Association between public opinion of gambling policies, gambling behavior and demographics: a national survey in Finland

ABSTRACT

We aim to explore the potential association between public opinions of gambling policies, gambling behavior status, and demographics among 15–74-year-old Finns. We used data from the nationwide cross-sectional Finnish Gambling Survey (n = 4515, response rate 62%). Policy topics examined included views about (i) the prevailing gambling monopoly, (ii) gambling advertising, and (iii) placement of electronic gambling machines (EGMs). Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. The prevailing Finnish gambling monopoly system enjoyed considerable support among all respondents. The views of problem gamblers and non-gamblers were similar; compared to other groups, individuals in these groups supported stricter policies regarding gambling advertising and the placement of EGMs. The findings provide an insight into differing opinions on gambling policy topics across subgroups of the population. Policymakers may benefit from these results when planning and implementing stricter gambling policies in order to reduce the harm gambling causes to society.

KEYWORDS:

• Gambling
• public opinion
• policy
• gambling policy
• policy planning

Background

Public health interventions are usually implemented with the objective of reducing the burden of disease in a population. Problem gambling is widely acknowledged as a public health issue (The Lancet, 2017). Framing gambling as a public health issue shifts the focus from responsibility of individuals ’to social, economic and environmental interventions at the population level’ (Johnstone & Regan, 2020, p. 65). However, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most effective preventive and harm minimization policies. Some researchers support public health interventions with a focus on supply and the characteristics of the gambling products (e.g. Abbott, 2020; Livingstone & Rintoul, 2020), while other researchers (e.g. Shaffer et al., 2020) tend to emphasize more the importance of self-regulation of the gambling operators and the guiding of the choices of the individual gamblers.

Recent studies reviewing the literature on gambling prevention and harm-minimization interventions have concluded that the quality of studies is generally low (Forsström et al., 2020; McMahon et al., 2019; Meyer et al., 2018; Sulkunen et al., 2018). In two of the recent studies, the evidence base on supply reduction was extensively reviewed and the conclusion was that large supply reductions are likely to have a preventive effect (Meyer et al., 2018; Sulkunen et al., 2018). However, in practice, interventions with a focus on individuals rather that the gambling products and their availability have arguably been favored by governments and the gambling industry (e.g. Livingstone & Rintoul, 2020; Williams, West et al., 2012).

Gambling is not the only policy field where interventions with less evidence on their effectiveness are favored. One possible explanation for this, discussed in alcohol studies, is that often public opinion supports these less effective interventions (Li et al., 2017). The opinions and attitudes of the population matter because governments consider the public acceptability of public policies and their possible political and economic costs (Diepeveen et al., 2013; McMahon et al., 2019). One possible and much discussed reason for the lesser public support for the effective interventions in the context of gambling is the dependence of societies on the gambling revenue and embeddedness of gambling as part of everyday life (Adams, 2016; Nicoll, 2019).

From the point of view of public acceptability of effective public health interventions Finland is an interesting country for several reasons. First, Finland has a system based on state monopoly on all forms of gambling. As stated in the Lotteries Act ((1047/2001), the main objective of the Finnish gambling system is to reduce the social, financial, and health-related harm caused by gambling. Second, despite the public health justification of the regulatory framework, gambling is for many part of everyday life in Finland. In 2019 the past-year prevalence of gambling was 78% in adult population and about 30% of the adults gambled on electronic gambling machines (EGMs) (A. Salonen et al., 2020). It has been estimated that in 2019 the spending on gambling per adult was about 430 euros (H2 Gambling Capital, 2021). Moreover, in Finland as in other jurisdictions, the spending on gambling is highly concentrated (Fiedler et al., 2019; A. Salonen et al., 2020; Sulkunen et al., 2018). It was estimated in 2019 that 2.5% of the players accounted for 50% of the total losses in Finland (A. Salonen et al., 2020). It has also been shown that EGMs are located in socio-economically deprived areas in Finland (Raisamo et al., 2019).Third, the revenues are used to fund art, sports, youth work, equestrian industry and social and welfare associations. This has, according to several studies, contributed to the high public acceptability of gambling and the monopoly system (A. H. Salonen et al., 2017; Lerkkanen et al., 2020; Matilainen, 2017). With a view to the dependence of the society on the gambling revenue many researchers have argued that there has not been political will to implement supply reductions and harm minimization policies have been often compensated with revenue-increasing policies (Selin, 2019; Selin et al., 2019).

According to our literature searches, in gambling studies opinions of specific gambling policy interventions, not just general attitudes toward regulation or gambling, have been studied in several countries. We found five studies reporting results on policy opinions. Two of these studies (Auer et al., 2018; McAllister, 2014) reported also results on the association of policy opinions with gambling status. Thomas et al. (2017) report the results from the Australian state of Victoria, which show that the majority of respondents supported new restrictions on gambling advertising and on the number of EGM venues, as well as increased regulation of EGMs. Castanie et al. (2020) report that in their convenience sample French respondents supported strong regulation (e.g. a lower age–limit of 21, limited number of casinos) and prevention measures but only mild sanctions. These findings are in contrast to another study that found that gamblers in Canada opposed mandatory spending limits (RGC Centre for the Advancement of Best Practices, 2016, pp. 31–41, 59). In a study on the attitudes of Norwegian gamblers toward mandatory global spending limits, it was found out that three-quarters of the people approved of the restrictions (Auer et al., 2018). Moreover, 82% of the gamblers with low risk of gambling problems felt positively about the mandatory spending limits whereas two-thirds of gamblers at high risk of gambling problems were positive about the spending limits. In an Australian study 80% of non-gamblers supported the proposed introduction of spending limits for EGMs, while only 68% of those gambling weekly or more often supported them (McAllister, 2014). Frequent gamblers were also more likely to be of the opinion that governments should not restrict gambling (McAllister, 2014).

An overview of the literature above show that the association between demographic- and gambling-specific variables such as age, gender, behavior and opinions on gambling policies has rarely been addressed in gambling research. However, results from other related fields indicate that the association exists. In a systematic review of studies on attitudes and opinions toward policies related to alcohol, tobacco, diet and physical activity, it was found that people are likely to approve of interventions that do not affect their own behavior (Diepeveen et al., 2013). Older people and women were more likely to approve of more restrictive policies (Diepeveen et al., 2013). Similar findings have been reached when alcohol policy attitudes have been studied (Li et al., 2017; Tobin et al., 2011). The drinking status of people has also been found to be an important predictor of negative attitudes toward restrictive alcohol policy interventions (Holmila et al., 2009; Li et al., 2017; Pechey et al., 2014). In addition to drinking status, being female and older age predicted support for restrictive alcohol policies in a UK study (Li et al., 2017).

In this paper our aim is to analyze whether the association between policy opinions of gambling and age, gender, and gambling behavior also prevail in the field of gambling. In order to amplify our knowledge of this so far understudied topic in gambling research, we addressed the following research question: Are public opinions on gambling policy topics associated with gambling behavior and demographics?

Methods

Data

The study is based on the nationwide cross-sectional Finnish Gambling Survey collected by Statistics Finland in 2015 (Salonen & Raisamo, 2015). The data was collected via computer–assisted telephone interviews from a random sample of 7400 individuals aged 15 to 74 (n = 4515; response rate 62%). The sample was obtained from the Finnish Population Information System. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland (which has since been renamed the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare) (THL/1122/6.02.01/2014).

Measures

The overall purpose of the survey was to explore gambling, gambling problems, and opinions on gambling among Finns. For the purposes of the present study, we focused on the three questions in the survey covering gambling policy topics. First, respondents were asked to state their opinion on whether they thought that the Finnish gambling monopoly system is a good way to restrict harm caused by gambling in society, with the response options being yes/no. Second, respondents were asked to express their opinions about gambling advertising by asking ‘What is your opinion about gambling advertising in Finland?’ with three response options: (i) advertising should be more controlled, (ii) the prevailing situation is satisfactory, and (iii) gambling advertising should be more liberal. Third, respondents were asked to indicate their thoughts on the placement of EGMs by asking for their opinions on the proposal that EGMs should only be available in separate gambling arcades, with response options: support/oppose/neither.

Missing values were removed from the analyses and these were 0.4% (n = 20) for the EGM placement question, 6.8% (n = 307) for the monopoly question, and 1.7% (n = 78) for the gambling advertising question.

The gambling variables used were gambling in the past 12 months (yes/no), gambling frequency (daily/several times a week, once a week, 1-3 times a month, less often), gambling on electronic gambling machines (EGM) in the past 12 months (yes/no), and past-year problem gambling status (yes; no/non-gambler) as assessed by the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and using a SOGS score of three or more to refer problem gambling, which is recommended scoring for use in population studies (Lesieur & Blume, 1993). Demographic variables included respondent’s gender (male or female) and age. To facilitate analyses, age was recoded into three groups: younger (aged 15–34), middle (ages 35–54), and older (55–74).

Data analysis

Data was analyzed using SPSS 26.0 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) and results were based on post-weighted data. The data was weighted by age, gender, and region of residence based on the 2015 Statistics Finland census data. Descriptive statistics were used (i.e. frequencies, percentages) and Pearson’s chi-square tests (2-tailed) were used to compare differences in proportions. A statistical significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was used.

Results

Table 1 shows basic demographic information related to all study participants, gamblers, and non-gamblers. There was a fairly similar distribution of groups regarding gender and age. Gamblers and non-gamblers represented 80% and 20% of the sample, respectively. Significantly more men than women were gamblers (p ≤ .001). Furthermore, gambling differed across age groups, with the middle age group (35–54 years) gambling the most.

Table 1. Basic demographics among all study participants, gamblers, and non-gamblers

		All		Gamblers		Non-gamblers
Variable		N	%	N	%	N	%	p–value
		4 515	100.0	3 612	80.0	903	20.0
Gender								p ≤ .001
	Male	2 253	49.9	1 914	85.0	339	15.0
	Female	2 262	50.1	1 697	75.0	564	24.9
Age group								p ≤ .001
Younger (15–34)		1 424	31.5	1 094	76.8	330	23.2
Middle (35–54)		1 479	32.8	1 232	83.3	247	16.7
Older (55–74)		1 612	35.7	1 286	79.8	326	20.2

Unweighted n, weighted percentage.

Gamblers were defined as participants who reported having gambled in the past 12 months.

Table 2 shows that the majority of the respondents across all studied groups perceived the gambling monopoly as a good way to restrict gambling problems in society. The lowest level of support for the monopoly was reported by the problem gambler subgroup (67%). The proportion of those in favor of more restrictive gambling advertising and for the more restrictive placement of EGMs were reported to be highest among non-gamblers.

Table 2 Percentage of those supporting the monopoly and more restrictive policies regarding gambling advertising and electronic gambling machine (EGM) placement, by age, gender, and gambling behavior status

N=4515			Monopoly			Advertising				EGM placement
			The monopoly is a good way to restrict gambling problems, %			Gambling advertising should be more controlled, %				EGMs should be located in gambling arcades only, %
Total %				83.0			19.8							36.7
Gender
		Male		77.4	p≤.001		16.2		p≤.001					30.4			p≤.001
		Female		88.9			23.0							43.0
Age group (years)
		Younger (15-34)		79.5	p≤.001		15.2		p≤.001					28.9			p≤.001
		Middle (35-54)		81.3			17.9							36.0
		Older (55-74)		87.8			25.2							44.3
Gambling, 12-month
	Gambler			82.1	.002		16.9		p≤.001					34.3			p≤.001
	Non-gambler			86.7			30.8							46.5
Problem gambling status
	Yes			67.4	p≤.001		23.3		.002					45.3			ns
	No/non-gambler			83.5			19.5							36.4
EGM gambling, 12-month
	Yes			74.4	p≤.001		13.7		p≤.001					24.3			p≤.001
	No/non-gambler			86.7			22.1							42.0

Note. Problem gambling as assessed by the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; 3 points or more suggesting to problem gambling)Note. EGM; electronic gambling machines

Note. Unweighted n, weighted percentage

In general, women and older adults (aged 55–74) supported the prevailing monopoly and were also in favor of more restrictive policies regarding gambling advertising and the placement of EGMs than men and younger respondents.

A significantly lower percentage of respondents who had gambled on EGMs supported more restrictive policies regarding the placement of EGMs and gambling advertising, when compared with non-EGM gamblers/non-gamblers.

Finally, we analyzed opinions by gambling frequency among gamblers (Table 3). The daily gamblers group was the least supportive of the monopoly, when compared with other gambling frequency groups. For all three policy opinions, those who had gambled less than monthly showed higher levels of support for the monopoly and for stricter gambling advertising and the EGM placement policy than did those in other gambling frequency groups.

Table 3. Percentage (%) of gamblers supporting monopoly and more restrictive policies regarding gambling advertising and electronic gambling machine (EGM) placement, by gambling frequency

Gamblers (N = 3612)		Daily/several times a week			Once a week		1–3 times a month		Less often
Policy		(N)	(%)		(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)	(N)	(%)
Monopoly
Monopoly is a good way to restrict gambling problems		275	68.6		889	78.4	797	77.8	831	78.8
Advertising
Gambling advertising should be more controlled
		66	16.5		167	14.7	150	14.7	221	21.0
EGM placement
EGMs should be located in gambling arcades only
		127	31.7		375	33.1	308	30.1	425	40.4

Discussion

Our study showed that public opinions toward gambling-related policy topics in the Finnish context differed significantly when broken down by age, gender, and gambling behavior status. In general, women and older adults (aged 55–74) supported the prevailing monopoly and were also in favor of more restrictive policies regarding gambling advertising and the placement of EGMs than were men and younger age groups. Similar findings have been previously reported in alcohol studies (Li et al., 2017; Tobin et al., 2011).

The findings further indicated that problem gamblers held the most critical views regarding all the three studied policy topics. This is probably due to the fact that those who already are problem gamblers also suffer from gambling harm. This result is in contrast with the previous results (Auer et al., 2018) that indicate that gamblers at high risk of gambling problems are more critical toward restrictions than gamblers with low risk of gambling problems. However, the support for tighter EGM regulation was lower among EGM gamblers, mainly because it would mean that they would have to make considerable behavioral changes if EGMs are moved from public places into separate gambling arcades. Correspondingly, the same reasoning also applies to non-gamblers who support more restrictive policies than gamblers. These latter two results are in line with the results from previous studies on opinions on gambling, alcohol, and other health policies that show that people who are affected by restrictions usually hold more critical opinions toward the restrictions (Auer et al., 2018; Diepeveen et al., 2013; Holmila et al., 2009; Li et al., 2017; McAllister, 2014).

It is also important to notice that policy opinions are influenced by regulatory contexts: an obvious example being the public support of the Finnish regulatory system (McMahon et al., 2019; Pöysti, 2014). In Finland and elsewhere, gambling on EGMs is associated with an increased risk of gambling harm and problem gambling both online and offline (Gainsbury et al., 2019). In addition, EGMs are very visible in the Finnish society and can be found from kiosks, supermarkets, bars, and service stations. This high availability and visibility of EGMs in everyday life is one possible reason why EGM especially gamblers are critical toward restrictions, because it might be difficult to see anything problematic in familiar aspect of everyday life.

This study is subject to several limitations. The study is based on self-reported information using a cross-sectional study design. Thus, we cannot exclude, for example, the possibility of social desirability bias in responses (Althubaiti, 2016). Furthermore, the results reflect the Finnish societal context and gambling patterns, making direct comparisons difficult to studies conducted in other countries. Furthermore, the list of policy opinion questions was short due to limited space in the questionnaire. Despite the limitations, the data is based on a nationally representative sample with a fairly good response rate (62%) which was higher than the international average in population-based gambling studies (Williams, Volberg, et al., 2012).

Overall, our results partially corroborate that there are indeed similar associations between age, gender, and gambling behavior that previous studies have established in other research fields. However, only future studies will corroborate these associations. Our findings provide insight into gambling-related policy topics addressing groups that may benefit from targeted interventions aiming to promote attitude change, for example, for stricter gambling policy measures (e.g. supply reductions, regulation of game characteristics). Thus, detailed information about the differences in opinions in different population groups on gambling policies can help policymakers to represent policies designed to reduce gambling harm in ways that improve their acceptance, implementation, and thus the impact of the policies. Finally, our findings further suggest that insofar as gambling in society is widespread, as is the case in Finland, this is likely to keep the more critical opinions of non-gamblers toward gambling policies marginal. Consequently, in such conditions politicians, policymakers, and the gambling industry might find it easier to disregard effective policy options supported by evidence.

Conflicts of interestFunding sources

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki, Finland, funded the study (appropriation under section 52 of the Lotteries Act).

Competing interests

Both authors work full-time at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. JS declares that he has no conflict of interest. SR is an external expert for the Ethics Advisory Board for the Finnish state-owned gambling monopoly Veikkaus.

Constraints on publishing

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health or other bodies or individuals other than the authors had no role in the study design, data analysis, or interpretation of the results.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Finnish Social Science Data Archive at https://www.fsd.tuni.fi/en/, reference number FSD3115.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jani Selin

Jani Selin holds a Ph.D. degree in sociology and has studied the governance of addictions in contemporary societies. Recently his studies have focused on the political aspects of responsible gambling and gambling policies, prevention of gambling problems, the regulation of gambling in the European Union, and placement of EGMs.

Susanna Raisamo

Susanna Raisamo works as a Research Manager at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. She has a Ph.D. degree in public health. Her current research focuses on population gambling, gambling harm prevention, and impacts of gambling for public health and policy.