Problem gambling is normally identified by fixed criteria of harm adapted from those of substance abuse and by focusing on the individual gambler. However, rigid definitions neglect institutional variations of gambling practices within different legislative configurations. This study proposes analysing the line between recreational and problem gambling by focusing on gambling behaviour and looking at the corruption of the defining factors of play (Caillois, 1958) in three different institutional contexts.
Design
A stimulated focus-group method (Reception Analytical Group Interview) was applied to seven groups of Finnish and French general practitioners each and three groups of German ones to study the variations of conceptualising the defining factors of play as introduced by Caillois.
Results
Corruption of play was distinguished by participants from all three countries as the dividing line between recreational and problem gambling, but cultural variations were found: the French and German GPs emphasised the loss of the exceptionality of gambling, whereas the Finnish GPs highlighted the invasion of the home by online gambling. Furthermore, the Finnish and German participants were more concerned about the use of gambling as an emotional regulator, while French GPs echoed the French medical model in discussing the adrenaline rush of problem gamblers.
Conclusions
Caillois' defining factors of play can be used to distinguish recreational from problem gambling and to offer a more encompassing definition of problem gambling. The perception of the line between recreational and problem gambling also seems to depend on the institutional and cultural context.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). DSM-IV-TR diagnositc and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
2.
BeckerH. (1970). Field Work Evidence. In BeckerH. (ed.) Sociological work: Method and substance. (pp. 39–62). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
3.
BindeP. (2009). Gambling motivation and involvement. A review of social science research.Östersund: Swedish National Institute of Public Health.
4.
BlaszczynskiA., & NowerL. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling.Addiction, 97, 487–499.
CailloisR. (1958). Les jeux et les hommes. (le masque et le vertige).Paris: Gallimard.
7.
ChristensenM., PatsdaughterC., & BabingtonL. (2001). Health care providers' experiences with problem gamblers.Journal of Gambling Studies, 17(1), 71–79.
8.
DemantJ. (2012). Natural interactions in artificial situations: Focus groups as an active social experiment. In NaidooL. (Ed.), An ethnography of global landscapes and corridors (pp. 57–88). Rijeka: InTech.
9.
DouglasM. (1986). How institutions think.New York: Syracuse University Press.
10.
EgererM. (2010). Gate keepers' images of addiction in Finland, France, and Germany. The film-clips in the group interviews.Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, sosiaalitieteiden laitos.
11.
EgererM. (2012). Alcoholism, brief intervention and the institutional context: A focus-group study with French and Finnish general practitioners.Critical Public Health, 22(3), 307–318.
12.
EgererM. (2013). Problem drinking, gambling and eating – three problems, one understanding? A qualitative comparison between French and Finnish social workers.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 30(1-2), 67–86.
13.
ElsterJ. (1999). Emotion and addiction: Neurobiology, culture, and choice. In ElsterJ. (Ed.), Addiction: Entries and exits (pp. 239–276). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
14.
FerentzyP., & TurnerN. (2012). Morals, medicine, metaphors, and the history of the disease model of problem gambling.Journal of Gambling Issues, October2012(27), 1–27.
15.
GoudriaanA. E., OosterlaanJ., de BeursE., & Van den BrinkW. (2004). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review of biobehavioral findings.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(2), 123–141. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.001
16.
GriffithsM., & WoodR. (2007). Lottery gambling and addiction: An overview of European research. Retrieved 26.9 2007 from https://www.european-lotteries.org
17.
Hirschovits-GerzT., AhonenJ., & TammiT. (2012). Peli, persoona vai tilanne? Rahapeliongelmaisia koskevat tyypittelyt tutkimuskirjallisuudessa ja arjen hoitotyössä.Janus, 20(3), 231–248.
18.
Hirschovits-GerzT., HolmaK., Koski-JännesA., RaitasaloK., BlomqvistJ., CunninghamJ. (2011). Is there something peculiar about Finnish views on alcohol addiction? – A cross-cultural comparison between four northern populations.Research on Finnish Society, 4, 41–54.
19.
HuizingaJ. (1939.). Homo ludens: Versuch einer bestimmung des spielelementes der kultur.Amsterdam: Pantheon.
INSERM (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale). (2008). Jeux de hasard et d'argent - contextes et addictions.Paris: Les éditions Inserm.
22.
JaakkolaT. (2009). Finland. In MeyerG., HayerT., & GriffithsM. (Eds.), Problem gambling in Europe (pp. 53–70). New York: Springer.
23.
KlatetzkiT. (2006). Der Stellenwert des Begriffs “Kognition” im Neo-Institutionalismus. In SengeK., & Hellmann.K. (Ed.), Einführung in den neo-Institutionalismus (pp. 48–61). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
24.
KornD. (2000). Expansion of gambling in Canada: Implications for health and social policy.Canadian Medical Association Journal,163(1), 61–64.
25.
LadouceurR., & WalkerM. (1998). The cognitive approach to understanding and treating pathological gambling. In BellackA., & HersenM. (Eds.), Comprehensive clinical psychology (pp. 288–301). New York: Pergamon.
26.
LagingM. (2009). Die Inanspruchnahme formeller Hilfen durch Menschen mit problematischem oder pathologischem Glücksspielverhalten.Suchttherapie, 10, 68–74.
27.
LesieurH., & BlumeS. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.
28.
LivingstoneC., & WoolleyR. (2007). Risky business: A few provocations on the regulation of electronic gaming machines.International Gambling Studies, 7(3), 361–376.
29.
LobaP., StewartS., KleinR., & BlackburnJ. (2001). Manipulations of the features of standard video lottery terminal (VLT) games: Effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers.Journal of Gambling Studies, 17(4), 297–320.
30.
MajamäkiM., & PöystiV. (2012). Vocabularies of gambling justification among Finnish and French players.European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15(4), 496–512.
31.
Martignoni-HutinJ. (2005). Que peut apporter la sociologie dans le débat sur le jeu compulsif?Psychotropes, 11(2), 55–86.
32.
MillerM. (1996). Medical approaches to gambling issues – I: The medical condition.Wisconsins Medical Journal, 95(9), 623–634.
33.
OrfordJ., SprostonK., & ErensB. (2003). SOGS and DSM-IV in the british gambling prevalence survey: Reliability and factor structure.International Gambling Studies, 3(1), 53–65.
34.
PasternakA., & FlemingM. (1999). Prevalence of gambling disorders in a primary care setting.Archives of Family Medicine, 8(6), 515–520.
35.
PöystiV., & MajamäkiM. (2013). Cultural understandings of the pathways leading to problem gambling: Medical disorder or failure of self-regulation?Addiction Research & Theory, 21(1), 70–82.
RayluN., & OeiT. P. (2004). Role of culture in gambling and problem gambling.Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1087–1114.
38.
ReichertzJ., NiederbacherA., MöllG., GotheM., & HitzlerR. (2010). Jackpot. Erkundungen zur kultur der spielhallen.Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
39.
ReinarmanC. (2005). Addiction as accomplishment – the discursive construction of disease.Addiction Research & Theory, 13(4), 307–320.
40.
ReithG., & DobbieF. (2011). Beginning gambling: The role of social networks and environment.Addiction Research & Theory, 19(6), 483–493.
41.
ReithG. (2006). The experience of play. In CosgraveJ. (Ed.), Sociology of risk and gambling reader (pp. 255–290). London: Routledge.
42.
RoomR. (2003). The cultural framing of addiction.Janus Head, 6(2), 221–234.
43.
RushB., VeldhuizenS., & AdlafE. (2007). Mapping the prevalence of problem gambling and its association with treatment accessibility and proximity to gambling venues.Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 193–214.
44.
SamuelssonE., BlomqvistJ., & ChristophsI. (2013). Addiction and recovery: Perceptions among professionals in the Swedish treatment system.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 30(1-2), 51–66.
45.
ScottR. (1995). Institutions and organizations.Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
46.
SilvermanD. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd Ed.). London: SAGE.
47.
SulkunenP. (2007). Images of addiction: Representations of addictions in films.Addiction Research & Theory, 15(6), 543–559. doi:10.1080/16066350701651255
48.
SulkunenP., & EgererM. (2009.). Reception analytical group interview: A short introduction and manual.Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, sosiologian laitos.
49.
SullivanS., ArrollB., CosterG., & AbbottM. (1998). Problem gamblers: A challenge for GPs.NZ Family Physician, 25(1), 37–42.
50.
Suomen Lääkäriliitto. (2010). Lääkärit 2010.Helsinki: Suomen Lääkäriliitto.
51.
TörrönenJ. (2002). Semiotic theory on qualitative interviewing using stimulus texts.Qualitative Research, 2(3), 343–362.
ValleurM. (2009). France. In MeyerG., HayerT., & GriffithsM. (Eds.), Problem gambling in Europe (pp. 71–84). New York: Springer.
54.
WHO. (1992). ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines.Geneva: World Health Organization.
55.
WintersK. C., SpeckerS., & StinchfieldR. (1997). Brief manual for use of the diagnostic interview for gambling severity.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Medical School.
56.
WohlM., AnismanH., MathesonK., & YoungM. (2006). Personal luck, outcome expectancies, and subjective appraisals as predictors of health and readiness to seek treatment among young adults. final report to the ontario problem gambling research centre. Retrieved 06/16, 2013, from http://www.austgamingcouncil.org.au/images/pdf/eLibrary/3108.pdf
