CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTIONPurpose
At the time of this study, gambling addictions treatment was new within the addictions field. It had been said to be 20 years behind chemical dependency addictions treatment. The purpose of this project was to determine if the mandated drug and alcohol clients at Addiction Counseling Education Services (ACES) in the state of Oregon had a co-occurring addiction with gambling. It hoped to determine whether there existed a need for assessment and education of gambling addiction in this population.
When behaviors of gambling and substance abuse are analyzed, there are many similarities apparent. These behaviors may include; enjoyment, escape, boredom, immediate gratification, peer pressure, modeling and imitation, cultural factors, exposure, availability, and cognitive expectations.
With very few exceptions, treatment of pathological gambling and chemical dependency are similar. It has been shown in studies that gambling addiction can be a cross addiction or a co-occurring addiction with substance abuse. Blume (1994) writes, “switching addictions may be defined as a substitution of one drug of choice or one set of addictive behaviors for another, while continuing a pattern of addiction” (p.88).
In the state of Oregon, Pathological gambling addiction had been growing by leaps and bounds in the 10 years prior to this study. In 2002, with gambling becoming a major industry, Oregon was one of only a few states in the United States to provide free treatment to its citizens. This treatment was paid for by lottery dollars. Even with free treatment available, there were still many problem or pathological gamblers not being assessed for the need of treatment at Addictions Counseling and Education Services, where this research project had been conducted.
Addiction Counseling Education Services (ACES) was a not-for-profit addictions treatment facility, with offices located in Lane, Linn, and Benton counties within Western/Central Oregon. First established as an outpatient drug and alcohol treatment facility in November 1981, it began with four employees and one office located in Eugene Oregon. Since its inception, ACES had grown from one office and four employees to 11 offices and over 100 employees by 2002. It had expanded its treatment models to include level I outpatient counseling as well as level II intensive outpatient counseling. The Meridian Gambling intensive outpatient treatment program was established with one counselor in 1994. ACES had won numerous awards including state of Oregon Site Reviews for 1998 and 2001, Treatment Provider of the Year in 1998 and the Credentialing Advocacy Award in 1997.
A board of directors governed the formal operations of ACES. The organization was run from top down. The executive director reported to the board of directors. At each office there was a program supervisor to which all site supervisors, staff counselors, secretaries and interns reported.
ACES was licensed by the state of Oregon to provide treatment to satisfy the judicial requirements for receiving a DUII citation. During intake assessment ACES drug and alcohol programs follow the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition (DSM IV) criteria, and the Oregon administration rules (OAR). These criteria give guidelines for the counselor to diagnose what level of care is warranted for each individual client.
ACES was a treatment facility that offered level I outpatient and level II intensive outpatient care for drug and alcohol treatment, and intensive outpatient gambling addiction treatment. Although they were very thorough with assessment of drug and alcohol use, there was no assessment for co-morbidity of gambling addiction or education in the groups on gambling addiction itself. They did not have a curriculum that included education on gambling addiction as they did for other types of addictive substances.
The client was assessed to what level of treatment they would be placed, depending on past use and history with drug and alcohol. They were placed anywhere from 6 weeks education to 24 weeks of diversion education. Level II Intensive outpatient treatment required 3 weekly groups at 2 ½ hours each for 12 weeks, along with bi-monthly 1:1’s with a counselor, and random urinalysis testing. Level I Outpatient treatment required one group weekly for two hours, along with a bi-monthly 1:1 with a counselor and random urinalysis testing.
As listed in their policies and procedures manual, the goal of ACES was expressed in its mission statement: “ACES Counseling Center is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing education and cognitive-behavioral counseling to persons experiencing the consequences of alcohol and drug abuse. Our mission is to educate, encourage, and empower people to function to their highest potential.”Awareness about the impact of gambling, as a problem in our society, has gained national attention in recent years. Increasingly treatment facilities have seen more and more problem gamblers that came through their doors. Debring et al., (2001) reported among people contacting mental health professionals for substance abuse problems, approximately 29% have a lifetime prevalence of disordered gambling. They assert that only a small proportion of mental health clinicians assess for the disorder and when they do it is not until the disorder has become severe.
Gambling treatment clients have shown to have co-occurring addiction or cross-addiction to alcohol, drugs or both. Because of this and the devastation caused to the addict, their family and society, it is a population that needs assessing early in their disease. Assessing gambling addiction in the early problem stage before it progresses to the pathological stage will result in less of a negative impact to society. These losses can include loss of family unit, lost work, high health care costs, financial devastation and suicide.
This study was expected to show whether there was a need for assessment of ACES clients for the co-morbidity with substance abuse and gambling addiction. It was also expected to show if there was a need for education for mandated drug and alcohol clients in the treatment agencies. If this were the result of the study it would greatly benefit the community, because of the substantial emotional, social, financial, and legal problems caused from bankruptcy, broken families, theft and embezzlement from employers. With ACES being a treatment agency, it is important they assess for problem and pathological gambling, and treat all addictions during the client’s time in treatment. This would help with cost efficiencies for treatment services, and bring in more clientele for the gambling program, which would increase the revenue for ACES.
1. Gambling: any betting or wagering, for self or others, whether for money or not; no matter how slight or insignificant, where the outcome is uncertain or depends on chance or “skill” (Gamblers Anonymous, Yellow Book, 14).
2. Chemical Dependency/ Substance Abuse: For the purposes of this study the definition used is from the DSM IV Diagnostic Manual (DSM IV, 1994).
3. Addiction: Is a broad term that refers to a condition in which a person feels psychologically and physically compelled to take a specific drug. Many physically addictive drugs gradually produce tolerance and withdrawal. Hockenbury and Hockenbury, Second Edition
4. Addict: to give oneself up to some strong habit (New World College Dictionary, 1988).
5. Cross Addiction: when stopping one addiction and filling that loss with another addiction.
6. Outpatient treatment: the definition for the purposes of this study used American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) placement criteria.
7. Intensive Outpatient Treatment: the definition for the purpose of this study used ASAM placement criteria.
8. Mandated Treatment: required treatment by authorities: Lane County Circuit Court, DUII Court, Drug Court, Lane County Mental Health (LCMH) referral, out of state DUII, Parole and Probation, Department of Human Services.
9. Pathological Gambling: For the purposes of this study the definition used is from the DSM IV Diagnostic Manual (DSM IV, 1994).
10. Problem Gambling: considered abuse of gambling prior to addiction.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEWThis chapter has many purposes. It will provide an overview of background literature associated with addiction, chemical dependency, and pathological gambling. It will also explore the results of the research previously done with chemical dependency and gambling addiction, and the methods of assessing pathological gambling. Finally, it will discuss the co-morbidity of pathological gambling and chemical dependency.
Addictions in American Society
In the general concept of addiction, McGurrin (1992) states that Jacob’s general theory of addictions is a working idea. People seek an altered state of identity through alcoholism, compulsive overeating and pathological gambling. McGurrin goes on to say that the theory views the continuous use of the addictive substance as a means for addicts to detach themselves psychologically from reality to reach this altered state of reality. Hersocovitch (1999) asks, “What is an addiction?” (p.29). He defines it as an individual being addicted to an activity or substance when they cannot control how often or how much they consume. He further explains that the addicted person will continue to engage in the activity even with harmful consequences and having signs of withdrawal when stopping the activity.
There have been many studies done over the years researching possible causes of addiction. See for example, Hersocovitch (1999), Blume (1994), McGurrin (1992), and Eadington and Cornelius (1993). In general, they have changed drastically with differing theories of what causes addiction. Hersocovitch (1999) writes, “It is only in the last 50 years that we have come to understand that alcoholism is a disease, not a product of immorality or weak will” (p. 2). Current studies in the 21st century are showing this to be true with gambling addiction as well. Blume (1994) defends the addictive/medical or disease model on the basis that it not only helps to integrate these individuals into the health care system, but it relieves the addict from guilt. Still others do not agree with this perspective. McGurrin (1992) again states that Jacobs, having been in the forefront of gambling addiction research, says that these addicts are making a choice to use these substances to improve self-esteem, and psychological well being. Eadington and Cornelius (1993) have their own perspective, which is, “the boundaries of the concept of addiction are not well defined, and they are in danger of being drawn so widely as to become almost meaningless” (p.251).
From McGurrin’s (1992) standpoint, to consider pathological gambling to be an addiction you need only to understand several symptomatic aspects of the behavior. He maintains, “the gradual involvement in gambling with a progressive need to increase amounts wagered in order to achieve full tension release resembles the development of a tolerance for alcohol and other chemical substances” (p 14). McGurrin also explores the similarities of preoccupation in getting money to gamble, and that the gamblers experience “moderate somatic discomfort” when first abstinent, which resembles withdrawal.
The DSM IV (1994) defines the criteria for addiction under substance dependence as: an increase in tolerance and withdrawal reaction, the substance is taken in greater amounts and for longer periods than intended. The DSM IV also states that individuals who are addicted to a substance will often show repeated unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control their use. Spending a great deal of time obtaining and using the substance, and continued use despite persistent and recurrent harmful consequences are two other characteristics of addiction stated in the D.S.M. IV. Eadington and Cornelius (1993) wrote in their chapter on theories of addiction, they believe the addictive activity comes to dominate all of the persons life, their feeling, thinking and behavior:
For the addicted person, the central actions of their addiction becomes more important than anything else in their lives, more important than eating, sleeping or sexual satisfaction; more important than relationships. All life revolves around the addiction. It is virtually the only source of satisfaction, of pleasure, or relief from pain. (p 252)
There are significant numbers of alcoholic or chemically dependent people in the United States as Brustuen and Gabriel report “A statistic that is cited rather commonly is that about 10 percent of the populace in this country is alcoholic/chemically dependent” (p 11).
The literature reviewed on chemical dependency, included alcohol and any drug that can be addictive by nature. The most recent survey that had been done in 2001, by the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) surveyed 68,929 people on the phone that were randomly chosen. The results showed that almost one half of Americans (48.3%), 12 years or older reported being current drinkers of alcohol. This translated into an estimated 109 million people. They further showed one fifth or 20.5% binge drink at least once in thirty days, and 5.7% or 12.9 million people in the United States reported heavy drinking. U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (2001). In 1999, the same survey showed about 14.8 million Americans were current users of illicit drugs, meaning that they used illicit drugs at least once during the month interviewed. It reported results of about 3.5 million were dependent on illicit drugs and an additional 8.2 million were dependent on alcohol, (National Institute on Drug Abuse 2000). Ramirez, McCormick, Russo, and Tabor (1984) found of their pathological gamblers in treatment, that 39% of the sample met the criteria of alcohol or drug abuse during the year before their admission to the gambling treatment program. Forty-seven percent of the sample met these criteria at some point in their lives.
Ramirez, et al. (1984) found in their studies that half of the pathological gamblers in treatment had problems with either alcohol or other substance abuse. On the other hand, Ciarrocchi (1993) found among his studies of substance abusers that the rates of both problem gambling and pathological gambling are two-and-a-half times greater than the general population. Giacopassi, Stitt, and Vandiver (1998) report that other studies make it clear that compulsive gamblers have a much higher rate of problem drinking than is found in the general population.
Studies like the ones done by Blume and Lesieur (1987), and Blaszczynski (2000) have shown that the act of gambling may have differing effects on people. They assert that to some it may be an exciting high much like cocaine. Blume and Lesieur report that 30% of cocaine addicts in inpatient treatment at the South Oaks Hospital acknowledged that they also had gambling problems. To others it is an escape or a numbing feeling or having withdrawals much like heroin and downers. Peele (2001) states that some find it hard to accept gambling as an addiction. He contends that gamblers undergo withdrawal like heroin users and similarly those who gamble excessively at one point in their lives are afflicted for a lifetime. Blaszczynski stated; “these elements include the association of gambling with excitement, dissociation and increased heart rate, often described as equal to a drug induced high” (p. 3). This researcher feels a question, which needs to be addressed, is whether problem gambling and alcohol or other substance abuse is interchangeable because of the similarity in its effect and the end result of negative consequences.
Most gambling venues in the United States sell alcohol. Giacopassi, Grant, and Vandiver (1998) report that the link between chemical dependency and gambling is reinforced by alcohol being served at these venues. They assert “Most casinos are seeking to provide a “gambling tonic” to spur betting and possibly to cloud judgment and loosen the social restraints normally firmly attached to the lures strings” (p. 136). Herscovitch, (1999) maintains that it has been proven that alcohol has a relaxing effect with a feeling of escape from stressors in life and it can be said the same for gambling. “After a few drinks, uncomfortable feelings dissipate and unpleasant thoughts are dulled. Because of their effectiveness as vehicles for relief, both alcohol consumption and gambling are popular” (p. 7).
Pathological Gambling AddictionIn 1980, pathological gambling was officially recognized and included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (D.S.M. III) by the American Psychiatric Association. It was listed under Disorders of Impulse Control not elsewhere classified, not under addictions. The D.S.M. III revised addition (1987) recognized pathological gambling as a disorder similar to alcoholism. There are a number of differing definitions for example: Ainslie (1975) used a definition of impulsivity to include the “choice of a small, short term gain at the expense of a large, long term loss” (p. 463). This definition appears to work for both chemical dependency and pathological gambling. As Blanco, et al., (2001) explained; “One of the dominant models views pathological gambling as a non-pharmacologic addiction” (p. 167).
Because gambling addiction is new in the field of addictions, so are the studies. There are few in comparison to studies done with chemical dependency. Volberg (1996), and Cunningham-Williams (2000) studies have shown differing numbers with the amount of pathological gamblers in the United States. Volberg reports that problem and pathological gambling occurs in about 5% of Americans. She went on to explain that pathological gambling has increased in prevalence in the U.S. to nearly 3% of the population during the past 20 years. Cunningham-Williams, et al., in their study of problem gambling and co-morbid psychiatric and substance use disorders, showed the prevalence of problem gambling in their overall sample of 512 drug users from drug treatment settings and 478 from the community, was 22% and pathological gambling was 11%.
Eisen, et al. (2001) reported on how the risks of pathological gambling are influenced by environmental and psychological factors, not only in close proximity to a gambling venue. Eisen, et al. goes on to state, “The socialization and social modeling theme emphasizes the role of the parent, either in not providing an adequate rearing environment, or by serving as a role model”(p.195). Eisen, et al. continued to report psychological factors include, “a variety of psychiatric and substance use disorders, including alcohol abuse/dependence, depression, anxiety disorders and antisocial personality disorder” (p. 196).
Stanton Peele (2001) did a study on whether gambling was considered to be an addiction or not. He suggests, “The essential element of addiction to gambling is that people become completely absorbed in an activity and then pursue it in a compulsive manner, leading to extremely negative life outcomes” (p. 3). On the other hand, Blaszczynski and McConahgy (1989) referred to data showing that there is not a specific type of gambler, but that gambling problems occur along a continuum. He asserts that maybe the disease model may not be enough for gambling. Blaszczynski(2000) defined three types of problem gamblers: 1) non-abstinent recovery, 2) abstinence from gambling and 3) continued pathological gambling. Blaszczynski also feels that the same gene that determines alcoholism and other addictions genetically determines gambling addiction.
Methods of Assessing Pathological GamblingA review of the literature revealed that there were four main assessment instruments that were being used at the time of this study. The tools ACES most readily used were the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), the National Opinion Research Center DSM Screen for gambling problems (NODS), the 10 criteria from the DSM-IV, and Gamblers Anonymous 20 Questions.
Volberg (2000) indicated that state governments started funding services for gambling problems in the 1980’s. Because of this they needed a way of measuring gambling problems. There was only one measurement at that time and it was the SOGS designed by Lesieur and Blume (1987). Volberg goes on to state that the SOGS was the first used in the state of New York in 1986. Since its inception, it has been used in 45 jurisdictions in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Asia.
Volberg, a leader in gambling research and studies conducted a national survey in 1998 for the National Gambling impact Study Commission. The commission specified that the DSM-IV criteria be used; they could not use the SOGS, which is based on the older DSM-III criteria Oregon Gambling Replication Report, (2000). Volberg’s team developed a series of questions designed to match the DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling. This survey instrument, now called the NODS, has been used in the state of Oregon regularly.
Derenvensky and Gupta (2000) reported that the research based on the SOGS represents the largest existing database on problem and pathological gambling in the general population. They indicated the validity and reliability of the SOGS was tested on responses from Gamblers Anonymous members and individuals entering alcohol inpatient treatment centers. They maintained that while the American Psychiatric Association in 1980 validated the SOGS against the DSM-III criteria, it has been criticized for its failure to correct false-positives and account for the change in the DSM-III-R criteria. Because of this problem, they improved on the SOGS and came up with the NODS to correct these false positives. The research team believed that the specificity the NODS gives to the DSM-IV as compared to the SOGS, will help reduce the rate of false positives among those classified with the lifetime screen.
One initial screening tool that is used at ACES is the DSM-IV 312.31 Pathological Gambling. Using this screening tool will indicate pathological gambling. The criteria from this instrument determines, “Persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior as indicated by 5 or more of the 10 criteria listed. If so they are pathological gamblers if the gambling behavior is not better accounted for by a Manic Episode” (p.618). Another screening tool, widely used nationally, was the Gamblers Anonymous Twenty Questions, GA20, (1980). This instrument developed by GA, was based on difficulties experienced by their members. Members were encouraged to self-diagnose to decide if a problem exists enough to seek help. The criteria states, that an individual who answers seven of the 20 questions is considered to be a pathological gambler. (Custer & Custer 1978)
Brusten and Gabriel (1991) argued that as gambling problems increase, it is important that chemical dependency professionals assess for pathological gambling. They maintained that the co-occurrence of chemical dependency and pathological gambling is frequent. Henry Lesieur (1993) who designed the SOGS, reported that while using the SOGS in his study of alcoholics and drug abusers in treatment, showed that about 20% were abusive gamblers. Murer (1994) found in his practice it was very helpful in determining problem or pathological gamblers at intake when he used the SOGS, the DSM-IV proposed criteria, and the GA 20 questions together.
Ciarrochi (2002) asserted that while there are good and bad to each screening tool, none of them stand alone. He suggested there must be a follow up interview with the client. He goes on to state that the SOGS purportedly overrated and the NODS underestimated the numbers of pathological gamblers.
Pathological Gambling and Chemical Dependency Co-morbidity
Review of the literature on the co-morbidity of chemical dependency and gambling addiction showed that the SOGS was generally used most often (Herscovitch, 1999).
In addressing co-morbidity or cross-addiction, Griffiths (1994) reported that it can be considered as a simultaneous drug and gambling addiction co-existence. Or it can be considered to be an individual that goes from one addiction to another without occurring concurrently.
Blume (1994) reported a phenomenon of “Switching addictions.” She went on to explain that “Switching addictions may be defined as a substitution of one drug of choice or one set of addictive behaviors for another while continuing a pattern of addiction” (p. 87). Selby (1985) asserted “one common pitfall is to substitute one harmful addiction for another” (p. 1). He goes on to state, “psychological factors play an important role in cross addiction. Numerous case studies reveal that the psychological cravings that characterize chemical dependence can be satisfied by any mood-altering drug” (p. 2).
Petry (2001) reported that one explanation for co-occurrence is that both may be manifestations of impulsivity. Peele (2001) stated that it is something like an addictive cycle. He described this cycle starting with negative feelings, positive experience with the activity and the need to keep it secret. He maintained that those lost in the cycle rely on magical solutions for desired outcomes. Blume (1994), wrote, “that the alcohol/addict becomes abstinent from alcohol and other drugs but increases his/her gambling” (p.88). She found that the history of past gambling is not recognized in the treatment of alcohol/drug addicts. The clients substituted gambling rather than developing more coping skills for life’s problems. (p. 88).
Blanco, et. al. (2001), reported they found co-morbidity with pathological gambling along with substance abuse ranging from 10% to 52%, and 85% when considering nicotine dependence. Potenza (2001) reported “Pathological gambling is found 4-to-10-fold more frequently in individuals with drug or alcohol problems than in the general population” (p.217). Petry (2001) found a 13 to 33% pathological range in studies of drug and alcohol dependent patients.
Ciarrocchi (2002) wrote in his book that “At-risk, problem and pathological gamblers are more likely to have been alcohol or drug-dependent, to have used illicit drugs in the past year, and to have been arrested or incarcerated” (p. 84). Castellani (2000) maintained that treatment professionals, and agencies need to receive education and extend services to pathological gamblers. He asserts that pathological gamblers then can receive the treatment they need “especially useful given the co-morbidity of pathological gambling with other addictions and mental disorders” (p. 195).
CHAPTER 3
METHODSThe objective of this survey was to assess male and female mandated drug and alcohol treatment clients at ACES for co-occurring gambling addiction.
This researcher proposed the question of what is the level of pathological behaviors among mandated drug and alcohol clients at ACES Treatment agencies. This writer’s expected result of the survey was to show the need for gambling addiction assessment as a norm in the agency as well as other outside agencies. It was also the hope to show the need for education of gambling addiction to decrease the co-occurrence or cross-addiction with the alcohol and drug use in the future, and to bring awareness that gambling can be an addiction for some, but not all.
The participants in this study included both men and women mandated drug and alcohol clients, randomly picked from education groups at ACES treatment agencies. This writer made 300 questionnaires (Exhibit A), and separated into packets of 20 with the cover letter (Exhibit B) included. All supervisors, counselors and participants were told that this survey was confidential and would have no bearing on their current treatment. These packets were then given to each ACES office supervisor. They in turn had their counselors randomly choose packets to hand out in their education groups. Out of 300 questionnaires handed out, 246 were returned in a timely manner.
When reviewing what assessment tools were already in use, this researcher chose to take questions previously written, and found reliable and valid from the SOGS and the NODS. The questions were chosen with the idea that each of the 10 DSM IV criteria be included. This writer also wanted some demographic data regarding age and gender. The last two questions were written by this researcher in order to find out if the respondent knew that gambling could be a problem. This comprised a questionnaire of 16 questions total, to be used as the survey instrument to collect data. This writer believed that these 16 questions would be adequate in answering the research question without putting any added burden on the group counselors or participants’ time.
After writing the first questionnaire, it was field tested by 10 people at ACES who knew about gambling addiction. The pilot survey showed some slight changes were necessary. The revision was then given to the participants.
Other materials that were used were Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to help with the data entry and tabulation of questionnaire results. This program allowed the researcher to do a statistical analysis of the information.
ProceduresThis writer arranged to attend and present the project to all ACES supervisors at the directors meeting. At this meeting the 300 questionnaires that had been prepackaged in 20’s with the cover letter were passed out. Fifteen packets were taken with the knowledge they had 2 weeks in which to return the questionnaire to this writer. Of those not returned after one week, a follow up reminder phone call was made to all managers who had taken the packets.
The questionnaire contained a total of 16 questions. No subjective or emotionally charged questions were included. All questions had been previously tested for reliability and validity as seen in Derenvensky and Gupta (2000) research.
After receiving the questionnaires back, this researcher numbered and sight edited them. Response data was then input into a computer spreadsheet program. When data entry was completed and randomly double checked, analysis of the data was preformed using Microsoft Excel.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this survey was to assess mandated drug and alcohol clients at ACES for co-occurring gambling addiction. Out of 300 participants surveys, 246 were returned and two were dropped from the study. Both of these had not completely filled out all the questions properly. This is a final response rate of 82%.
The results have been arranged in 6 categories: behaviors, dishonest behaviors, relationships, attitudes, pathological gambling, and demographics. Final results of the survey were as follows.
There were six questions written that were designed to assess behaviors with the respondents gambling. Of the 246 respondents, 5.7% (14) reported a preoccupation with gambling, meaning they had periods lasting 2 weeks or more thinking about gambling and future gambling ventures. Nine percent (22) felt guilty about their gambling behavior and 27% (67) found themselves gambling more money than they intended to. Results found in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Gambled More Money Than Intended
Out of the 246 respondents, 13% (33) who reported they had tried to cut down, stop, or control their gambling, there were 33.30% (11) who identified they were restless and irritable during that period. Of those 246 surveyed, 5.70% (14) said they had used gambling as an escape from personal problems and 11.80% (29) who indicated they would return another day to win back the lost money.
Figure 2. Return To Win Back Previous Losses
There were 2 questions directed towards the assessment of dishonest behaviors, including borrowing money with no intent to pay it back, and writing bad checks or taking money that didn’t belong to them. The survey results were that out of 246, a mere 2% (5) of the respondents had borrowed money and 1.60% (4) had knowingly written a bad check or stolen money in which to gamble.
Four questions were asked with regards to gambling behavior affecting their personal relationships. Of the 246 respondents, 6% (15) reported they had been told they had a gambling problem. Another 5.6% (14) reported they had money arguments centered on their gambling and 8.1% (20) lied more than once to family members about how much time and money was lost due to gambling.
A question was asked whether there was anyone they knew they thought might have a problem with their gambling. This question is important to determine if they have any previous knowledge of gambling addiction before taking the survey. Of 246 respondents, 34.5% (85) reported knowing an acquaintance or family member with a possible gambling problem. These results are shown in figure 3.
Figure 3. Acquaintance Or Family Member With A Gambling ProblemThe question asked about whether or not the respondent thought that gambling could be an addiction was of importance to show if there was a need for education in gambling addiction. Results showed 219 or 89% of the respondents answered yes to this question.
Figure 4. Gambling Can Be An Addiction
When taking data results from the 246 surveys and totaling the amount of yes responses to any of the 10 questions taken from the DSM IV criteria the results are as follows:
Table 1
Number Of People Who Responded Yes To 10 DSM IV Criteria Questions
