abnormal unipolar physiological resting state
that is chronically and excessively depressed or excited with the individual
urgently needing dramatic relief from stress, thus the addiction; and childhood
experiences producing ‘deep feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and a sense of
rejection by parents and significant others’ (Jacobs, 1986, p.21).
In a subsequent study
Jacobs (1989) describes problem gambling as a ‘family disease’ and is often ‘an
insidious and progressive intergenerational affair, provoked and perpetuated by
successive dysfunctional family relationships’ (1989, p.257).
However, not all such
hyper- or hypo-aroused individuals are addiction prone (Walker, 1995). Also
Leary and Dickerson (1985) found that the baseline arousal state between heavy
gamblers and the normal distribution to be similar. Similarly it would be
expected that heavy gamblers would report rejection in childhood, but there has
been no evidence with which to test Jacob’s hypothesis (Walker, 1995).
Personality
Based Predispositions to Excessive Gambling.
To explain excessive
gambling psychological tests of gamblers have attempted to establish homogenous
‘ideal types’. However, results suggest that the assumption of a unique set of
variables common to ‘pathological’ gamblers are an oversimplification and a
‘fruitless direction for research’ (Blaszczynski and McConaghy, 1989, p.42).
Three personality
dimensions have been the focus of many attempts to isolate the personality
characteristics that are associated with heavy gambling: locus of control
(Rotter, 1966, in Walker, 1995); sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1979, in Walker,
1995), and extroversion, and introversion (Eysenck, 1970). However, even though
gamblers report that gambling is an exciting, sociable activity, results of the
studies are inconclusive and personality differences have not been established
(Dickerson, 1984). Since the majority of studies examine gamblers at the end of
their gambling career, and the gambling process has a detrimental effect on the
participant, the search for personality based predispositions is difficult because
the argument can become circular – did the gambling cause the trait, or was the
trait there in the first place? (Walker, 1995).
Phases of
‘Compulsive’ Gambling.
The medical model
postulates that the course compulsive gamblers take runs similar to the course
of a disease (Custer and Milt, 1985). The first phase is the winning phase
where the gambling is experienced as enjoyable, stimulating, and pleasurable.
The gambler experiences ‘early wins’ an established precursor to the continued
involvement in gambling (Walker, 1985) for it establishes a false optimism
about the ability to win. Cognitive abilities are utilised as they develop
techniques and strategies to increase their winning potential. When a bet is
lost, the encouragement comes from other gamblers to continue. Also the
activity is blamed – for example a ‘poorly dealt hand’ (Gaudia, 1989, p.239)
which maintains the idea that the locus of control is within the gambler. So,
both winning and losing excites the gambler to continue.
In the second, or losing
phase, gambling becomes the dominant force in the gambler’s life. Increased
risk taking and increased betting occurs, and losses begin to accumulate. In
this phase gamblers become obsessed with winning in order to recoup losses as
they become involved in ‘chasing their losses’ (Lesieur, 1984). Betting becomes
reckless and desperate. To conceal the extent of their losses, gamblers start
to lie about the disappearing money. They start to borrow money from family,
friends and other gamblers.
Finally, in the third or desperate
phase, a gambler has hit rock bottom (Martinez, 1983, in Gaudia, 1989). A
cycle of lying has been created with relatives, friends and employers. They
resort to illegal methods to obtain money (Lesieur, 1984). Forgery, theft and
embezzlement are the most frequent crimes committed (Gaudia, 1989), although
the gamblers reframe their actions as simply borrowing until they win the money
to pay back the amount taken. Gamblers hold a different money value system.
Money is for gambling, not for necessities (Dickerson, 1984). Suicide, threats
of divorce, the risk of incarceration, firing from employment face the gambler.
Gambling has lost its excitement, and self-worth has been devalued and
depression takes over. This is a dangerous and critical time; one out of every
five compulsive gamblers attempts suicide at this point (Custer and Milt,
1985).
Effects of
Excessive Gambling.
The consequences of
excessive gambling are devastating. Virtually no area is left untouched.
Gamblers lose their employment, their homes and other material possessions.
They also lose their families and other social relationships. Excessive
gambling can involve domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, and breakdown
of families. Unlike alcohol or drug taking, where the breakdown of the physical
body provides a severe boundary, gambling is not self-limiting – the only limit
is a financial one, for money is the substance of gambling. In desperation, the
gamblers turn to loan sharks, and crime, and find themselves within the legal
and penal system (Gaudia, 1989).
Excessive gamblers suffer
distortions in thinking, anxiety and panic, desperation, depression, guilt and
shame, hopelessness, grief, with suicide a constant threat (Lorenz and Yaffe,
1986). The constant financial and emotional stress leads to physical problems –
for example, high blood pressure, stomach disorders, sleeplessness.
Families of excessive gamblers
also suffer devastating consequences (Lorenz and Yaffe, 1988). Economically,
there is the loss of money required to pay for essentials, and eventually loss
of their material possessions, including their homes. Families live in fear and
isolation as they too can be threatened by loan sharks, and withdraw from
friends and society for they see themselves as outcasts because of their shame.
The constant stress creates mental and physical ill health. The intra-personal
dynamics see partners scape-goated and they begin to self-blame, become
depressed and also consider suicide (Gaudia, 1987). Wives of ‘compulsive
gamblers’ are not only faced with strong feelings of anger, guilt, isolation
and depression as a result of gambling, but also suffer from a multitude of
physical symptoms associated with these overwhelming feelings, such as chronic
or severe headaches, breathing difficulties, back-aches, stomach problems and
menstrual irregularities (Lorenz and Yaffe, 1988).
Research into the effects
on children of excessive gamblers is scarce. Gaudia (1987) and Custer and Milt
(1985) assert that it would be expected that children would suffer serious
levels of emotional problems and dysfunctional behaviour due to the
dysfunctional family dynamics, and emotional, social, and maternal deprivation.
TWO TYPOLOGIES OF GAMBLERS?
Reflection on the review
indicates that the literature creates the concept that there are two typologies
of gamblers – social and pathological, the latter subjected to pathological
theories of explanation. It is in this conceptual distinction of gamblers that
is operationalised by the gaming industry to reinforce the legitimacy of the
industry. It is argued by the author of this thesis, that this concept is
erroneous.
The typologies create
several notions. Firstly, that all gambling activities are an homogenous
activity, while the gamblers are ‘different’. Secondly, created is the notion
that there are just two types of people who gamble, and the difference between
them is pathology. One gambler 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). Thirdly, the notion is created that all gamblers, except those
pathological few, do not experience any difficulties with gambling. All of
which translates into ‘there are no problems inherent in gambling, the problems
lie in just a few ‘sick’ individuals’.
These notions have
political and social implications already discussed in the introduction to this
thesis. The following two chapters reveal that these notions are erroneous.
Chapter four examines the gambling activities, in particular the poker
machines. It also analyses the advertising and marketing strategies of the
gaming industry, which lure people into poker machine playing. Chapter five
provides an analysis of the two typologies of gamblers.
CHAPTER 1: THE SCAPE-GOATED
CHAPTER 2: FROM A SIN, TO A VICE, TO A DISEASE, TO A SOCIAL VIRTUE
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
|
|
|
|