Robert Williams & Dennis Connolly
University of Lethbridge
AGRI Annual Convention
March 27 & 28, 2003
Current Educational Initiatives to
Prevent Problem Gambling
largely been spear-headed by the provincial government agencies
that provide treatment for substance abuse and problem gambling
(e.g., AADAC, AFM).
Most of these agencies have developed ongoing ‘awareness
campaigns’.
– 1-800, 24 hour counselling/information ‘hotlines’
– Media promotion of responsible gaming
– Posters/pamphlets in gaming establishments letting people know
about the signs of problem gambling and where to go for help
– Videos on problem gambling
– 1-2 hour presentations to high school classes or other interested
groups
Evaluation of the Educational Initiatives
Good evidence that these initiatives increase individual
awareness and knowledge (although this has been largely
untested for gambling).
Good evidence that over time they create community
awareness, which provides support for individual change.
On their own, awareness campaigns rarely have any impact
on behaviour. While knowledge is a necessary antecedent to
changing or preventing pathological behaviour, it is rarely
sufficient on its own.
More substantive school-based
educational efforts are required
Prevention research suggests that these programs
need to be:
 Multi-session
 Interactive and engaging
 skill oriented
A few jurisdictions have recently introduced gambling prevention
programs into the schools.
–
–
–
–
–
–
“Don’t Bet On It” in South Australia for ages 6 to 9.
“Gambling, Minimising Health Risks” in Queensland for levels 5 & 6.
“Facing the Odds” in Louisiana for grades 5 to 8.
“Wanna Bet” in Minnesota for grades 3 to 8.
“Count me Out” in Quebec for ages 8-17.
“Gambling: A Stacked Deck” in Alberta for ages 13-18.
However, these programs have different orientations, different lengths,
and target different ages. It is somewhat unclear what the optimal
program should look like.
Essential that these programs be evaluated to determine what works
and what doesn’t. Important to avoid the mistakes of substance
abuse, where the most commonly used (and entrenched) schoolbased programs tend to be the less effective ones.
University Project
Introduction
• young adults have the highest rates of
involvement in most risky behaviours
• gambling is no different
• 18-24 has the highest rate of gambling
participation and problem gambling
• surprisingly high rates in college and
university students
Few initiatives targeting young
adults
• the few existing prevention efforts have
targeted adolescents rather than young
adults
• this is because gambling begins at a very
young age and adolescents can be
accessed through their schools
• Introductory Statistics is a natural fit for
teaching critical thinking about gambling
• no research on whether superior
knowledge of gambling probabilities
impacts gambling attitudes or behaviour of
college and university students
two literatures that would support this:
• positive impact of educating problem
gamblers on the nature of randomness,
gambling probabilities, and errors of thinking
(e.g., Ladouceur et al., 2000)
• statistically trained college students have
improved risk assessment and better
general reasoning skills for everyday
problems (e.g., Nisbett et al., 1993)
Method
• Intervention given in “Introduction to
Probability & Statistics” in Fall/01 & Winter/02
semesters at University of Lethbridge.
– 5 lectures devoted exclusively to probabilities
associated with gambling.
– 4 labs provided hands-on demonstrations of roulette,
craps, etc.
– 1 lecture on cognitive errors/gambling fallacies.
– assigned supplemental text that deals exclusively
with gambling probabilities.
Method
• 2 Intro Stats sections taught by Dennis
Connolly served as Intervention Group
(n=109)
• 2 Intro Stats sections taught by 2 other math
instructors served as Math Control Group
(n=135)
• a History class and Sociology class served
as the Non-Math Control Group (n=85)
Method
• Baseline questionnaire collected & assessed:
•
•
•
•
•
demographic information
knowledge and ability to calculate gambling odds
cognitive errors common in gambling
attitude toward gambling
gambling behaviour (time, frequency, $, CPGI)
• Questionnaire re-administered 6 months after
the intervention
Results - Gambling Math Skill
(score range: 0 to 9)
6
Baseline
6-month Follow-up
*
5
4
3
2
1
0
Intervention*
Math Control
NonMath
Control
Results - Cognitive Errors
(score range: 0 to 9)
Baseline
6-month Follow-up
*
Intervention*
Math Control
NonMath
Control
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Results - Attitudes
(score range: -6 to +6)
3
Baseline
6-month Follow-up
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Intervention
Math Control
NonMath
Control
Results - Gambling Frequency
(3=2-3/month; 4=1/week)
6
Baseline
6-month Follow-up
5
4
3
2
1
0
Intervention
Math Control
NonMath
Control
Results - Gambling Time
(4=2-4 hr/occasion; 5=4-8 hr/occasion)
7
Baseline
6-month Follow-up
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Intervention
Math Control
NonMath
Control
Results - $ lost/won
(-1=lost $1-$20 in past month)
3
Baseline
6-month Follow-up
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Intervention
Math Control
NonMath
Control
Results - Average CPGI
(score range 0-27)
3
Baseline
6-month Follow-up
2
1
0
Intervention
Math Control
NonMath
Control
Discussion
Improvement
Odds Calculation
Cognitive Errors
Attitudes
Gambling Behaviour
No Change
• Variables most strongly associated with
baseline gambling behaviour
•
•
•
•
Positive attitude toward gambling
Asian
Male
Management major
• Variables most strongly associated with
decreases in gambling behaviour at 6month follow-up
• Changes in attitude (more negative)
High School Project
Method
• Implementation occurred at 2 sites in the Sep 2001 –
Jun 2002 school year: Calgary & rural Aboriginal
schools
• Each site had a school that received the intervention
and a school that served as the control school
• Calgary involved grade 10 & 11 students
• Comparisons between intervention and control
conditions at pre-intervention; post-intervention; and
3-month follow-up
Program Content & Format
• 5 sessions long, each session 100 minutes
• Interactive program with strong emphasis on skill learning and
application of knowledge
• Program also targeted the social environment of students
receiving the program
•
•
•
•
•
Lesson 1:
Lesson 2:
Lesson 3:
Lesson 4:
Lesson 5:
Gambling: Types & Odds
Problem Gambling
Gambling Fallacies
Decision Making & Problem Solving
Barriers to Good Decision Making & Problem Solving
Gambling is part of an inter-related set of
high risk/problem behaviours
Psychological
Problems
Problem
Gambling
Antisocial
Behaviour
Substance
Abuse
School/Work
Problems
Poor Health
Practises
Interpersonal
Problems
Caused by a common set of factors
Biological
Environmental
Self-Controlled  Impulsive
Abusive/neglectful  Nurturing/disciplined
upbringing
upbringing
Risk aversive  Risk seeking
Antisocial parental  Prosocial parental
Modelling
modelling
Stress resilient  Stress vulnerable
Deviant peer group  Prosocial peer group
Strong intellect/skills  Weak intellect/skills
Poor schools/  Good schools/
teachers
teachers
Results (Calgary)
• 597 students administered the baseline questionnaire
at both schools
• 469/597 (79%) provided parental consent allowing
questionnaire to be used
• 469/469 (100%) response rate at post-intervention
• 347/469 (74%) response rate at 3 month follow-up
Results - Knowledge
7
*
6
*
5
4
3
2
1
0
Intervention
Control
Baseline
Post-Intervention
3 month follow-up
Results – Cognitive Errors
(lower scores = fewer errors)
3
2.5
*
2
*
1.5
1
0.5
0
Intervention
Control
Baseline
Post-Intervention
3 month follow-up
Results – Odds Calculation
3.5
3
*
*
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Intervention
Control
Baseline
Post-Intervention
3 month follow-up
Results – Attitudes
(higher scores = more negative attitudes)
*
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
*
Intervention
Control
Baseline
Post-Intervention
3 month follow-up
Results – Money Lost
1.4
1.2
1
*
0.8
Baseline
0.6
3 month follow-up
0.4
0.2
0
Intervention
Control
Results – Gambling Time
6
5
4
3
Baseline
3 month follow-up
2
1
0
Intervention
Control
Results – Gambling Frequency
6
5
4
3
Baseline
3 month follow-up
2
1
0
Intervention
Control
Discussion
Improvement
No Change
?
?
?
?
Knowledge
Cognitive Errors
Attitudes
Odds Calculation
Decision Making Skills
Coping Skills
Money Lost
Gambling Time
Gambling Frequency
• Variables most strongly associated with baseline
gambling behaviour
•
•
•
•
•
•
Positive attitude toward gambling
More gambling fallacies
Lack of gambling knowledge
Risk taking
Impulsivity
Having won a significant sum gambling
• Variables most strongly associated with
decreases in gambling behaviour at 3-month
follow-up
• Changes in attitude (more negative)
• Changes in knowledge (more knowledge)
• Changes in cognitive errors (fewer)
Lessons learned from these projects
relevant to prevention initiatives
 Teaching people about gambling odds may be analogous to telling
smokers about the harmful effects of smoking or drinkers about the
harmful effects of drinking  perhaps not that important in
prevention initiatives.
 Developing a more negative attitude toward gambling most strongly
predicts decreased gambling behaviour.
 Improving people’s knowledge about problem gambling appears to
be important (and perhaps a mechanism by which attitudes change).
 Teaching people about the cognitive errors underlying gambling
fallacies is important.
 Trying to improve generic decision making, problem solving, and
coping skills is probably important.