CHAPTER THREE:
LEVEL 2 AND LEVEL 3 GAMBLING

            In the introduction, the range of gambling experiences was described in terms of levels of gambling.  Level 1 gambling, or social gambling, is the sort of harmless gambling in which the majority of people engage.  Level 2, or in- transition gambling, is gambling which is accompanied by some familial, social or financial difficulty, but perhaps not enough difficulty to be considered a serious problem.  However, if a person gambles to excess, that is to say frequently and in the face of familial, social, or financial problems, then that would be described as Level 3, or problem gambling.

            In this chapter the prevalence of problem gambling is described.  It should be noted again that because these estimates are derived from a probability sample, the overall estimates of problem gambling have a ± 2% margin of error, based on a 95% confidence interval.

Prevalence of Level 2 and Level 3 Gambling

            Tables 3.1 and 3.2 report the estimated prevalence of problem gambling.  As discussed earlier, two different estimates are given.  The estimates based on a broad definition of problem gambling include both the frequency of gambling and the number of symptoms of problem gambling as indicated by the SOGS-RA.  Estimates based on the narrow definition are based only on the SOGS-RA score.  Depending on the method of estimation, the prevalence of level 2 gambling ranges from 5% to 11.2% and level 3 gambling ranges from 1.4% to 4.1%.  Level 1 gamblers are those who gambled in the last 12 months, but did so infrequently and with no problems.  Level 0 gamblers are those that did not gamble at all in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Table 3.1. Prevalence of Level 2 and Level 3 Gambling (N=997)

(In Percent)

            The estimates given in Table 3.1 report the rates of level 2 and level 3 gambling among all the respondents in the sample.  However, of the 997 respondents, only 658 gambled in the 12 months prior to the survey.  Another way to describe the rate of level 2 and level 3 gambling is to describe the rates only among those who gambled, and thus were at risk of developing a gambling problem.  The estimates for the at-risk population are described in Table 3.2.  The smaller denominator results in slightly higher estimates of problem gambling, from 7.6% to 17% for level 2 gambling and from 2.1% to 6.2% for level 3.

Table 3.2. Prevalence of Level 2 and Level 3 Gambling for At-Risk Population (N=658)

(In Percent)

            As described in Chapter 2, boys and older youth are more likely to gamble.  Thus, we might expect that these groups are also more likely to be problem gamblers.  Table 3.3 describes the distribution of problem gambling among various subgroups.  For consistency, all the calculations for problem gambling in this chapter are based on broad criteria.  Boys were, as expected, more likely to be level 2 and level 3 gamblers, however, older respondents were not significantly more likely to be level 2 or level 3 gamblers.

Table 3.3. Gender, Age, Race Distribution of At-Risk Level 2 and 3 Gamblers (Broad Criteria)

(In Percent)

Grade of Onset,
Parental Gambling and
Problem Gambling

            If grade of onset is related to frequency of gambling, it is reasonable to expect that earlier gambling is also related to problem gambling.  Youth of all ages who have gambled longer have had more time to develop problem gambling.  Table 3.4 describes the relationship between grade of onset and level 2 and 3 gambling (broad criteria).  There is a significant estimated relationship between grade of onset and problem gambling.  Of the 237 respondents who began gambling in grade school, 23.6% are level 2 gamblers and 8% are level 3 gamblers.  These rates are significantly higher than rates of in-transition and problem gambling among those who abstained until high school, which are 16.8% and 3.2% respectively.

Table 3.4. Grade of Onset and Problem Gambling

(In Percent)

                        Adolescents whose parents gamble are also more likely to be level 2 or level 3 gamblers than are the children of non-gambling parents.  Table 3.5 below illustrates the relationship between parental gambling and problem gambling.  Of the 324 youth whose parents were abstainers, 14.5% were level 2 and 4.9% were level 3 gamblers, which is lower, but not significantly, than for children of gamblers whose rates were 18.5% and 6.6% respectively.27

Table 3.5. Parental Gambling and Problem Gambling

(In Percent)

            Because youth whose parents gamble may be more likely to start gambling in grade school, and those who started gambling in grade school may be more likely to be problem gamblers there is reason to believe that parental gambling is related to problem gambling, even if not directly so.  Although rates of problem gambling among youth with gambling parents are not significantly higher than for their non-gambling counterparts, it may be instructive to further analyze the complex relationship between parental gambling, grade of onset, and problem gambling.

            Comparing Table 3.6a with Tables 3.6b and 3.6c provides a more complete explanation of the relationship between parental gambling, grade of onset, and problem gambling.  Observe in Table 3.6a, that youth who began gambling in grade school are roughly twice as likely to be level 2 or 3 gamblers than those who abstained until after grade school.  However, this relationship between age of onset and the development of risky gambling behavior may be affected by whether or not the parents gambler.

Table 3.6a. Grade of Onset and Problem Gambling

(In Percent)

            In order to further illustrate the estimated influence of parental gambling two different tables were created.  The first examines the relation between grade of onset and problem gambling for children of gambling parents; the second examines the same relation for children of non-gambling parents.  Comparing Table 3.6b with Table 3.6c indicates that early grade of onset may be more likely to influence the development of problem gambling in youth whose parents gamble than in youth whose parents do not.  For example, in Table 3.6b we see that among children of gambling parents, of the 133 youth who began gambling in grade school 37.6% were estimated to be level 2 or 3 gamblers.  This is significantly higher than those who started later (16.8%).

            However, this is not the case among children of non-gambling parents.  Among children of non-gambling parents, youth who started in grade school have rates of gambling only 7% higher that later-starting youth.  In fact, while the relationship between grade of onset and problem gambling is statistically significant among children of gamblers; it is not significant for children of non-gamblers29

            This study’s cross-sectional data, strictly speaking, cannot indicate a causal relationship between parental gambling, grade of onset, and level 2 or 3 gambling.  Nevertheless, it is still possible that the findings do indicate that a causal relationship does, in fact, exist if at least three things are true.  First, that the relationship between parental gambling, grade of onset, and level 2 or 3 gambling is not spurious, that is, that all three are not affected by some other unmeasured factor (or factors).  Second, parental gambling must occur prior in time to the onset of children’s gambling.  Finally, grade of onset must be prior to level 2 or 3 gambling.

            The latter is an easy assumption to make, clearly, grade of onset occurs prior in time to the severity of gambling.  Likewise, it is also very probable that parental gambling occurs prior in time to children’s gambling.  However, the first point, that the relationship not be spurious, is an important factor to consider.  It may be that the same factors which influence parental gambling may also exert independent influence on grade of onset and the severity of gambling behavior.  This is an important matter for future research to examine more closely.

Substance Abuse and Problem Gambling

            In Chapter Two, the relationship between substance use and gambling was illustrated.  The evidence presented below suggests that not only is substance use correlated with likelihood of gambling, but the frequency of substance use may be positively related to problem gambling.  The modest but significant correlation coefficients in Table 3.7 below suggest that level 2 and 3 gambling (using broad criteria) is more prevalent among more frequent users than among less frequent users.

Table 3.7. Correlation of Substance Use and Level of Gambling.

Note:**  p.<.01(Spearman’s rho, 2-tailed).

Comparing Oregon’s Rates with Other States

            Although several other states have estimated prevalence rates of gambling for adolescents, the variety of measures used makes inter-state comparisons difficult.  As was clearly shown above, the rates of problem gambling can vary significantly depending on the definitions and measurement of problem gambling.  Nonetheless, in order to make some sense of the prevalence rates estimated in this study, some comparison with other states is necessary.  Table 3.8, below, shows how Oregon’s prevalence rates compare with other states’ rates of gambling among youth.  In order to ensure the most accurate comparison possible, only studies which used methods similar to this study are included.  Three states use both the same instrument, the SOGS-RA and similar scoring techniques, Washington, (Volberg, 1993), Minnesota (Winters et al., 1993a, 1993b), and Louisiana (Westphal et al., 1998).  Additionally, national estimates which are derived from a meta-analysis of studies which use the SOGS-RA are included (Shaffer, Hall and Vander Bilt, 1997).

            The national prevalence rates for gambling and problem gambling, reported in Table 3.8, indicate that Oregon teens are less likely to gamble than teens in the few other states studied.  Even assuming a margin of error of ± 3% for each of the studies, the estimated lifetime rates of gambling for Oregon are lower than for all the comparison states, including the national prevalence estimates.  Additionally, past-year gambling rates appear to be lower than the national estimates.

Table 3.8.  Comparing Oregon with Other States

(In Percent)

            It also appears that Oregon has slightly lower rates of level 2 and level 3 gambling than other states as well as the national average.  However, it should be noted that because these estimated rates are subject to a margin of error, the rates of problem gambling in Oregon may not be significantly lower than in other states.  For example, assuming the margin of error for level 3 gambling using broad criteria is ± 2%, the range for level 3 gambling is from 2.1% to 6.1%.  This range overlaps with Washington’s rates (1% to 5%) and nearly does so with Minnesota’s (6.7% to 10.7%).  However, even accounting for the margin of error, Oregon’s level 2 rates are lower than for both Washington and Minnesota using the broad criteria.

Chapter Summary

            The majority of youth in Oregon gamble.  Using the broad method, the rate of level 2 gambling is estimated at 11.2%.  The rate of level 3 gambling is estimated at 4.1%.  When these estimates are generalized to the 223,456 adolescents in Oregon who are between 13 and 17 years-old (Center for Population Research and Census, 1996) the estimated number of level 2 gamblers ranges from 20,558 to 29,496.  The estimated number of level 3 gamblers ranges from 4,693 to 13,631.  These estimates may suggest treatment opportunities may need to be developed for between 94 and 272 youth per year32

            The patterns of problem gambling are similar to the patterns of gambling behavior.  Boys are significantly more likely to gamble, and are also significantly more likely to be level 2 or 3 gamblers.  As with gambling in general, problem gambling is associated with substance use, suggesting that not only are youth who gamble more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs, but youth who gamble to excess, are also more likely to use substances in excess.

            Age does not appear to be associated with problem gambling.  The older respondents in this sample were not significantly more likely to be problem gamblers.  Grade of onset was related to problem gambling, however, which suggests that it is length of exposure which influences the development of problem gambling rather than a person’s age.  This finding replicates the findings of prevalence studies done in Minnesota and Texas, which also found that early grade of onset and problem gambling are correlated (Winters et al., 1993b; Wallisch, 1996)

            Although youth who begin gambling in grade school may be at more risk of developing gambling problems, this risk may be mediated by their family environment.  In the analysis presented it was found that youth who started gambling in grade school, but whose parents did not gamble, were not significantly more likely to become problem gamblers than youth who didn’t begin until after grade school.  However, in families where one or both parents gambled, children who started earlier were significantly more likely to become level 2 or 3 gamblers.  Because these findings are based on a single, relatively small sample, they must be replicated before making any firm conclusions.