518
Views
21
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Community attitudes toward legalised gambling in Alberta

, , , , , & show all
Pages 57-79 | Published online: 31 Mar 2011
 

Abstract

Albertans representing five age cohorts (13–15, 18–20, 23–25, 43–45 and 63–65) were surveyed (n = 1809) to assess their attitudes toward gambling in general, gambling in Alberta and legal gambling's impacts in the province. Age, gender and problem gambling status were found to be reliable predictors of gambling attitudes in that younger male, non-problem gamblers were most approving of the activity. Results also indicate that Albertans are ambivalent about gambling and that gambling and public policy are mis-aligned to the extent that gambling's harms are thought to outweigh its benefits. Likely reasons for the gap between gambling policy and public opinion are that gambling issues lack the salience of ongoing high-profile topics such as the economy, health care, education and the environment, and gambling dependent special interest groups can exert considerable influence on gambling policy in ways that may not harmonise with the public interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant from the Alberta Gaming Research Institute. The authors also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided instructive suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Notes

1. There are two similar types of legal electronic gambling machines (EGMs) in Alberta, video lottery terminals (VLTs) and slot machines. Although alike in design and function they are distinguishable primarily by location. VLT is the name given to EGMs found in premises with liquor licenses (pubs, bars and lounges), whereas slot machine is the designation used for EGMs positioned in casinos or racetracks.

2. The Nova Scotia study was completed six months ago but not released because it supposedly contained methodological flaws – flaws that were never specified. The report's non-release created a media furor centring on the supposition that the cost–benefit study must have embarrassed the government for it to have taken the drastic action of suppressing it.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.