CHAPTER 5: THE SCAPE-GOATED
These people do not have two heads, or four
hands, or six feet…
These are normal people…they aren’t sick or
crazy or weird!
These people are normal people from all walks
of life…
Mothers, wives, husbands, single,
white-collar workers, blue-collar workers, middle-class, lower-class!
(Comments
from key figures in gambling services)
INTRODUCTION
The gaming industry
utilises the notion that there are two typologies of gamblers – ‘the social
majority’, and ‘the pathological’ few. The previous chapter, providing an analysis
of the poker machines and advertising showed that anyone can develop problems
with poker machine playing. This chapter diffuses the two qualitative and
quantitative classifications by analysing gambling as a process of involvement,
and examining how gamblers attract the pathological labels. The examination
reveals that rather than two types of gamblers, they are people at different
levels on a continuum of involvement, and the social majority constitutes
gamblers undergoing the detrimental process of problem gambling.
GAMBLING AS A
PROCESS.
Instead of there being two
types of gamblers, gambling is a process of involvement whereby people are at
different stages along the continuum. Everyone starts gambling being
uninvolved, even the ‘excessive gambler’. Some potential poker machine players
remain uninvolved for whatever reason-strong beliefs against gambling, find it
boring, prefer other activities, lack of interest (
Others begin a process of
involvement of investment in time and money. Motivations have been reported as
players see machine playing as amusing, exciting, arousing and rewarding as an
activity in itself. ‘Pokies’ are played for entertainment and amusement, rather
than as a way of making money (Leary and Dickerson, 1985). Daley (1987)
suggests that slot machine players are ’buying time’, the function of the time
being leisure, social involvement, escapism or relaxation.
However, regardless of the
motivations for playing, poker machine playing as demonstrated in chapter four,
although providing small intermittent rewards, guarantees financial losses,
with eventual economic demise inevitable. Therefore, all players are along a
continuum of losing money, with the length of the journey depending on how
financial a player is.
Dickerson (1984) argues
that it is quite irrational to expect that compulsive gamblers can be
differentiated from regular gamblers. The only difference between regular
gamblers (who have been subsumed under the rubric of social) and the
‘compulsive’ gamblers is that the former still has resources upon which to draw
and have not sought help, while the latter’s resources are exhausted
(Dickerson, 1984)
THE TWO
TYPOLOGIES
The Majority– The Quantitative
Element
It is the financial
ruination that is the cause of the gambler’s despair and hopelessness
(Dickerson, 1984; Oldman, 1978, in Dickerson, 1984). After all, if a gambler
had a bottomless pit of money they would not have a problem. Time spent on, and
the frequency of gambling, which are criteria for diagnosis of ‘compulsive’
gambling can be equated with other leisure activities that consume many
people’s lives. For example, there are many ‘golfing’ widows (
It has been established
that gamblers report to services only when they have exhausted their financial
resources, are in financial distress, bankrupt, and/or in trouble with law (
It is also an established
phenomenon that gamblers in difficulty are reticent to report to services, and
in many cases if they do, they present the problem as something other than
gambling, because of their shame and guilt (Delfabbro and Winefield, 1996). For
those on welfare they fear that they will not be assisted because they will be
perceived as having ‘wasted their money on gambling’, and thus they present
with other problems (Northern Suburbs Family Resource Centre, 1995).
Therefore, the statistical
differentiation – ‘Only 1.16 percent of the population are compulsive
‘gamblers’, used by the gaming industry to illustrate that the majority are
‘social gamblers’ and the minority are ‘compulsive gamblers’ is a misnomer. Add
the ten to fifteen significant others affected by excessive gambling (Lesieur
and Custer, 1984), and the issue is much greater than the ‘statistical evidence
indicates.
Oldman, (1978, in
Dickerson, 1984) says that the ‘compulsive’ gambler is like the yeti, much
spoken of, but rarely seen. There are only regular gamblers – normal people
engaging in a seemingly rational activity, some of whom have encountered a
financial crisis. It is only when the financial resources are depleted do they
seek help. Then they come under the critical gaze of the medical profession and
society and as a consequence attract the pathological labels.
The Pathological Labels– The
Qualitative Element
By the time gamblers seek
help they are the end result of the suffering of an emotional, physical, and
psychological downward spiral due to the detrimental effects of the process of
problem gambling. They are ‘broken’ people due to financial ruination (Walker,
1995, p.150). The services available for ‘treatment’ are Gamblers Anonymous,
and clinical settings. The framework for the Gamblers Anonymous Model of
intervention is that excessive gambling is an incurable compulsive disease.
Clinical settings are under the rubric of the medical, psychological, and
psychiatric models.
Given the raison d’etre
of the helping services, the casual factors of gamblers’ ill health is searched
for within the victim, and treatment entails psycho-therapeutic techniques,
which deny structural causation. Given the symptoms presented which include
physical, emotional and psychological ill health, the gambler is vulnerable to
clinical interpretations of deviance. Subjects for gambling research are mostly
drawn from Gamblers Anonymous and clinical settings. It is little wonder that
the experienced problems with gambling are constructed as pathological.
Not only are the presented
symptoms translated as a mental disorder, but the gambler’s life before their
gambling is pathologised and diagnosed as the cause of the excessive gambling.
Casual explanations for the 'compulsive’ gambling, instead of being sought in
the activity and the gaming industry, are sought in the individual prior to the
debilitating process of financial ruination. For example, coming from
dysfunctional families, loss and grief, loneliness, have been ‘discovered’ as
pre-gambling issues. These issues are interpreted as pathological, linked to
the excessive gambling, and then diagnosed as being the causal factors.
The diagnosis of causal
factors of gambling is reported, as are the post gambling symptoms and actions,
in the gambling services, literature and the media. Thus, the ‘pathological’
label is reinforced as the individual’s ‘personal deficits’ both before and
after become synonymous with problem gambling, while the actual process of
problem gambling, which is the cause of the debilitating symptoms, is ignored,
and the structural causes of problem gambling remain unquestioned and
unchanged.
The reporting of the ‘new’
women problem gamblers illustrate the phenomenon of how individual pathology
both before and after the gambling process is made synonymous with problem
gambling.
The ‘New’ Women Problem
Gamblers
Reported in The
Australian, August 16th 1997, was the results of a study in
Victoria on women problem gamblers. It read:
‘The
study found women across socio-economic groups gambled because they were bored,
isolated and wanted an escape from drudgery’ (Rintoul, 1997, p.10).
These findings are
represented as causes of the excessive gambling. However, these incentives do
not necessarily translate into ‘personal deficits’ or financial ruin. These
‘living’ issues are the plight of many people in our society and provide
incentives to partake in many and varied activities. These conditions of life
are not abnormal, nor is the response to overcome them. In addition, these
‘normal’ affective needs are powerful marketing appeals made by the gambling
industry to seduce people into gambling. It is the poker machine activity in
which people become involved that is the problem, rather than the ‘normal’
motivations to play.
That the debilitating
process itself is the cause of the gamblers’ presented distress, rather than
the motivations to play or the ‘living issues’ before the gambling is suggested
by assessment comparisons made by the Relationships Australia (SA) Inc Break
Even Service between clients seeking assistance from Relationships Australia
(SA). They report that their gambling clients have much higher levels of
anxiety and depression than the relationship counselling clients. Whereas only
30 percent of relationship clients express suicidal ideation, 70 percent
of gambling clients report these thought patterns (Relationship Australia (SA)
Break Even Service, 1997).
The report in The
Australian, August 16th, 1997, also described behaviours at the
end of the women’s gambling career;
‘The
study found women who developed problem gambling habits felt guilty and
ashamed, some had committed crimes including embezzling from their employers,
and care of children had been put at risk in some cases with families going
without nutritious food because women were spending house-keeping money’
(Rintoul, 1997, p.10)
These women are thus made
vulnerable to societal judgements. Besides the obvious neglect of structural
causes, their actions are reported in isolation of the gambling process, which
is a process that eventually erodes ethical considerations, self-esteem, and
dignity (Gaudia, 1989, p.239). Rather than just ascribing these behaviours as a
result of the gambling process, the impression given is that these women were
latent criminals and neglectful parents before gambling, and were ‘addicted
personalities’ waiting for the opportunity to be manifest into ‘addicted
gamblers’.
However, ‘these problem
gamblers are normal people from all different walks of life, they are just like
you and I’ (personal communication; Shotton, 16th July, 1997). They
cross different socio-economic strata and occupy different roles (Anglican
Community Services, 1997; Delfabbro and Winefield, 1996). Relationships
Australia (SA) Inc Break Even Service reports that their clients are ‘normal’
and represent the spread of multicultural diversity within out State, and their
‘clients are generally responsible citizens who have experienced and managed a
normal range of personal problems’ (et. Al., 1997, p.5).
Therefore, rather than two
types of gamblers, there are only normal people with normal motivations (which
are powerfully appealed to by the gaming industry) who undergo a debilitating
process of financial ruination (the cause of which is structured into the
gaming machines), but are subjected to pathologising diagnosis and treatment.
THE IRRATIONAL
GAMBLER
However, a question
remains. Why do people persist despite devastating losses? Walker’s (1995)
socio-cognitive theory concludes persistent and excessive gambling is a result,
not of addiction or compulsion, but of irrational thinking maintained by
false beliefs. In a previous research Walker (1985) found that three core
beliefs lie behind and motivate the gambler –
- That through persistence, knowledge and skill it
is possible to win
- While many fail in the attempt, the gambler
believes that he/she unlike those others, has the luck, skill, and
strategies needed to win.
- That persistence in applying oneself to the task
will ultimately be rewarded.
For poker machine players,
the first belief is confirmed by the gaming industry’s presentation that poker
machine playing is economically profitable, advertising which shows only
winners, the ‘noise’ of the machines indicating winning, and the venues
strategies that promote the notion of winning. The small intermittent rewards
structured into the machines also maintain the belief that the gambler can win.
So rather than an ‘irrational’ belief, the gambler has made ‘rational economic’
choices based on powerfully convincing marketing strategies.
The second belief is held
together by two components of irrational thinking – ‘illusion of control’ and
‘belief in luck’. Both thoughts are particularly maintained by ‘early wins’.
The importance of early ‘wins’ as a precursor to heavier gambling is well
recognised (Walker, 1995). Early successes foster the belief that the gambler
has the personal luck and skill to beat the ‘house’. However, not all gamblers
have a history of early successes. For some, losses can be a challenge
to try harder, a challenge which is maintained also by the belief in the
gambler’s own capacity to win. Therefore, while many ‘others’ fail to win, the
belief ‘I can still win’ is held.
Wagenaar (1988, in Walker,
1995) confirms that belief in luck is a major component of gambling, and is
applied to all forms of gambling. The belief that the gambler can be the
‘lucky’ one to win the Jackpot is not unfounded. After all some-one does
win. However, the greater part of the belief is irrational because the chance
of winning is seriously remote as the probabilities of winning Jackpots is low,
and there are a multitude of other players. But this ‘irrational’ belief
applies to Lotteries as well. However, lotteries are not as financially dangerous
as poker machines. So the ‘irrational’ belief itself does not cause financial
loss – it is the activity.
Past life experience has
shown the gambler that he/she is not unlucky, so the belief is held that they
have a chance of winning. This belief is irrational, not that a person might
not have been lucky in the past, but this ascription has no relevance for the
future (Maze, 1983, in Walker, 1995). However, it is not only gamblers who hold
this pattern of thinking. It is a conditioned ‘human’ trait to predict or plan
the future from past experiences. Politicians make decisions all the time on
past theories, and regardless whether they have been effective or not.
The ‘illusion of control’
is maintained by believing that the personal strategies of play influence
outcomes. The locus of control is believed to be within the gambler, and not in
the gambling activity. Players believe they are able to choose lucky Lotto and
Keno numbers, thereby attributing themselves with skill. In games of skill,
such as the selection of horses, wins are held as the result of the gamblers’
skill and strategies, thus increasing the notion that the gambler has control
over the race.
Gaining ‘special’ knowledge
of machines is an important strategy used by poker machine players as the
belief is held that the machine can be influenced to make a payout more
probable. For example, players observe machines that are ‘cold’ or ‘hungry’ and
get to know which machines pay-out more than others. Some players talk to their
machines, and most players take precautions to prevent other people from
playing their machine. Players zealously guard their machines while they
change money, which suggests that players believe that certain machines are
better than others (Walker, 1995).
But the poker machines
contain no skill and are ‘pure’ chance. The illusion of control is maintained
by structural characteristics of the machines, for example, the choice to play
different lines and other specialist introductions (See Chapter Four). The
‘near miss’ (Reid, 1986) also maintains the belief that the gambler has control
over the situation. The phenomenon produced is that the gambler believes he/she
has a real, significant or meaningful chance making three symbols appear next
time. This ‘near miss’ is purposefully structured into the machines in incite
persistent play on the understanding of the psychological process.
But gamblers are not the
only people who hold this ‘irrational’ thought. It is conditioned into the
human child. For example parents encouragingly say from school-work to leisure
activities "Nearly’! You nearly won. Try again! Have another go! Next time
you can win because you nearly won last time! For poker machine players, they
are subjected to constant, and rapid reinforcement.
Walker (1995) says the
illusion of control is also maintained by biased evaluation of outcomes. The
notion of self-serving bias is an explanatory mechanism from the attribution
theory (Ross and Sicoly, 1979, in Walker, 1995). Successful outcomes are
attributed to personal skill and effort, while failures are attributed to
factors beyond personal control such as bad luck and external obstructions. A
win, regardless whether participating in a game of skill or chance, and no
matter if it is a fluke, is taken as overt evidence of the correctness of the
bet (Gilovich and Douglas, 1986, in Walker, 1995). Gamblers also remember and
discuss wins, far more than their losses (Gilovich and Douglas, 1986, in
Walker, 1995). This phenomenon provides the basis for persistence despite
losses, because it allows the losing gambler to continue to believe in his or
her ability to beat the system despite the monetary losses. The belief is also
maintained by the intermittent small rewards (Walker, 1959).
However, gamblers are not
the only sectors of the population for which the attribution theory applies. It
is a theoretical attempt to explain many different behaviours of the ‘human
being’, but the subjects are not necessarily labelled irrational, as are
gamblers.
Walker (1995) claims that
‘entrapment’ by the structure of their chosen form of gambling is powerful in
promoting persistence despite losses. Faced with inevitable losses, for
institutional gambling is programmed for the ‘house’ to win, gamblers are faced
with the choice of continuing their strategy to win money, or cut their losses.
Walker likens the situation to waiting at the bus stop to catch a bus, when the
destination is in easy walking distance. After waiting the time it would have
taken to walk home, and the bus has not come, should you start walking and cut
your losses or continue to wait in the hope that the bus will surely arrive
soon? Lottery players face the same dilemma. After a period of time, the idea
of not putting in an entry is threatening because ‘How would they feel if their
‘lucky’ numbers came up?’ Brocker and Run (1985, p.5, in Walker, 1995) describe
the phenomena of entrapment as ‘a decision making process whereby individuals
escalate their commitment to a previously chose, though failing, course of
action in order to justify or ‘make good’ on ‘prior investments’’.
Making good on prior
investments, is ‘chasing losses’ (Lesieur, 1984). Walker (1995) claims that
chasing losses is irrational because institutional gambling only yields losses.
However, the want to recoup money lost sounds a very rational decision.
Rather than an irrational belief it is suggested here that a dissonance in
thinking occurs.
Having being informed by
the gaming industry through the employment of many methods that winning is
common and inevitable, while the gambler has only incurred increasing losses, a
dissonance between the informed belief and reality occurs. But by now the
gambler has lost a lot of money, feels guilty and ashamed, and becomes
desperate to recoup the losses. Evidence that winning is possible and likely
still surrounds the gambler. It is little wonder that the gambler chooses to
hold the belief that they can still win. Holding the belief that persistence
produces ultimate rewards, and the understanding that gambling produces ‘quick’
profits (prolifigated by the industry) the gambler desperately increases their
gambling. Walker (1995) states that belief in persistence in gaining ultimate
rewards is an irrational thought. However, this is a socialisation process in
our western society. ‘Keep trying, you’ll get there’, ‘Persist and you will
make it’ are common encouragers by family, friends, and the educational
context. It is a capitalist value as well. Values of struggle, persistence, and
slogans of ‘never give up’ are held dearly as encouragers to gain economic or
personal success.
The gambler has become
entrapped in the process of gambling and is further along the continuum to
financial ruin supported by the gaming environment and incited by the
structural characteristics of the machines. The gambler by this stage becomes
emotionally and psychologically stressed and confused. The losses cause depression
and panic. Absorbed with what seems an insoluble problem, the gambler becomes
withdrawn and secretive. Self-esteem and dignity is gradually eroded as
gambling turns honest men into liars and thieves (Personal Communication;
Knowles, 10th July, 1997: Personal Communication; Shotton, 16th
July, 1997). Once ‘honest’ people, they are caught in a cycle of shame, fear,
guilt, loss of self-esteem and dignity, and start to make foolish financial
transactions (borrowing from loan sharks, embezzlement) which add to their ever
increasing burden (Walker, 1995).
THE IRRATIONAL
ACTIVITY
Walker’s (1995) assumptions
are based on the fact that gaming is an economically irrational activity.
"Since all unfair gambles have an expectation of loss, no economically rational
person should accept the opportunity to gamble’ (Walker, 1995, p.88). ‘Gambling
would not be popular if gamblers engaged in rational appraisal of the activity’
(Walker, 1995, p.129). However, his theory still places the irrational, not
just those who are labelled ‘deficit’. In other words, the multitude of people
who have flocked to play the machines are irrational, because the poker machine
is an economically futile activity. Is this a fair and reasonable assumption? I
think not. In fact, it is quite a frightening concept to think that many
Australian citizens are irrational human beings purposely endeavouring to lose
their money.
The irrationality lies
within the activity and the gaming industry. Not that the industry is
irrational. The industry in built on rational economical motives – extracting
the gambling dollar for the owners’ gain. Rather, presented is the economically
irrational activity as an economically productive one. Therefore, rather than
the participants being a large population of irrational people, the gamblers’
rationality has been appealed to.
Hess and Diller (1969) in
their extensive research into gambling marketing strategies of casinos in the
state of Nevada (United States of America), found that overt appeals were made
to rational-economic motives, rational-recreational motives, and
rational-prestige motives. Given that economic gain is highly valued in
capitalist society, rational economic motives would lead the potential gambler
to the gambling situation, and it was found that these motives were the most
frequently used.
The researchers found that
marketing strategies created the impression that gambling results in financial
gain. For example, (a) posting winning Keno tickets as evidence that other
gamblers are ‘hitting it big’, (b) announcing big Keno winners and slot-machine
‘jackpot’ winners via loudspeakers as further evidence that other gamblers are
winning, (c) the ringing of bells and flashing of lights to indicate payoffs on
gambling machines, and (d) advertising to the effect that a given casino has
the ‘most generous slots’ – in other words, advertising that they are
minimising the percentage that the ‘house’ takes.
That one is really being
economical by patronising a particular establishment was found to be another
marketing approach (Hess and Diller, 1969). These approaches came in the form
of (a) cheap culinary inducements – the forty-nine cent breakfast, and
inexpensive buffet lunches and dinners, (b) frequent granting of complimentary
meals and drinks, (c) free ‘stakes’ for gambling – usually consisting of
twenty-five or fifty cents’ worth of nickels, (d) free junkets for selected
clientele – including free accommodation, meals and transportation, (e) free
baby-sitting, (f) free souvenirs, (g) provision of free financial services –
lending facilities, personal check cashing, paycheck cashing with the
possibility of doubling the paycheck or wining free drinks or meals, and (h)
provision of entertainment at bargain rates in lounges, for the price of a
drink, or in dining rooms, for the price of a dinner.
In addition Hess and Diller
found miscellaneous practices designed to appeal to rational-economic motives,
one being the practice of changing large notes into chips which are easier to
relinquish than actual money.
What was clear to Hess and
Diller was that the incentives were targeted to appeal to different
socio-economic groups. ‘Social class differences are explicitly recognised and
exploited through creation of appeals appropriate to the class’ (Hess and
Diller, 1969, p.21). Appeals to the lower class came in the form of the
forty-nine cent breakfast and inexpensive lunches and dinners. Appeals to the
higher socio-economic group were providing complimentary rooms, dining and
entertainment. The researchers found that the wealthy were also wooed by
negative economic approaches, that is: expensive drinks, dinners, and rooms,
which gave the rich the opportunity to display conspicuous consumption.
Closely second to the
rational-economic motives Hess and Diller found appeals to the recreational
value of gambling. Given that leisure now is positively valued in society these
appeals were direct and open and actively promoted by various means and in
various media. National magazine advertisements, radio and television commercials,
and bill-boards were among the media by which appeals are made to the
constellation of recreational motives. Slogans such as '‘Have fun in the sun’,
‘Take time out for fun’, and ‘Go where the action is’ were emphasised.
"Go where the action is ‘ is Goffman’s theory of gambling – that
people gambled because it is a motivation for action (Goffman, 1967, in Walker,
1995).
Hess and Diller further
noted that leisure is also promoted through the universal substitution of the
euphemism ‘gaming’ for ‘gambling’. Gaming (gambling) is promoted within the
same context as sporting activities – for example hunting and fishing contests
and expeditions. The legitimacy and sportsmanship of the sporting activities
are thus extended to the gambling activity. Within the casinos themselves they
found that an atmosphere resembling exciting sporting events were created –
noisy bustling environments with flashing lights, ringing bells, and
announcements of winning and results via the public address system. Finally,
the central feature of the recreational package was entertainment from small
musical groups to Broadway shows.
Further, Hess and Diller
found that the gaming industry routinely made appeals to the prestige motives
to gamble. Elaborate architecture, decorating, and landscaping of the plusher
casinos, complimentary rooms, meals, entertainment, and services, are as highly
valued for the prestige bequeathed therewith as for the actual economic gain.
Betting on credit without actually putting down money is the acme of prestige
bestowed on wealthy regular gamblers. High minimum stakes for some games were
publicly posted adding prestige to those seen participating in such games. High
prices for ancillary services such as drinks and meals also provide the
prestige associated with conspicuous consumption.
Although appeals to
prestige is universal, Hess and Diller noted that appeals to prestige was
primarily the ploy of casinos whose clientele was drawn from the wealthy. These
obvious appeals could repel the ‘working-class’. Some establishments made
direct appeals to the working-class by deliberately creating a negatively
prestigious, casual, even cluttered, atmosphere to the point of purposefully
leaving coin wrappers on the floor, ‘letting carpets become tattered and
frayed, and by use of older worn gambling equipment’ (Hess and Diller, 1969,
p.22).
This chapter has concluded
the diffusion of the typologies utilised by the gaming industry to legitimise
their activities. By examining gambling as a process, the notion of the
‘majority’ is seriously diminished because the category constitutes gamblers
experiencing the process of financial demise. And only when they report to
services do they attract the ‘pathological’ labels. Demonstrated also is that,
rather than two types of gamblers, they are ‘normal’ folk at different stages
of a process on a continuum of inevitable loss.
Although persistence
despite losses is argued by Walker (1995) as being due to the gamblers’ false
beliefs and irrational thinking, the falsehood lies in the gaming industry and
the irrationality lies in the poker machines, but are deceitfully presented as
a rational economic and leisure activity.
CHAPTER 1: THE SCAPE-GOATED
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 6: THE FIELD OBSERVATION
CHAPTER 7: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION
|
|
|
|