| Title |
The Use of Tobacco as Gambling Currency by Federal Offenders in Canada Before and After a Tobacco Ban
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10899-012-9295-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nigel E. Turner, Denise L. Preston, Steven Mcavoy, Laura Gillam |
| Abstract |
In 2008 tobacco was banned in federal correctional institutions in Canada. In this paper we compare the use of tobacco as currency for gambling in two studies that we conducted, one before and one after the tobacco ban. The data from two studies were compared. The questionnaires were administered to offenders in federal and provincial institutions in Ontario. Study 1 included 254 male offenders and study 2 included 395 male offenders. The focus in this paper is on one questionnaire about the type of wager made while incarcerated. It was found that the use of tobacco as a currency in gambling went from 28.6% of those offenders who gamble to 2.3% of those offenders who gamble. In addition, there was an overall decrease in the number of federal offenders who reported gambling while incarcerated. However, information gained from the questionnaire and from interviews with incarcerated offenders suggests that there has been a shift to money wagers and that gambling inside has become more serious since the tobacco ban. The results suggest that the ban on smoking has resulted in a change in the type of currency used for gambling inside correctional institutions in Ontario Canada. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 19% |
| Psychology | 3 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#791
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,525
of 258,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.