J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847 DOI 10.1007/s10899-014-9513-y ORIGINAL PAPER
Differential Gambling Motivations and Recreational Activity Preferences Among Casino Gamblers Choong-Ki Lee • Bo Jason Bernhard • Jungsun Kim Timothy Fong • Tae Kyung Lee
•
Published online: 15 November 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study investigated three different types of gamblers (recreational, problem, and pathological gamblers) to determine differences in gambling motivations and recreational activity preferences among casino gamblers. We collected data from 600 gamblers recruited in an actual gambling environment inside a major casino in South Korea. Findings indicate that motivational factors of escape, sightseeing, and winning were significantly different among these three types of gamblers. When looking at motivations to visit the casino, pathological gamblers were more likely to be motivated by winning, whereas recreational gamblers were more likely to be motivated by scenery and culture in the surrounding casino area. Meanwhile, the problem gamblers fell between these two groups, indicating higher preferences for non-gambling activities than the pathological
C.-K. Lee College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 1, Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, South Korea e-mail:
[email protected] B. J. Bernhard Departments of Hotel Management and Sociology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455033, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5033, USA e-mail:
[email protected] J. Kim William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 456023, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA e-mail:
[email protected] T. Fong UCLA Gambling Studies Program, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, 760 Westwood Ave, Room C8-887, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA e-mail:
[email protected] T. K. Lee (&) Department of Addiction Psychiatry, Seoul National Hospital, 398 Neung-dong Ro, Gwang-Jin Gu, Seoul 143-711, South Korea e-mail:
[email protected]
123
1834
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
gamblers. As this study builds upon a foundational previous study by Lee et al. (Psychiatry Investig 6(3):141–149, 2009), the results of this new study were compared with those of the previous study to see if new developments within a resort-style casino contribute to changes in motivations and recreational activity preferences. Keywords Motivation Consumer psychology Casino gamblers Recreational activity preference Pathological gamblers Introduction While it was not too long ago that gambling behavior and the global gaming industry were treated as homogeneous entities, researchers have come to recognize that there is substantial diversity among gamblers—and for that matter, among offerings in the gaming industry itself. The gaming industry is hardly a monolith today, for instance: online gaming operations in Europe hardly resemble the traditional brick and mortar operations that predominate in locations like Las Vegas. Gamblers, meanwhile, can also be grouped into diverse sub-types. One of the most meaningful distinctions to emerge from the gambling literature has focused on the differences between social, problem, and pathological gamblers. Social gamblers, often called recreational gamblers, do not tend to incur lasting life problems from gambling, whereas problem and pathological gamblers do (Desai et al. 2004; Hardoon et al. 2003; Platz and Millar 2001). For policymakers deciding on whether and how to legalize gambling, understanding how social gamblers differ from pathological gamblers is especially crucial as the latter group becomes a source of understandable and significant concern. Furthermore, the study of what motivates these different groups to gamble promises to help us understand the causes of healthy and unhealthy gambling more generally, which in turn helps advance the academic field. These types of understandings have even started to inform gaming industry development. For example, Singapore incorporated aggressive policies designed specifically to encourage social gambling and to discourage problematic gambling—without which it was unlikely that gambling would have been legalized (Bernhard et al. 2009). Today, the ‘‘Singapore Model’’ (one which considers problem gambling-related measures from the outset) is often invoked in gambling policy debates throughout Asia, and around the world. For its part, South Korea shares these concerns. In South Korea, there are 17 casinos, but 16 of them open their doors solely to foreign visitors. The lone exception is Kangwon Land Casino, a national project run by the central government and the office of the local Gangwon province to invigorate the regional economy of struggling coal mining areas like Jeongseon County and Taebaek City. In 1995, policymakers recognized that the mining areas in Gangwon province were experiencing a dramatic social and economic downturn as the coal mining economy declined, and as industrial economies migrated to places like China more generally. Faced with this challenge, the government decided to legalize a new kind of casino that would allow South Koreans to gamble, with hopes of generating needed jobs and revenues for the local economy (Lee et al. 2006). At the same time, the South Korean government recognized the need for substantial problem gambling programs, and as a result, this environment provides a unique and important case study for analyses of the intersection of policy, business, and problem gambling measures. In the gambling studies literature, few studies have investigated differences in motivation between classes of gamblers in a manner that differentiates these classes in a more
123
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
1835
precise fashion (Lee et al. 2009). Even fewer studies have been able to investigate motivations as they interact directly with the casino-resort environment (e.g., how non-gambling amenities like scenery/cultural resources, skiing, or golfing are associated with motivations to visit). Taking these kinds of environmental influences into account is important when seeking to understand how motivations to gamble may differ depending on not only gamblers’ mindset but also on gambling setting—including non-gambling amenities. With these issues in mind, this study seeks to identify the underlying dimensions of motivation for a sample of Korean casino gamblers, and to explore any differences in motivation among different subtypes of gamblers. Of particular research value is the real-world setting of this study, which takes place in an actual casino environment. This setting provides a real-time assessment of genuine emotional states during the gambling act, rather than relying later upon retrospective interpretations, as so often happens in the gambling literature. Finally, this study sheds light on actual motivating factors to gamble in a Non-Western casino environment—an especially important consideration as gambling globalizes rapidly in Asia and beyond. Furthermore, this study explores whether providing recreational facilities (e.g., ski slopes and golf courses) at a casino resort influences casino visitors’ gambling motivations and recreational activities. Although Lee et al. (2009) conducted a similar study in the same environment, at the time of that study these additional amenities did not exist. As a result, the findings of this previous study are limited to gambling-related motivations only. More recently, Kangwon Land developed a full resort-style property (and named it the ‘‘High 1 Resort’’ in recognition of its altitude) by adding an 18-hole golf course, 18 ski slopes, and condominiums with more than 700 rooms. The major reasons behind this expansion were twofold: they wanted to attract additional visitors (including those who were not just attracted by gambling), and they sought to enhance the company’s image by broadening the types of activities beyond gambling. Despite the recent increase in nongambling attractions at casino resorts (now commonly referred to as ‘‘integrated resorts’’ to reflect this broadening of the various attractions), there is a lack of research on how these new settings affect gambling motivations and recreational preferences. To bridge this gap, this study compared differences between the results of this study and those of Lee et al. (2009), since the previous study was conducted at the same location—but before it transformed from a casino-centric site into a resort-style casino.
Literature Review Researchers have demonstrated that different types of gamblers express different motivations about why they gamble. For example, based on the South Oaks Gambling Screen, Platz and Millar (2001) differentiated between two groups (recreational and pathological gamblers) of university students through the recreational experience preference (REP) Scale, which examined 23 separate motives for gambling. They reported that pathological gamblers ranked winning, autonomy, and escaping routine life significantly higher than recreational gamblers ranked them. These authors also found that pathological gamblers ranked the importance of 20 REP motives higher than recreational gamblers, supporting the notion that these groups can express meaningful and statistically significant differences when asked about their motivations to gamble. In the general population, gambling motivations can vary widely. In a study of undergraduate gamblers, Neighbors et al. (2002) explored motivations for gambling. These authors identified money (42.7 %), enjoyment/fun (23.0 %), social reasons (11.2 %),
123
1836
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
excitement (7.3 %), winning (3.9 %), and competition (3.4 %) as primary motivational reasons for gambling. The authors contended that because more than 40 % of the group listed monetary gain as a primary motivation for gambling, their findings were consistent with cognitive theories that assume that gamblers are likely to be motivated by the simple (and ancient) desire to win money (Neighbors et al. 2002). Meanwhile, older adult female gamblers appeared to gamble for slightly different reasons in studies by Loroz (2004) and Tarras et al. (2000). In particular, the study by Tarras et al. (2000) surveying females 60 years old or older found that older women primarily visited casinos with family (47.1 %) and friends (40.1 %)—indicating an emphasis on gambling as a social activity. The primary motivations for gambling in this group included entertainment, excitement, watching people, and escaping from routine, whereas winning money was reported as less important. Similarly, Loroz (2004) conducted research on gamblers over the age of 55 who visited casinos in Colorado and found that gambling activity provided this group with psychological benefits similar to other leisure activities. For instance, the study suggested that gambling can reinforce and enhance selfconcepts. Because motivations to gamble (and gamblers themselves) can vary in diverse ways, it is important to investigate with a disciplined view and approach how we might untangle the relationships between different types of gamblers and their motivations. Some researchers have contributed to these understandings already: for instance, Lee et al. (2006) explored differences in socio-demographic and behavioral variables to disentangle gambling motivations using a factor analysis and a subsequent cluster analysis. Using a sample that included both pathological and recreational gamblers, Back et al. (2011) identified three extrinsic and two intrinsic motivations when investigating the effects of these motivational factors on gambling passion and behavioral intentions. The results of the study revealed that extrinsic motivations had strong positive effects on obsessive gambling passion (a potentially harmful form of passion) for pathological gamblers, whereas intrinsic motivations had significant positive effects on harmonious gambling passion (a potentially positive form of passion) for recreational gamblers. In addition, this research suggests that recreational gamblers’ behavioral intentions are more likely to be influenced by their harmonious gambling passion, whereas pathological gamblers’ behavioral intentions are more likely to be affected by obsessive passion. Lee et al. (2013) derived four motivational factors (excitement, escape, challenge, and winning money) and then examined the impact of these factors on both a passion scale and a variety of negative and positive outcomes. Results suggested that intrinsic gambling motivations (e.g., excitement, escape, and challenge) were correlated with harmonious gambling passion, whereas extrinsic gambling motivations (such as winning money) were associated with obsessive gambling passion. This study also revealed that obsessive gambling passion was related to negative outcomes (e.g., guilty feelings and anxiety), while harmonious gambling passion was related to positive outcomes (e.g., reducing stress and feeling comfortable). Taken together, these studies begin to illuminate important perspectives on gambling behavior beyond the (understandably) oft-researched negative outcomes. The aforementioned study that examined Kangwon Land prior to the addition of new amenities, Lee et al. (2009), investigated differences in motivation, involvement, demographics, behavioral variables, and recreational activity preferences among three types of gamblers (non-problem, some problem, and probable pathological gamblers). The results of this study showed that motivational factors of escape, socialization, winning, and exploring scenery were significantly different among these three types of gamblers. In terms of motivations to visit the casino, ‘‘probable pathological’’ gamblers were more
123
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
1837
likely to seek winning, the ‘‘some problem’’ gamblers were more likely to seek escape, and the ‘‘non-problem’’ gamblers were more likely to center around explorations of scenery and culture in the surrounding casino area.
Methodology Research Setting Rather than glossing over the observation that gambling environments nowadays vary tremendously, we wish to provide a bit of information about the contours of this research project’s gambling setting—especially as these distinctions end up being important in our analysis. In the rest of the country, gambling in domestic casinos is illegal for South Koreans—but Kangwon Land Casino provides the country’s only exception. Not surprisingly, given this monopoly status, the casino is among the most popular (and profitable) in the world. In 2013, more than 3 million people visited Kangwon Land Casino and gambling receipts (Korean Won) amounted to $1.215 billion US dollars (Korean Casino Association 2014). Table games are the most popular form of gambling, representing almost 80 % of the revenue generated. The casino environment at Kangwon Land offers 200 table games and 1,360 machine games, and is attached to hotel rooms, condominiums, a convention center, ski slopes, and a golf course. Measurements The study questionnaire was generated from a review of the gambling motivations literature (Cotte 1997; Chantal et al. 1995; Driver et al. 1991; Fisher 1993; Lee et al. 2006; Neighbors et al. 2002; Tarras et al. 2000) as well as from additional items added to explore specific gambling behaviors. The instrument used motivational items from Lee et al. (2006, 2009) which were in turn generated from previous literature (Chantal et al. 1995; Cotte 1997; Driver et al. 1991; Fisher 1993; Neighbors et al. 2002; Tarras et al. 2000) as well as field observations in Kangwon Land Casino. The study by Lee et al. (2006) demonstrated content validity and reliability on these items using an exploratory factor analysis. The questionnaire administered to participants consisted of four major parts. The first part of the questionnaire assessed behaviorally oriented variables such as purpose of visit, preference for casino games, type of accompanying gamblers (e.g., friends or family), length of stay, and number of visits. The second part of the questionnaire measured motivations for casino gambling. The third part contained a screen for problem/pathological gambling using diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria, and the fourth part examined respondents’ demographic characteristics and recreational activity preferences (i.e., non-gambling activities). As an example, items that explored external features such as surrounding scenery and nearby cultural attractions were included in the motivations sections—as not all visitors to casinos are there solely (or even principally) for the gambling itself. All items of the questionnaire were pre-tested with 25 casino visitors, who were then asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the measuring instruments. After the pre-test, questions that were less well understood were reworded for clarity. These procedures yielded a final, administered survey consisting of thirty motivation questions.
123
1838
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
Data Collection A gambling motivation survey was administered to casino gamblers at Kangwon Land Casino on both weekdays and weekends during the last week of July, 2009. Survey data was collected over two full days at a temporary, freestanding booth in the casino which was provided for the research team. Patrons of the casino voluntarily approached the survey booth, where field researchers outlined the purpose of the research project and invited gamblers to participate. Upon their consent a questionnaire was distributed to participants. In this study a purposive sampling method was employed to make comparisons of three distinctive groups (recreational, problem, and pathological gamblers). The surveys were conducted until data from 200 participants were collected for each group based on DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association 2000): 200 questionnaires for recreational gamblers (0 marked on DSM-IV); 200 questionnaires for problem gamblers (between 1 and 4 marked on the DSM-IV); and 200 questionnaires for pathological gamblers (5 or higher marked on DSM-IV). After they consented to participate, a gambling motivation questionnaire was completed by the respondents, and in return they received a small gift of chocolate. All questionnaires were completed in the presence of trained researchers. For those who were not able to read the questionnaires mainly due to their poor eyesight, these same trained researchers read the questions aloud and recorded responses. Classifying Gamblers The DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling suggests that if an individual endorses 5 or more criteria, a diagnosis of pathological gambling is assigned (American Psychiatric Association 2000). Meanwhile, those whose endorse between one through four total criteria (regardless of which criteria) are often labeled problem gamblers (e.g., Lakey et al. 2007). Cox et al. (2004) proposed that the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria be used to categorize three different types of gamblers: recreational gamblers (DSM-IV score = 0); problem gamblers (DSM-IV score = 1–4); and pathological gamblers (DSM-IV score = over 5). The results of their study indicate that in general, recreational gamblers were significantly different from both problem and pathological gamblers with respect to types of gambling activities, gambling reasons, and family history of problems, suggesting that this separation has validity. However, the other two types of gamblers (problem vs. pathological) did not demonstrate any significant differences. Building upon this literature, our study classified gamblers into three groups: recreational, problem, and pathological gamblers according to the framework outlined by Cox et al. (2004). A respondent was classified as a recreational gambler if he/she endorsed none of the ten questions (0 score); a respondent was classified as a problem gambler if he/she endorsed between one and four of the ten questions; and a respondent was classified as a pathological gambler if he/she endorsed five or more of the ten questions.
Results Factor Analysis of Gambling Motivations Thirty motivational items were factor analyzed using the principal component method and Varimax rotation procedure. Two items with factor loading lower than 0.4 were removed
123
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
1839
and the remaining twenty-eight items were factor analyzed again. The final factor analysis resulted in six underlying dimensions of motivations. As shown in Table 1, all six factors had eigenvalues [1. These factors had reliability coefficients ranging from 0.63 to 0.88, and accounted for 64.7 % of the total variance. Thus, these factors appeared to exceed or are close to the minimum standard for reliability of 0.7 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) indicating high reliability for measuring each construct. The first factor was labeled ‘‘escape,’’ and explained 32.5 % of the total variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.85 (see Table 1). This factor incorporates six items, including items such as alleviating boredom, escaping from daily life, releasing daily stress, escaping from overwork/responsibility, releasing tension, and seeing/doing something new. The large proportion of the total variance for the factor indicates that this factor is important in explaining motivations associated with casino gambling for the whole group that was surveyed. The second factor was labeled ‘‘challenge,’’ and accounted for 10.8 % of the variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.84. This factor consists of six items; gambling because of the challenge, gambling to learn about games, gambling to practice skills in casino games, gambling to experience achievement, gambling to take risks, and gambling to test one’s luck. The third factor was labeled ‘‘excitement,’’ and explained 6.7 % of the variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.86. This factor is comprised of five items, including items such as being enjoyable, excited, curious, interesting, and thrill. The fourth factor was labeled ‘‘socialization,’’ and accounted for 5.9 % of the variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.80. This factor consists of five items, including items such as meeting new people, being with friends, competing with others, being with other people who enjoy the same things I do, and enjoying casino games by watching others. The fifth factor was labeled ‘‘sightseeing,’’ and accounts for 4.6 % of the variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.88. This factor incorporates three items such as seeing historical and cultural resources around the casino, taking tours in the province around the casino, and enjoyment of scenery around the casino area. The final factor was labeled ‘‘winning,’’ and explained 4.2 % of the variance with a reliability coefficient of 0.63. This factor is comprised of three items, including items such as winning money, winning back previous losses, and a chance of hitting a jackpot. In summary, the gambling motivation questionnaire uncovered six separate factors that explained gambling motivations for all surveyed respondents. These factors are, in order of strength in determining motivations to gamble: escape, challenge, excitement, socialization, sightseeing, and winning. Differences in Gambling Motivation Among Three Types of Gamblers Table 2 presents differences in motivations for casino gambling between recreational, problem gamblers, and pathological gamblers. The ANOVA tests reveal that the factor of escape was significantly different at p \ 0.01 level between these three groups. Duncan’s multiple-range tests were also performed to further examine differences in casino motivations among the three types of gamblers. The results of these tests yielded some interesting results, in that recreational and problem gamblers were similar on the factor of escape, but they were different from pathological gamblers with respect to this factor. Mean values of this factor show that the recreational gamblers had the largest value, the problem gamblers had the second largest value, and the pathological gamblers had the lowest value. Meanwhile, the ANOVA tests indicate that the factors of challenge, excitement, and socialization were not significantly different among the three groups.
123
1840
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
Table 1 Results of factor analysis for casino motivation Factors and items
Factor lading
F1: Escape To alleviate boredom
0.727
To escape from everyday life
0.723
To release daily stress
0.709
To escape from overwork and responsibility
0.699
To release tension
0.698
To see or do something new
0.463
F2: Challenge For the challenge
0.743
To practice casino games
0.718
To experience my achievement
0.657
To take risks
0.642
To learn casino games
0.602
To test my luck
0.534
F3: Excitement Because casino games are enjoyable
0.811
Because casino games offer excitement
0.801
Because casino games are interesting to me
0.772
Because I am so curious
0.612
Because casino games provide thrill
0.573
F4: Socialization To be with people who enjoy the same things I do
0.803
To meet new people
0.712
To be with friends
0.694
Because others (friends) are doing casino games
0.638
To compete with others (including friends)
0.448
F5: Sightseeing To see historical and cultural resources around the casino area
0.833
To enjoy scenery around the casino area
0.816
F6: Winning
Reliability
9.11
32.53
0.85
3.02
10.80
0.84
1.86
6.65
0.86
1.65
5.91
0.80
1.27
4.55
0.88
1.19
4.24
0.63
0.766
To win money
0.733
For a chance of hitting a jackpot
0.551
Total
Variance (%)
0.855
To take tour in the province around the casino area
To win back previous losses
Eigen value
64.67
In examining the ‘‘sightseeing’’ factor (one of the non-gambling motivational factors), the ANOVA tests on these items reveal that the factor of ‘‘sightseeing’’ was significantly different among these three types of gambling segments. Duncan’s multiple-range tests indicate that recreational gamblers were statistically different from the problem and pathological gamblers with respect to sightseeing, whereas significant differences were also found between problem and pathological gamblers. As we might have expected, these
123
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
1841
findings imply that the motivation for sightseeing is largest for the recreational gamblers, followed by problem and pathological gamblers. In analyses of the motivational factor ‘‘winning,’’ ANOVA results are also significantly different between the three groups of gamblers. Duncan’s multiple-range tests reveal that the three groups were statistically different from each other with respect to the winning factor. Mean values indicate that motivations for winning were strongest among pathological gamblers (4.70), followed by problem (3.88) and recreational gamblers (3.21), respectively. This finding implies that winning is a major motivation for those who score as pathological gamblers, whereas those who score as recreational gamblers are less likely to seek winning than problem and pathological gamblers. Differences in Preference of Recreational Activities Among Three Types of Gamblers In addition to examining differences in gambling motivations, preferences for certain indoor and outdoor recreational activities were investigated. As shown in Table 3, ANOVA tests were conducted to see any differences in the preference variables among three types of gamblers. The results of ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple-range tests indicate that for recreational facilities and programs, such as the golf course, ski resort, family programs, package tour, theme park, and indoor sports facilities recreational gamblers were statistically different from the problem and pathological gamblers. Problem gamblers and pathological gamblers were similar across all recreational activities except for seeking out the ski resort. Mean values show that, in general, the recreational gamblers were more likely to prefer the recreational activities and family programs (over gambling) than the problem and pathological gamblers. On the other hand, for activities in the ski resort, the recreational gamblers appeared to be similar to the problem gamblers, but the first two segments were different from the pathological gamblers. Although the recreational gamblers had higher preferences for cinema than the problem and pathological gamblers, there was no statistical difference among the three types of gamblers. Overall, mean values indicate that the recreational gamblers’ preferences for recreational activities and programs are higher than the problem and pathological gamblers. Furthermore, the problem gamblers also exhibited higher preferences for non-gambling activities than the pathological gamblers.
Table 2 Differences in motivation among types of gamblers Factors and items
RG (n = 200)
ProbG (n = 200)
PathG (n = 200)
F-value
Sig.
F1: Escape
3.37Aa
3.34A
2.97B
6.02
0.003
F2: Challenge
3.28
2.99
3.11
2.50
0.083
F3: Excitement
3.67
3.85
3.71
0.96
0.384
F4: Socialization
2.63
2.53
2.56
0.44
0.646
F5: Sightseeing
3.80A
3.02B
2.50C
37.17
0.000
F6: Winning
3.21A
3.88B
4.70C
63.65
0.000
Measured with 7 point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree RG recreational gamblers, ProbG problem gamblers, PathG pathological gamblers a
Duncan’s multiple-range tests: means with the same letter are not significantly different from at 5 % level
123
1842
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
Demographic Characteristics Across Three Types of Gamblers In order to describe the profile of the three groups of gamblers examined here, each segment was cross-tabulated with socio-economic variables and selected behavioral variables. As shown in Table 4, the results of the Chi square tests indicate that there were statistically significant differences among the three gambling groups with respect to their socio-economic characteristics and the behavioral variables. Results revealed that for the problem and pathological gamblers, gambling was the primary purpose of their visit. On the other hand, gambling was not the major purpose of the visit for recreational gamblers, who tended to cite non-gambling factors in explaining their motivations to come. In addition, length of stay for the recreational gamblers appeared to be shorter relative to the other two gambling segments; put another way, the problem and pathological gamblers appeared to stay for more nights than the recreational gamblers. In addition, recreational gamblers tended to visit the casino less frequently than the problem and pathological gamblers. In a finding similar to previous studies of solitary gambling (Bernhard et al. 2007), the pathological gamblers were more likely to be alone when they gambled, whereas the recreational gamblers tended to be accompanied by family and the problem gamblers appeared to be accompanied by friends/relatives. In a finding that is perhaps most relevant to Asian gaming locales (where table games tend to be more popular) pathological gamblers were more likely to prefer baccarat, whereas recreational gamblers were more likely to prefer blackjack and slot machines. Meanwhile, the problem gamblers tended to prefer both blackjack and baccarat. Predictably, perhaps, pathological gamblers appeared to be associated with the highest bet amounts, whereas the recreational gamblers tended to be lowest. Meanwhile, the problem gamblers fell in between these two groups. Demographically, the problem and pathological gambler groups were characterized by a relatively high number of males, whereas the recreational gamblers were characterized by a relatively high proportion of females. The largest proportion of recreational gamblers appeared to be between 30 and 49 years of age, whereas the problem and pathological gamblers were between 40–49 and [50, respectively. With respect to education level, almost half of recreational and problem gamblers were university graduates, whereas the problem gambling group featured an almost equal distribution of university and middle/ high school graduates.
Table 3 Differences in preference among types of gamblers Recreation Activities
RG (n = 200)
ProbG (n = 200)
PathG (n = 200)
F-value
Sig.
Golf course
3.74Aa
3.36B
3.14B
5.84
0.003
Ski resort
4.57A
4.23A
3.78B
9.52
0.000
Family programs
4.80A
4.20B
3.83B
13.40
0.000
Package tour
4.60A
4.17B
3.84B
8.50
0.000
Theme park
4.75A
4.29B
3.86C
12.10
0.000
Indoor sports facilities
4.75A
4.16B
4.04B
8.63
0.000
Cinema
4.40
4.25
4.20
0.64
0.529
RG recreational gamblers, ProbG problem gamblers, PathG pathological gamblers a
Duncan’s multiple-range tests: means with the same letter are not significantly different from at 5 % level
123
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
1843
Discussion This study revealed six underlying dimensions of motivations for casino gambling: escape, challenge, excitement, socialization, sightseeing, and winning. Among these dimensions, the three types of gamblers were significantly different with respect to three factors: escape, sightseeing, and winning. Pathological gamblers were more likely to seek winning, whereas recreational gamblers were more likely to explore the local scenery and culture. When we compared the results of current study with those of a similar previous study that was conducted at the same location prior to opening up new non-gambling amenities (Lee et al. 2009), we found interesting differences in the motivational factors. When the location mainly offered casino games, the motivational factor of ‘‘escape’’ yielded the highest score among problem gamblers (Lee et al. 2009). However, in the current study, the escape factor scored highest among recreational gamblers. This inconsistent finding may be explained by the transition of the casino resort itself into ‘‘more than just a gambling destination,’’ as many visitors are now likely to consider this a vacation site rather than a gambling venue. Another interesting finding was that the problem gambler and recreational group preferred outdoor activities equally, while the problem gambler group reported greater preferences for skiing activities than the pathological gambler group. This finding is somewhat different than the previous study conducted by Lee et al. (2009), which found that recreational gamblers preferred outdoor recreational activities (e.g., skiing and visiting theme parks), whereas problem gamblers preferred indoor facilities and cinemas. Taken together, these findings might inform efforts to understand the positive effects that outdoor physical activity can have on health outcomes—including lower stress levels. Stress is often cited as a main factor that can contribute to addictive behaviors (Koob 2014; Segni et al. 2014; Taylor et al. 2014). Exercise, in particular, has been known to help ease depression via the release of ‘‘feel-good’’ brain chemicals (i.e., neurotransmitters and endorphins) and an increase in body temperature (which may have a calming effect) (Dishman and O’Connor 2009; Esch and Stefano 2010; Metheny and Smith 1989). Exercise has also been known to lead to adrenaline surges that may be similar to gambling as well (Freitas-Swerts and Robazzi 2014; Melancon et al. 2014). Neuroscience researchers have also found that exercise can activate certain genes that increase the brain’s level of galanin, a neurotransmitter that appears to reduce the body’s stress response by regulating a brain chemical, norepinephrine (Blue 2010). Exercise may also help depressed gamblers indirectly, as they gain confidence and avoid negative thoughts by regulating another key neurotransmitter, serotonin (Blue 2010; Melancon et al. 2014). This study also explored demographic characteristics among the three groups to further understand gambling behaviors and what differentiates each group. Perhaps predictably, the pathological gamblers listed gambling as their primary motivational purpose. In addition, this group was associated with longer stay durations, more frequent visits, more experiences gambling alone, and a preference for baccarat. Together, these findings contribute to the literature on gambling motivation and problem gambling by finding that our sample’s pathological gambling group tends to favor a focused, solitary, and intense gambling experience (at least in South Korea). The problem gamblers, meanwhile, selected gambling as both the primary and secondary purpose of their casino visits, and they had a tendency to stay one night only, to gamble with friends and relatives, and to play blackjack and baccarat as their games of choice. The gambling behaviors of this group support a previous study’s findings (Lee et al. 2009) that problem gamblers are more likely to be
123
1844
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
Table 4 Differences in characteristics among types of gamblers Characteristics
RG (n = 200)
ProbG (n = 200)
PathG (n = 200)
79
121
147
120
79
53
v2
p value
Primary purpose Gambling Non-gambling
47.58
0.000
179.54
0.000
20.85
0.000
95.82
0.000
93.80
0.000
14.48
0.001
24.17
0.000
29.84
0.000
93.59
0.000
No. of visit 1 time
65
12
9
2–20 times
113
105
53
21–50 times
11
34
41
51 or more
10
49
94
Length of stay Day visit
117
94
71
83
105
128
Alone
12
60
94
Friends/relatives
97
90
67
Family
72
44
28
Group
8
2
3
Others
11
4
8
Blackjack
53
78
64
Baccarat
38
71
106
More nights Accompanied by
Preferred games
Roulette
21
10
8
Slot machine
41
25
9
DaiSai
12
6
7
Others
33
10
6
112
137
147
88
63
53
20–29
34
26
10
30–39
64
56
48
Gender Male Female Age
40–49
62
59
79
?50
40
59
63
Education Elementary Middle/high school 2 years college
0
1
2
42
57
79
25
31
37
University
109
97
71
Graduate
24
14
11
Betting amount (Won) (1US$ = 1,225 Won) \0.1 million
52
24
14
0.1–0.5 million
97
81
54
0.5–1 million
24
42
48
123
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
1845
Table 4 continued Characteristics
RG (n = 200)
ProbG (n = 200)
PathG (n = 200)
1–5 million
18
35
60
5–10 million
0
4
11
?10 million
0
2
9
v2
p value
RG recreational gamblers, ProbG problem gamblers, PathG pathological gamblers
associated with less intense gambling experience as compared with those with the severest of problems (pathological gamblers). Finally, the recreational gamblers were characterized by the following: gambling was a secondary purpose for the casino visit, they had more day visits, less frequent visits, and more frequent gambling with family and friends/relatives. Meanwhile, slot machines and blackjack are the preferred forms of casino games for these recreational gamblers. That is, this group is likely to be associated with less intense gambling behaviors than the other two groups, supporting the notion that the DSM-IV groups are meaningful when attempting to understand the behaviors of those with gambling problems and those without any problems.
Limitations and Future Research Because this research examined only South Korean gamblers, care should be taken when applying these findings to other settings. Generalizability concerns need to be thoughtfully considered in all research, but this is perhaps particularly important in a field like gambling studies, where gambling settings are diversifying and globalizing at a rapid pace. Future research might help by examining these matters of motivation and problematic gambling in different areas of the gambling world. Other limitations include the fact that the pathological gambling group was not formally interviewed by clinicians, as they were administered a screening instrument. Thus, the diagnosis of pathological gambling was not confirmed through a rigorous clinical interview. Information on treatment status of pathological gamblers was also not collected, and treatment experiences may in turn impact motivations and preferences for gambling and for entertainment. In addition, depending on the research questions, future studies should consider using different approaches other than univariate methods such as ANOVA. For example, MANOVA will be suitable for a future study when its purposes include assessing (1) the effects of covariates, (2) which dependent variables exhibit differences across groups, and (3) whether the groups differ on a single dependent variable or the entire dependent variate (linear combination of variables) (Hair et al. 2006).
Conclusions This paper illuminates evolving and complex dynamics of the relationship between casino environments, gambling motivations, and gambling behaviors via an on-site sample of casino visitors in South Korea. In particular, this study empirically tested and validated
123
1846
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
gambling motivational factors, while extending a previous study by Lee et al. (2009) by examining the effects of new amenities in the casino resort setting and by expanding in number (30, from 19) the motivational items studied. Finally, from a developmental and operational perspective, the expansion of the ‘‘integrated resort,’’ replete with a diverse array of amenities and attractions, continues to dominate the gambling business landscape in Asia—and elsewhere. In light of this trend, the current study provides practical considerations for integrated resort operators, policymakers, and regulators when considering gambling motivations and preferences of recreational activities among a growing (and global) customer base, and it allows them to do so informed by important information about customers with gambling problems as well. When we turn our attention to these subjects with gambling problems, we found that pathological gamblers focused and engaged in on a narrow range of activities in gambling environments—specifically, gambling activities. In contrast, those without gambling problems appear to engage in a wider range of activities outside of the immediate gambling environment. Understanding why pathological gamblers are not motivated by other interesting and novel stimuli may help researchers and clinicians understand the origins of this disorder. It may be, for instance, that pathological gamblers experience novel experiences differently, or it may be that the gambling experience overwhelms preference for other recreational activities available in the gambling environment. Future research in this area will serve to better delineate the precise relationship and factors from the casino environment that both promote and protect against the development of pathological gambling.
References American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-IVTR (4th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatry Association. Back, K. J., Lee, C. K., & Stinchfield, R. (2011). Gambling motivation and passion: A comparison study of recreational and pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(3), 355–370. Bernhard, B. J., Dickens, D. R., & Shapiro, P. D. (2007). Gambling alone? A study of solitary and social gambling in America. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 11(2), 1–13. Bernhard, B. J., Futrell, R., & Harper, A. (2009). Gambling and globalization: Sociological perspectives on ‘the House’ and ‘the Players’. Sociology Compass, 3(4), 616–629. Blue, L. (2010). Is exercise the best drug for depression? Time Inc. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/ time/health/article/0,8599,1998021-2,00.html. Accessed on November 10, 2014. Chantal, Y., Vallerand, R. J., & Vallieres, E. F. (1995). Motivation and gambling involvement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(6), 755–763. Cotte, J. (1997). Chances, trances, and lots of slots: Gambling motives and consumption experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 380–406. Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Michaud, V. (2004). Comparisons between the South Oaks Gambling Screen and a DSM-IV-based interview in a community survey of problem gambling. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(4), 258–264. Desai, R. A., Maciejewski, P. K., Dausey, D. J., Caldarone, B. J., & Potenza, M. N. (2004). Health correlates of recreational gambling in older adults. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(9), 1672–1679. Dishman, R. K., & O’Connor, P. J. (2009). Lessons in exercise neurobiology: the case of endorphins. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 2(1), 4–9. Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of leisure. In Preliminary drafts of the chapters in this volume were presented at a workshop of the authors in Snowbird, Utah, May 1991. PA: Venture publishing. Esch, T., & Stefano, G. B. (2010). Endogenous reward mechanisms and their importance in stress reduction, exercise and the brain. Archives of Medical Science, 6(3), 447–455.
123
J Gambl Stud (2015) 31:1833–1847
1847
Fisher, S. (1993). The pull of the fruit machine: A sociological typology of young players. The Sociological Review, 41(3), 446–474. Freitas-Swerts, F. C., & Robazzi, M. L. (2014). The effects of compensatory workplace exercises to reduce work-related stress and musculoskeletal pain. Revista Latino Americana Enfermagem, 22(4), 629–636. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hardoon, K., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2003). Empirical measures vs. perceived gambling severity among youth: Why adolescent problem gamblers fail to seek treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 28(5), 933–946. Koob, G. F. (2014). Neurocircuitry of alcohol addiction: Synthesis from animal models. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 125, 33–54. Korean Casino Association. (2014). Statistics of casino visitors and revenues. Seoul: Korean Casino Association. Lakey, C. E., Goodie, A. S., Lance, C. E., Stinchfield, R., & Winters, K. C. (2007). Examining DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling: Psychometric properties and evidence from cognitive biases. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(4), 479–498. Lee, C. K., Chung, N. H., & Bernhard, B. J. (2013). Examining the structural relationships among gambling motivation, passion, and consequences of Internet sports betting. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10. 1007/s10899-013-9400-y. Lee, C. K., Lee, B. K., Bernhard, B. J., & Lee, T. K. (2009). A comparative study of involvement and motivation among casino gamblers. Psychiatry Investigation, 6(3), 141–149. Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., Bernhard, B. J., & Yoon, Y. S. (2006). Segmenting casino gamblers by motivation: A cluster analysis of Korean gamblers. Tourism Management, 27(5), 856–866. Loroz, P. S. (2004). Golden-age gambling: Psychological benefits and self-concept dynamics in aging consumers’ consumption experiences. Psychology & Marketing, 21(5), 323–349. Melancon, M. O., Lorrain, D., & Dionne, I. J. (2014). Changes in markers of brain serotonin activity in response to chronic exercise in senior men. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 39(11), 1250–1256. Metheny, W. P., & Smith, R. P. (1989). The relationship among exercise, stress, and primary dysmenorrhea. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12(6), 569–586. Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T. W., Cronce, J. M., & Larimer, M. E. (2002). Exploring college student gambling motivation. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18(4), 361–370. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Platz, L., & Millar, M. (2001). Gambling in the context of other recreation activity: A quantitative comparison of casual and pathological student gamblers. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(4), 383–395. Segni, M. D., Patrono, E., Patella, L., Puglisi-Allegra, S., & Ventura, R. (2014). Animal models of compulsive eating behavior. Nutrients, 6(10), 4591–4609. Tarras, J., Singh, A., & Moufakkir, O. (2000). The profile and motivations of elderly women gamblers. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 5(1), 33–46. Taylor, S. B., Anglin, J. M., Paode, P. R., Riggert, A. G., Olive, M. F., & Conrad, C. D. (2014). Chronic stress may facilitate the recruitment of habit- and addiction-related neurocircuitries through neuronal restructuring of the striatum. Neuroscience, 280C, 231–242.
123
