| Title |
Where Lies the Harm in Lottery Gambling? A Portrait of Gambling Practices and Associated Problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10899-018-9761-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Michel Costes, Sylvia Kairouz, Eva Monson, Vincent Eroukmanoff |
| Abstract |
Lotteries are one of the most prevalent forms of gambling and generate substantial state revenues. They are also argued to be one of the least harmful forms of gambling. This paper is one of the first to examine exclusive lottery gamblers and compares their gambling patterns and problems as well other associated risky behaviours to those who are not exclusive lottery gamblers. Data were derived from two large surveys conducted with representative adult samples in France (n = 15,635) and Québec (n = 23,896). Participants were separated into two groups: exclusive lottery gamblers (ELGs) and non-exclusive lottery gamblers. Using multivariate analysis, study results reveal that ELGs, who represent two thirds of gamblers, generally exhibit less intensive gambling patterns and are less likely to report other risky behaviours. However, harms associated with moderate risk and problem gambling are found to be concentrated in specific subpopulations for both groups, primarily males, older individuals, and those who report lower income and education level. Given widespread participation in lotteries and concentration of harm within specific subgroups, these findings point to the need for prevention efforts despite the lower levels of harm associated with lottery gambling. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 17 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 March 2019.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#656
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,406
of 351,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 351,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.