Reminder: Exploration Grant Applications Due June 1!

The Institute for Research on Gambling Disordersoffers three types of project grantsto support research on gambling disorders, and the application deadline for ourExploration Grantsis just around the corner – June 1, 2010. Exploration Grants provide $5,000 for a period of 12 months and are intended to support pilot studies or other small projects. These grants offer quick access to funding – applicants will be notified about grant decisions by July 1. The Institute plans to award approximately five Exploration Grants this year. Download the application instructions and application form (in PDF form) on theExplorations Grants page.

These Exploration Grants are part of the more than $300,000 the Institute plans to award in 2010 to researchers in all stages of their careers. For examples of previously funded studies, follow the link to theFunded Project Grantspage. Questions or comments? Please post them in the comments section below, or contactChristine Reillydirectly with any specific questions about the application process.

NCRG staffICRG Newsaddiction research grantsdisordered gamblingexploration grantsgambling research grantsgrant deadlinesInstitute grantsnew investigatorresearch grants

/by

New Research On The Impact Of Having A Parent With Gambling Problems

The following is an excerpt from the article,“All in the Family: New Research on the Impact of Having a Parent with Gambling Problems,”which was originally published in thespring 2010 edition of Responsible Gaming Quarterly.

Scientists and clinicians have long speculated that gambling disorders are more prevalent in families with a history of problem gambling behavior. The role that heredity plays in the development of a gambling disorder is important to research focused on the causes of the disorder and to assessment and treatment. Research has started to unravel the genetic versus environmental factors. A University of Minnesota study,“Characteristics of Pathological Gamblers with a Problem Gambling Parent,”recently published inThe American Journal on Addiction, is the first attempt to determine whether having a problem gambling parent is associated with any unique clinical features in adults with pathological gambling (PG) (Schreiber, Odlaug, Kim, & Grant, 2009).

Lead author Liana Schreiber and colleagues hypothesized that adults in treatment for pathological gambling who had a problem gambling parent would (1) start gambling at an earlier age; (2) have more severe gambling symptoms; and (3) have higher rates of substance use disorders than PG adults without a PG parent.

********

The investigators found that one-third of the sample had at least one parent with a gambling problem. Overall, the investigators did not find many significant differences between the subjects with a PG parent and those without. For example, contrary to previous research on age of onset, subjects with a PG parent did not report a significantly earlier age of onset of gambling or gambling problems compared to those without a PG parent. Further research is needed to reconcile these differences. In addition, the severity of PG symptoms did not differ significantly between the two groups, and both groups had the same rate of psychiatric and substance use disorders.

Several important distinctions did emerge between the two groups. Subjects with a PG parent had significantly greater rates of daily nicotine use. Also, those with one PG parent were more likely to have a father with an alcohol-use disorder. The study authors conjecture that because children of alcoholics have more psychological, emotional and developmental difficulties compared to individuals without a family history of alcohol problems, the gambling could be a reflection of these problems. This finding suggests a possible genetic transmission of addictions, as found in studies of theVietnam Era Twin Registry, which suggest that genetics account for 35 to 45 percent of PG symptoms and that there are common genetic and environmental contributions to PG and alcohol dependence (Eisen, Slutske, Lyons, et al., 2001; Slutske, Eisen, True, et al., 2000).

The subjects with a PG parent also reported significantly greater financial and legal problems. One explanation is that poor coping skills may be more severe in those with a family history of gambling problems, and the result is greater negative consequences. According to the authors, the study has several limitations, including the use of subjects’ memories of parents’ gambling behaviors to determine a family history. However, it represents a significant step forward in developing a detailed portrait of the origins of PG.

Liana R.N. Schreiber is a clinical research coordinator for the Impulse Control Disorders clinic at the University of Minnesota. In 2009, the University of Minnesota was selected as one of the firstNCRG Centers of Excellence in Gambling Research.

For the full article and additional details about the study,see pages 8-9 of the spring 2010 Responsible Gaming Quarterly.

References

Eisen, S. A., Slutske, W. S., Lyons, M. J., Lassman, J., Xian, H., Toomey, R., et al. (2001). The genetics of pathological gambling.Seminar in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 6(3), 195-204.

Schreiber, L., Odlaug, B. L., Kim, S. W., & Grant, J. E. (2009). Characteristics of pathological gamblers with a problem gambling parent.The American Journal on Addictions, 18(6), 462-469.

NCRG staffResearch Updatedisordered gamblinggeneticsnew researchUniversity of Minnesota

/by

Addressing Responsible Gaming In Indian Country

Tribal Government Gaming

This spring,Tribal Government Gaming magazinepublished a feature article about the responsible gaming measures already in place at tribal casinos and how some of these operations are expanding their efforts to include science-based technological innovations. The article –“Tribal Responsibility: Addressing Responsible Gaming in Indian Country”– includes a look at how San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino is using the National Center for Responsible Gaming’s PEER program and EMERGE online employee training program to enhance existing training and “create a whole new level of awareness… about the science behind pathological gambling,” according to Dianna Scina, guest services director.

The article also covers the unique challenges tribal governments and gaming facilities face, including the difficulties involved in using science to inform responsible gaming programs for tribe members due to the lack of research on gambling disorders among tribal populations. Tribal gaming experts Eileen Luna-Firebaugh and Dr. Kate Spilde, who addressed some of these challenges in our January 2010 edition ofIssues & Insights(“Creating Partnerships between American Indian Communities and Researchers”), are quoted in the article, providing their insights about these hurdles and the opportunities they present.

PEER stands for Partnership for Excellence in Education and Responsible Gaming. More information about the PEER program is available on theNCRG’s website.

EMERGE stands for Executive, Management and Employee Responsible Gaming Education.The EMERGE programis a science-based, online training program for gaming industry employees. It is approved by an international, third-party credentialing agency and exceeds the requirements of all current gaming regulations regarding responsible gaming training for employees.

NCRG staffResponsible GamingAmerican IndianEMERGEresponsible gamingtribal gaming

/by

New Edition Of The Wager Compares Gambling Policies For European Athletes, Ncaa Student Athletes

The WAGER(Worldwide Addiction Gambling Education Report) is a great resource for keeping up with new research on gambling and gambling disorders. This online science review is published by the Division on Addictions at Cambridge Health Alliance, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School.The WAGERis one of a number of publications available through theBrief Addiction Science Information Source (BASIS).

This month’s edition ofTheWAGER–Vol. 14(4)– highlights the newgambling code of conductcreated for European professional athletes and compares it tothe rulesthat deter gambling among NCAA athletes. As always we welcome thoughts and questions in the comments section below.

NCRG staffIn the Newscollege gamblingDivision on AddictionsEuropeHarvard Medical SchoolNCAAresponsible gamingsports bettingThe WAGER

/by

May Is Mental Health Month – A Time To Reflect On The Stigma Of Mental Illness And Addiction

Despite scientific advances in understanding mental health problems, the stigma surrounding disorders such as depression, substance-use problems and disordered gambling behavior remains a powerful force in today’s society.Mental Health Americais observing Mental Health Month in May to increase public awareness of mental health issues and reduce the stigma and prejudice toward these problems.

Clinicians and patients report that embarrassment and shame can be especially acute for individuals with gambling problems because of the lack of public awareness about how an activity like gambling can be as powerful as a drug for a vulnerable person.

To help us reflect on this important issue, we have reproduced, with permission from theAmerican Psychological Association(APA), the following interview about mental health awareness and stigma with Katherine C. Nordal, Ph.D., executive director for professional practice at the APA.

********

Dr. Nordal is a licensed psychologist experienced in treating adults, children and adolescents and has clinical expertise in the treatment of stress-related disorders. As executive director for the APA’s Practice Directorate, Dr. Nordal manages a variety of activities involving legislative advocacy, legal initiatives, efforts to shape the evolving health care market, and a nationwide public education campaign, including the Mind/Body Health Campaign, to enhance the value of psychology.

Do you think there is still a stigma associated with mental illness?

Awareness of mental health issues has definitely improved in recent decades. When I entered practice more than 30 years ago, individuals in my semi-rural community would often travel 40-50 miles to get treatment because they did not want anyone to know that they were seeing a therapist. Many people were concerned about what others may think if they were open about their mental health. In many ways, we have taken great strides since then as more people talk about mental health publicly and as we see more positive depictions of mental health in popular culture. Yet, for many, stigma remains. A 2008 APA survey found that more than half of Americans saw stigma–and concerns about what other people might think–as barriers that could prevent them from seeking mental health treatment. And while an estimated 50 million Americans experience a mental health disorder in any year, only one in four will receive treatment.

It is important to remember the impact that stigma can have. Because of stigma, people who need treatment may fail to seek it and they may face discrimination and problems at work or school or even encounter harassment or violence. Furthermore, untreated mental health disorders cost businesses millions of dollars in lost productivity, absenteeism and health care costs.

Why does the public often have a different view of mental illness than physical illness?

Traditionally, the medical model has separated mental and physical health. But this fails to take account of the strong links between the mind and body. Research shows that physical health is directly connected to emotional health, and millions of Americans know that suffering from a mental health disorder can be as frightening and debilitating as any major physical health disorder. Poor mental health has implications for physical health – for example, research has shown that people with depression are at greater risk for developing heart disease, and conversely, that people with heart disease are more likely to suffer from depression than others.

Integrated health care – care that treats both the mind and body – is the key to breaking down stigma and providing the best care. Many psychologists already work in primary care settings with physicians and other health care professionals, often serving as members of multidisciplinary treatment teams and taking the lead when a patient has a primary mental health or substance abuse diagnosis.

What can be done to combat stigma and stereotypes about mental illness?

Congress took a huge step in tackling stigma when the Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act was passed last year. This new law means that insurance policies can no longer discriminate against those with mental health or substance use disorders. We’ve long known that mental health disorders can be as serious as those impacting physical health. The new parity law recognizes this by mandating that coverage must be the same for mental health as for physical health including co-payments, deductibles and in-patient treatment limits.

Events like Mental Health Month also serve to raise awareness and decrease stigma. Mental health disorders impact everyone – by talking about mental health we can dispel stereotypes and raise awareness.

The APA is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists.

Have you experienced or observed the stigma surrounding addiction, mood disorders or other mental health problems? Share your stories in the comments section below.

American Psychological Association, introduction by Christine ReillyInterviewsAmerican Psychological Associationdisordered gamblingmental healthstigma

/by

Naadac Names Institute An Approved Education Provider

The Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders has been awarded “Approved Education Provider” status byNAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals. This approval identifies continuing education opportunities offered by the Institute as meeting nationally approved standards of education developed for the addiction counseling field and assures participants that continuing education units (CEUs) provided by the Institute will be accepted toward national credentialing by the NAADAC Certification Commission and by many of the individual state licensing and certification bodies as well.

NAADAC is the largest membership organization for addiction counselors in the world with more than 10,000 members and 43 state affiliates. Credentials (offered through the NAADAC’sNational Certification Commission) include “National Certified Addiction Counselor I/II” and “Master Addiction Counselor,” and require 40 hours of continuing education every two years for renewal.

NAADAC’s rigorous review process for education providers ensures that its members involved in approved continuing education programs “receive a consistent, reliable and quality learning experience that is applicable to their careers and advances their understanding of addiction-related issues.”

The Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders offers several approved educational opportunities for addiction professionals throughout the year, including theNCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction, scheduled for Nov. 14-16, 2010. The Institute and the NCRG also offer free webinars throughout the year, which can be accessed from anywhere via the Internet. Archived versions of the 2009 webinars – “Youth and College Gambling: New Direction, New Discoveries”and “Treating Pathological Gambling with Motivational Interviewing and CBT: A Webinar for Addiction Professionals” – areavailable for free through the National Center for Responsible Gaming’s website. Announcements about topics for the 2010 webinar series are coming soon.

Have a specific area of interest you’d like to see covered in a webinar or conference session? Let us know in the comments section below.

NCRG staffICRG Newsaddiction counselingcontinuing educationNAADACwebinars

/by

Interview With Institute Scientific Advisory Board Chair – Linda B. Cottler, Ph.d., M.p.h.

The following is an excerpt from the story“Cottler Leads Scientific Advisory Board into New Era,”which originally was published in thespring 2010 edition of Responsible Gaming Quarterly.

Dr. Linda B. Cottler

When Dr. Linda B. Cottler was first asked to serve as chair of the Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders’Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), she made one point exceedingly clear – “I didn’t want to do this job unless there was something I could really contribute,” she said. Cottler, a professor of epidemiology in psychiatry at the Washington University School of Medicine, is one of the country’s foremost epidemiological scientists and is widely respected throughout the addictions research community for her contributions to the field.

Less than a year since the Institute’s inception, Cottler and her fellow SAB members already have made a significant impact on the field of research on gambling disorders. In February, guided by the SAB, the Institute announced the restructuring of itsProject Grants program, which will include doubling the number of grants available through that program (see cover story).

By increasing the number of grants available, the SAB is hoping to encourage more researchers to become involved in the field of research on gambling disorders. “The science of addiction shows there are certain synergies between pathological gambling and other addictions, so providing more opportunities for researchers to collaborate and explore these synergies can facilitate interesting new findings and stimulate the growth of the field,” Cottler said. “This new approach provides the same amount of total funding as before, but enables more researchers from diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise to be involved.”

In addition to simply having a greater number of researchers involved in the field, Cottler said the SAB is particularly interested in providing support for junior investigators and encouraging them to conduct studies on gambling disorders.

“In the next 10 years, the research workforce will lose about 30 percent of its active investigators to retirement,” Cottler said. “This is a significant loss, and so it is critical that we focus on helping junior investigators develop an expertise in this area.”

********

Cottler explained that the SAB and the Institute also have plans to raise awareness about gambling disorders within the broader addictions community and to encourage various branches of the National Institutes of Health to continue funding gambling research. She noted that an important part of this outreach will be making the connection between gambling disorders and other addictions — such as substance-related disorders – and how research in the gambling sector can help inform broader scientific efforts.

“The NCRG and the Institute have been very important to the field of gambling research, singlehandedly funding the bulk of the research that has helped increase understanding of treatments and assessments and informed the development of science-based tools that can be easily picked up and used by others,” Cottler said. “It is important that we also understand the funding priorities at the federal level so that we can continue to provide seed grant opportunities that can be leveraged into larger federal funding opportunities. This will allow investigators to conduct widescale research in this field and for communities to make further headway in reducing the consequences of gambling disorders.”

Dr. Linda B. Cottler is the chair of the Institute’s Scientific Advisory Board and the 2010recipient of the Marian W. Fischman Lectureship Award from the College on Problems of Drug Dependence in honor of her outstanding contributions in drug abuse research.

For the full article and additional insights from Dr. Cottler, turn to pages 4-5 of thespring 2010 Responsible Gaming Quarterly.

NCRG staffInterviewscomorbiditydisordered gamblingInstitute grantsNIH

/by

Researchers Explore How Attitudes, Intentions And Peer Behaviors Influence The Gambling Behavior Of College Students

A recently published study inPsychology of Addictive Behaviorshighlights how gambling behavior among college students can be influenced by their own attitudes and intentions toward gambling, as well as their perceptions of the norms for family and friends regarding gambling.

The 2009report of the Task Force on College Gambling Policiescalled for more research to help colleges and universities develop evidence-based programs to prevent and reduce gambling problems among students. This newly published study, “Using the theory of planned behavior to predict gambling behavior,” offers a promising approach for developing responsible gaming initiatives targeted at this population.

The researchers conducted a classroom-based survey of 785 undergraduate students at a large public university in order to evaluate the usefulness of the theory of planned behavior in understanding past-year gambling and gambling frequency among this population (Martin et al., 2010). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a model designed to understand and predict behavior by analyzing the individual’s intentions, attitudes and perceptions of what are normal behaviors and attitudes among friends and family (Ajzen, 1985). The survey assessed the individual’s past year gambling behavior, attitudes towards gambling, intentions to gamble (e.g., “In the next two weeks I intend to spend $20 or more on gambling.”), perception of control over gambling behavior (e.g., “I would be able to control my gambling if I were at a place where other people were gambling.”), perceived attitudes of friends and family towards gambling (e.g., “My family would disapprove of me gambling on the internet.”) and gathered general demographic information.

The researchers tested these factors to determine their influence on gambling behavior, and found that three factors in particular had significant effects. (1) A perception that friends and family were less positive toward gambling resulted in lower intention to gamble. (2) Individual attitudes towards gambling (including belief in luck, winning streaks and positive perceptions of high stakes gamblers) predicted greater intentions to gamble. (3) Individuals who believed that they had more control over their gambling intended to gamble less than those who felt they had less control. All of these factors–the norms of family and friends, the individual’s perception of attitudes and self-control–affected the students’ intentions to gamble. Intentions to gamble, in turn, were significantly related to gambling frequency. This relationship is important because gambling frequency correlates very highly with gambling problems (Kessler et al., 2008).

According to the study, these findings suggest that college-based responsible gambling efforts should consider targeting misperceptions of approval regarding gambling behavior (i.e. subjective norms), personal approval of gambling behavior (i.e. attitudes), and perceived behavioral control to better manage gambling behavior in various situations.

Gambling among college students continues to be a topic of interest throughout the U.S. Just last week, there were stories about college gambling in theWorcester Telegramand theUConn Daily Campus.For more information on college gambling and the Task Force on College Gambling Policies, visit ourYouth and College Programspage. How is gambling being addressed on your campus? Please share your comments and questions with us below.

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.),Action-control: From cognition to behavior(pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.

Kessler, R. C., Hwang, I., LaBrie, R., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A., Winters, K. C., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.Psychological Medicine, 38(9), 1351-1360.

Martin, R. J., Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D., Usdan, S., Umstattd, M. R., Perko, M., & Shaffer, H. (2010). Using the theory of planned behavior to predict gambling behavior.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(1), 89-97.

NCRG staffResearch Updatecollege gamblingHarvard Medical Schoolnew researchTask Force on College Gambling Policiestheory of planned behavior

/by

Save The Date For The 11th Annual NCRG Conference On Gambling And Addiction

Mark your calendar to attend the 11thannualNCRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction:Redefining Diagnosis, Treatment, Research and Responsible Gaming for the 21stCentury.

WHEN: Nov. 14-16, 2010

WHERE: Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino and Las Vegas Convention Center

This year’s conference will introduce new interactive, workshop-style sessions and take a close look at how new research is redefining how we diagnose, treat, study and prevent gambling disorders. Sessions will examine a variety of compelling issues and topics including the proposed changes to the definition of pathological gambling in theDSM-V, new approaches for studying minority populations, the latest research on online gambling, the implications of new gambling technology on gambling disorders and fresh ideas for implementing responsible gaming policies in new gaming jurisdictions.

The Institute sponsors a poster session at the conference to showcase new empirical research on gambling disorders. To receive the call for posters, send your contact information toinfo@gamblingdisorders.org.

Tthe NCRG conference provides CEUs for clinicians and CLE credit for legal professionals. For more information about registration and the conference program, visit theconference pageof the NCRG website.

We’ll also be keeping you informed about NCRG conference updates here on Gambling Disorders 360° – and don’t forget to connect with the Institute and the NCRG onFacebookfor special registration discounts and conference-related news.

NCRG staffConference on Gambling and Addictioncontinuing educationdisordered gamblingNCRG Conferenceresponsible gaming

/by

Testing Responsible Gaming Strategies

Responsible gaming programs are intended to prevent or reduce potential gambling-related harms (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004). Examples of such programs range from brochures about disordered gambling to helping gamblers keep track of money wagered through “smart cards.” But are these programs effective? A recently published study by Drs. Lia Nower and Alex Blaszczynski, “Gambling Motivations, Money-Limiting Strategies, and Pre-commitment Preferences of Problem Versus Non-Problem Gamblers,” demonstrates that rigorous scientific research is vital to determining the effectiveness of a responsible gaming strategy. This study also shows that such investigations have to consider the motivations of gamblers who get into trouble and the viability of the program – in this case, the use of smart cards – in real-life gambling situations.

Attempts to identify the specific “addictive” features of electronic gaming machines have yielded largely inconclusive results, suggesting that the interaction between a gambler’s motivation-related thought process and the machine, rather than the machine itself, fuels excessive play (Blaszczynski et al., 2005).

A number of studies have reported that problem gamblers are particularly motivated by the desire to win money (Ladouceur, Sylvain, Boutin, & Doucet, 2002; Neighbors, Lostutter, Cronce, & Larimer, 2002; Park, Griffiths, & Irwing, 2004; Wood, Gupta, Derevensky, & Griffiths, 2004). This is partly due to the misconception that gambling is an income-generating activity rather than a form of entertainment (Walker, 1992). Research has reported that machine players with gambling problems adopt a number of erroneous thought patterns regarding the probability of winning and the nature of randomness, leading to an over-inflated estimate of the likelihood of winning and, in turn, to excessive spending (Gaboury & Ladouceur, 1989; Manoso, Labrador, & Fernandez-Alba, 2004).

Some authors have suggested that requiring patrons to gamble with cards limited to pre-set amounts of money (i.e.,“smart” cards), similar to gift cards, will decrease the impulsive overspending characteristic of problem gamblers (see e.g., Dickerson & O’Connor, 2006). It is unknown, however, whether adopting “pre-session” (i.e., prior to gambling) spending limits will decrease the money spent gambling irrespective of distorted or erroneous thoughts during play. In this study, we explored whether problem gamblers differed from other groups in their motivations to gamble and their willingness to either set or adhere to pre-session spending limits.

A total of 127 electronic gaming machine players in Brisbane, Australia were recruited from the gaming floor at one of four venues and asked to complete a questionnaire. We assessed reasons for gambling, demographics and preferred gambling activities. The questionnaire also measured gamblers’ perspectives on pre-commitment strategies, including: (a) their willingness to gamble with a pre-set amount of money; (b) the perceived effectiveness of pre-commitment on limiting gambling expenditures; (c) potential strategies to compensate for the limitations of pre-commitment; (d) funding preferences; and (e) overall perceptions of money-related harm reduction strategies.

About 71 percent of the participants in the study were men with an average age of 38 years. Women were considerably older, averaging 44 years of age. Participants were grouped according to the Problem Gambling Severity Index of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (Ferris & Wynne, 2001): non-problem gamblers (48.4 percent), low-risk gamblers (19.7 percent), moderate-risk gamblers (15.7 percent), and problem gamblers (15.7 percent).

Consistent with prior research, we observed a fundamental distinction in the primary motivation for gambling between non-problem and problem gamblers in this study. Although a high proportion of all gambling groups indicated that gambling was fun and enjoyable, a significantly higher proportion of problem gamblers, as compared to non-problem gamblers, reported that playing machines was a way to earn income or to escape problems. In contrast, non-problem gamblers endorsed fun/enjoyment and socialization as the two primary motivations for gambling.

With respect to pre-commitment, problem gamblers expressed much more reluctance than other groups about using smart cards, though they admitted losing track of money while gambling and were rarely aware of whether they were winning or losing. They indicated they would only use a smart card if cards were refillable, or if they were either able to access additional funds as needed or allowed to purchase an additional card if they ran out of funds and wanted to “chase” a loss. These responses suggest that pre-commitment would have little effect on decreasing gambling expenditures among those who are intent on continued gambling, because they will likely find a means of obtaining additional cards or seek out venues where refills or other options were available. Nonetheless, future studies should investigate whether pre-commitment strategies might have a protective effect for non-problem or low-risk gamblers who might otherwise proceed to more serious levels of gambling.

Lia Nower, J.D., Ph.D., is associate professor and director of the Center for Gambling Studies at Rutgers University. Alex Blaszczynski, Ph.D., holds a chair in psychology at the University of Sydney.

References

Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H.J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model.Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 301-317.

Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Shannon, K., & Coughlan, M.-J. (2005). Structural characteristics of electronic gaming machines and satisfaction of play among recreational and problem gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 5, 187–198.

Dickerson, M.G., & O’Connor, J. (2006).Gambling is an addictive disorder: Impaired control harm minimisation, treatment and prevention.Cambridge: International Research Monographs in the Addictions.

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001).The Canadian Problem Gambling Index.Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Gaboury, A., & Ladouceur, R. (1989). Erroneous perceptions and gambling.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 411–420.

Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., & Doucet, C. (2002).Understanding and treating pathological gamblers.London: Wiley.

Manoso, V., Labrador, F.J., & Fernandez-Alba, A. (2004). Differences on cognitive distortions during gambling in pathological gamblers and no-gamblers.Psicothema, 16, 576–581.

Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T.W., Cronce, J.M., & Larimer, M.E. (2002). Exploring college student gambling.Motivation, 18, 361–370.

Park, A., Griffiths, M., & Irwing, P. (2004). Personality traits in pathological gambling: Sensation seeking, deferment of gratification and competiveness as risk factor.Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 201–212.

Walker, M.B. (1992).The psychology of gambling.Oxford: Pergamon.

Wood, R.T.A., Gupta, R., Derevensky, J.L., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Video game playing and gambling in adolescents: Common risk factors.Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 14, 77–100.

NCRG staffIssues & Insightsdisordered gamblingresponsible gaming

/by