Making sense of gambling. Swedish youth navigating between risk and responsibility

ABSTRACT

Youth gambling is commonly described in policy and research as a high-risk behavior. To design relevant measures to prevent gambling problems among youth, it is important to understand how youth themselves relate to gambling. To explore how youth navigate their position on gambling in the context of their everyday lives, we conducted qualitative interviews with 35 participants aged 17–21 years in Sweden; 15 had gambled and 20 had experience of others’ gambling. The thematic analysis showed that both gamblers and non-gamblers overall had negative attitudes toward gambling and emphasized repeatedly discourses of personal responsibility in it. The participants used various neutralization techniques to navigate the economic and addictive risks of gambling. Youth who gambled distanced themselves from the risks of gambling by drawing a line between themselves and excessive gamblers, between safe and unsafe gambling, or highlighted how their skills and strategic thinking made gambling less problematic. Also, gambling in liminal circumstances abroad or in alcohol-serving venues offered a safe time and place for gambling by separating it from everyday life practices. The findings provide important cues to how young people locate gambling in their everyday life, which is useful knowledge for policy and prevention.

KEYWORDS:

• Gambling
• youth
• risk
• neutralizations
• motives
• Sweden
• qualitative

Introduction

In policy and research alike, youth gambling is commonly perceived as a risk activity (Messerlian et al., 2007) associated with various health and social problems (Dowling et al., 2017; Fröberg, 2015). Problem gambling among adolescents has been found to be related to both structural factors such as unemployment and individual factors such as parental gambling practices, alcohol consumption (Spångberg & Svensson, 2020), being male, poor school performance and having an impulsive personality (Dowling et al., 2017; Fröberg, 2015). In addition, extended access to gambling venues is related to increased problematic gambling among adolescents (Kristiansen et al., 2015; Riley et al., 2021).

Gambling prevalence among youth varies across studies and countries (Calado et al., 2020) and is considerably higher among boys than girls. The latter also applies to Sweden (Gripe, 2021). The minimum legal gambling age in Sweden is 18, but one fourth of all 16–17-year-olds in Sweden have gambled, most commonly buying lottery tickets, playing poker, or online sports betting (Public Health Agency of Sweden [PHAS], 2019; Svensson & Zetterqvist, 2019). There currently appears to be inadequate enforcement of age restriction regulations across multiple gambling activities. Although we lack knowledge regarding how underaged individuals manage to gamble despite age limits in Sweden, a literature review suggests that they may be committing credit card fraud or are supported by older friends and relatives to gamble online (Shi et al., 2021).

In Sweden, turning 18 – reaching the age of majority, which entails the right to vote, managing one’s own economy, and being able to buy alcohol in pubs and other venues – is associated with increased gambling participation and gambling problems, especially among young men. Still, there is little research on how young men and young women in this age themselves relate to gambling as a social activity and to the associated risks.

Both adults and adolescents tend to connect gambling with risk behavior (Aguocha et al., 2019). For example, a Norwegian study on 17-year-olds found that the adolescents’ attitudes toward gambling were generally slightly negative: disapproval was linked to gambling availability (too many opportunities) and the negative consequences in particular. Many did not believe that gambling had any societal benefits (Hanss et al., 2014). This is in line with findings from the 2019 survey of young people and gambling in Great Britain (Gambling Commission, 2020). Few adolescents agreed that it was acceptable for people their age to gamble, and age limits were generally endorsed. This is to some extent mirrored in the declining numbers of youth gambling in Sweden during the last two decades. The decrease is possibly related to general trends of declining youth drinking in high-income countries across the world (Vashishtha et al., 2021).

Young people’s relation to gambling appears to be ambiguous. A review of qualitative studies on youth gambling (n = 21) by Wardle (2019) reports a normalization of gambling among adolescents. In most studies, gambling is viewed as part of the everyday fabric, but in some cases also as a rite of passage – such as attaining the legal age for gambling. Modern technology, including online gaming apps and online gambling venues, have also significantly increased exposure to gambling (Törrönen et al., 2020).

Research on young people and risk behavior typically focuses on prevalence and consequences (Torbenfeldt Bengtsson & Ravn, 2019). Sociological approaches in gambling research have not been very common, and youth gambling as a social activity in a broader context needs more research (ESPAD Group, 2020). The sociological approach treats gambling motives as a vocabulary that articulates what kind of gambling is culturally acceptable, instead of assuming that they would refer exclusively to individual subjective reasons to gamble (Majamäki & Pöysti, 2012). Previous research on gambling motives among adults shows what kind of motives serve to make the risks in gambling culturally manageable and to transform gambling into an accepted activity. Socially and culturally legitimate motives are related to the chance of winning, the dream of hitting the jackpot, social rewards (bonding, competing, companionship), intellectual challenges, and positive mood changes (excitement, relaxing, flow; Binde, 2013). Studies propose that young people also have other possible motives to make gambling as a normal part of everyday life: by gambling they may seek to belong, prove that they are ‘cool’ or adults (rite of passage), or demonstrate their competence (Grønnestad et al., 2020; Lamont & Hing, 2020). While we lack knowledge about how they relate to gambling in general, it has been suggested that increased exposure to gambling and increased accessibility to gambling venues lead to increased reflexivity and strategic approaches among the youth.

To embrace the meaning of this exposure of gambling, we need a broader perspective, which includes both gambling and non-gambling youth. The aim of this study is to examine how young people themselves make sense of gambling, relate it to risks, and rationalize it as a legitimate pastime activity in consumer society. More specifically we answer the following research questions: How do young people articulate gambling in their everyday lives? How do they negotiate their gambling position with specific neutralization techniques?

Navigating and neutralizing perceived risks of gambling

In a late modern risk society (Beck, 1992), the locus of control has shifted from factors outside the individual (structures, traditions, authorities) to factors that emphasize individual choices and responsibilities (Järvinen & Room, 2007). As the traditional links between family, school, and work have weakened, young people’s living conditions have changed. In the risk society that they live in, they need continuously to reflect on what kind of risks the choices they make have for their future. This increases their vulnerability and intensifies feelings of insecurity, and has led to a more reflexive stance on substance use and gambling. The critical line is no longer drawn between use and nonuse but between ‘controlled’ and ‘uncontrolled’ use as a boundary between culturally legitimate and deviant ways of using substances (Järvinen & Room, 2007; Månsson et al., 2022). Developing a reflexive stance on risky activities is a way of avoiding being labeled as deviant (Peretti‐Watel, 2003). Risk is no longer considered an objective fact but a phenomenon that gets its meaning in relation to lived experiences, motivations, justifications, and viewpoints.

Risk theory has been applied in the gambling research field by stating the importance of the social and institutional aspects of gambling (Cosgrave, 2006) suggesting that the liberalization of gambling and decreased state regulation has led to increased commercialization and framing of gambling as entertainment (Kingma, 2004), and that the consumption of chance in risk society is resolved through increased individualized risk management (Young, 2010). Research on how the responsibility for the gambling-related harm is actively constructed and reproduced by the Swedish gambling industry, suggest in parallel that the industry locates the main responsibility in the emergence and handling of gambling-related harms on the shoulders of individual gamblers. The industry relies heavily on the ability of individuals to control and regulate their own consumption in the prevention of gambling-related harm (Alexius, 2017).

When people deal with risky activities such as gambling in a society that defines the risk it involves as individuals’ personal responsibility, they approach it as an activity that need to be justified. Especially those who gamble may feel that they need to to use and develop specific justification techniques to neutralize or deny risks this activity involves. Already in the 1950s, Sykes and Matza (1957) developed a theory on how certain ‘techniques of neutralisation’ helped juvenile offenders to justify their behavior and neutralize the ‘deviant’ label. Building on this theory along with research on youth cannabis users, Peretti‐Watel (2003) suggests that three neutralization techniques in particular – or risk denial techniques as he calls them – are useful in studying behaviors that the society deems risky. These are scapegoating, self-confidence, and comparison between risks.

Scapegoating is a technique of drawing a border between ‘safe’ and ‘risky’ behavior, as some groups’ behavior is categorized as risky, excluded from us, and considered deviant. Self-confidence is a technique of emphasizing one’s own abilities to avoid or control risky situations. It enables individuals to distinguish themselves from anonymous others. Comparison between risks, then, is a technique of making a risky activity less risky by comparing it to risks that most people find acceptable.

From this theoretical starting point, we argue that a society permeated by messages on gambling necessitates increased reflexivity and strategic positioning. Gambling must be given a deliberate meaning, and this also applies to those who choose not to gamble. Previous theories on risky or deviant behavior such as drug use suggest that young people navigate a landscape of contradictory messages and use different strategies to process the risky activities they engage in and the conflicting messages that circulate around them (Parker et al., 1998). According to this, young people of today are required to acquire a reflexive approach toward risky activities to avoid being labeled as deviant and risky (Peretti‐Watel, 2003).

As neutralization theory ‘pays attention to the growing place of risk and risk profiling in contemporary societies’ (Peretti‐Watel, 2003, p. 22), it provides us tools to analyze how young people make sense of an activity that is deemed risky by society, and how they navigate their personal responsibility for wellbeing and health in relation to this activity. Drawing on neutralization theory and the risk denial techniques it deals with will help us to examine how young people define, negotiate, and handle gambling-related risks in everyday life practices. Thus, the study commits to constructionist ontology. The definition of whether gambling is a risky activity or not, developing a reflexive stance toward it, and using neutralization techniques to make it less risky, are based on moral judgments that we make by using knowledges, discourses, and experiences which we have embodied during our lives (Lupton, 2013).

Methods and material

Sampling and participants

This study was conducted within the frame of a larger longitudinal qualitative study on substance use, health, and pastime activities among Swedish youth (Törrönen et al., 2019). In the third wave of interviews with the same participants, specific questions on experiences of and attitudes toward gambling were posed. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling from social media, non-governmental organizations, secondary schools, upper secondary schools, and universities in rural and urban parts of Sweden. They had varying socioeconomic status and ethnic backgrounds. From the total of 36 participants interviewed, 9 were excluded due to lack of experience of gambling. Since the original sample only had 7 participants with experience of occasional or regular gambling, an additional sampling of 8 persons (2 young women and 6 young men) was made. The additional sample was recruited in the same way and followed the same interview guide as the original sample. In total, 35 participants who had experience of own or others’ gambling were thus included in the sample; 15 had own experience of gambling (4 girls and 11 boys) and 20 had experience of others’ gambling (12 girls and 8 boys). The participants were aged 17–21 (median 20); eight were 17 years old and had not yet reached the legal age of gambling. Based on their self-reports in the interviews, the participants were categorized into non-gamblers (never gambled), occasional gamblers (have gambled on a few occasions, not only buying lottery tickets once), and regular gamblers (have gambled more often; Table 1). Two of the regular gamblers expressed that their gambling had been problematic at times. The most common gambling forms among the occasional gamblers were lotteries, live casino, and electronic gambling machines (EGMs), whereas online poker and sports betting were more commonly reported by those categorized as regular gamblers. The gambling preferences were highly gendered. The girls reported buying lottery tickets and playing bingo, included the two girls who were defined as regular gamblers. Although the boys also reported buying lottery ticket, they mainly reported playing poker, betting on sports and casino games.

Table 1. Participant characteristics (N = 35).

	Non- gambler	Occasional gambler	Regular gambler	Total
Gender
Male	8	4	7	19
Female	12	2	2	16
Age
17	8	1	0	9
18–19	3	2	3	8
20–21	9	3	6	18
Total	20	6	9	35

Interviews

The semi-structured interview guide included open questions covering themes such as pastime activities; friends; use of social media; use and perceptions of alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco; gambling and gaming habits; understandings of health; parents’ and siblings’ supervision; everyday economy; and future prospects. The participants gave informed consent, and the interviews lasted for about an hour (median 47) and were conducted in the autumn of 2019. The interviews were held in person (N = 11) on Skype or telephone (N = 24), according to the participants’ wishes, and audio recorded. No differences in the material were found based on interview mode. The interviews were conducted by the first (8 interviews), second (12 interviews), and fourth (15 interviews) authors, who all have extensive experience of and training to conduct qualitative interviews. As a token of appreciation, the participants were offered a gift card. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Review Board in Sweden.

Coding and analysis

To analyze the material, we conducted an empirically close thematic coding in accordance with the steps described by Braun and Clarke (2006). The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and the transcripts carefully read. Brief analytical summaries were written for an overview of each case. The transcriptions were then inserted into the qualitative coding platform NVivo to simplify the coding procedure. All text passages concerning the participants’ own and others’ gambling were identified, amounting in a total of 70,000 words. Initial themes were generated and systematically coded by the first and fourth authors in collaboration into ‘general attitude toward gambling’, ‘risk’, ‘gambling setting’, ‘gambling motives’, and other broad aspects to cover all the variations in the participants’ approaches toward gambling. Specific attention was given to searching for inconsistencies and contradictions in the material. The initial themes were specified by all authors in consensus in four more distinct themes, concerning ways in which the participants negotiated their position on gambling. The distinct themes were then reviewed in relation to the initial themes to assure coherence. In the results section, each distinct theme is presented and analyzed under its own heading, with brief quotes by the interviewees. All original names were replaced by pseudonyms. Each quote is followed by the interviewee’s pseudonym, age, and gambling category. We will then discuss the relationship between the themes and the general findings.

Results

It becomes apparent from the participants’ stories that there is an overall negative approach to gambling. The initial reaction to questions about gambling is usually associated with negative statements about losing money and addiction. The young people interviewed in this study are clearly well versed in the dominating discourses on gambling addiction and the economic problems it may cause. It is, however, also apparent that these young people are exposed to gambling and gamblers in many different social contexts and situations that can be private or public, voluntarily sought, or involuntarily encountered.

Outlined below are four identified themes linked to the participants’ approaches toward gambling. These themes are to some extent intertwined and can best be described as intersections of different navigational and neutralization strategies. As will be seen later, some themes are primarily related to those who had experience of gambling as they had a stronger need to rationalize what could be regarded as a risky behavior. Despite the heterogeneity in the material, the participants however present several similarities in what it means to gamble and to be a gambler, and what the related risks are. The quotes are representative examples of this and the trends in the data.

Relating to ‘the addicted gambler’

During the interviews, the participants make sense of their gambling or non-gambling in relation to addicted and out-of-control gamblers, whom they identify in similar terms: An addicted gambler’s gambling is excessive, frequent, costly, out of control, money-centered (not fun), escape-oriented, and disrupting ‘normal’ life. In many ways, such descriptions echo diagnostic criteria for addiction and show an awareness of addiction discourse among the participants. Against the character of an addictive gambler, the interviewees compare their own experience of gambling, at least implicitly. For example, many occasional gamblers initially described themselves as non-gamblers, but later in the interview, actual experiences of gambling are revealed and a more nuanced stance emerges.

Gambling? Not at all. I have zero interest in it. It’s not even on the map. (…) At the same time, I can see the point. When we play poker and it’s more interesting with money. There is a greater value. (Elliot, 20, occasional gambler)

Here, Elliot draws a line between what he and his friends do (for example, bet money to make poker ‘more interesting’), and what he views as gambling. In his reasoning, an occasional poker game does not make someone a gambler. What statements such as this illustrate is that gambling is not something many participants in this study associate themselves with, and therefore they do not view themselves as gamblers. The way they understate their gambling could be due to an ambiguity in how young people perceive gambling and what they count as a gambling activity (Wardle, 2019). The floating boundaries between presenting oneself as a person who does not gamble, and talking about specific gambling occasions, may however also be interpreted as a tactic to handle a general negative attitude toward gambling. As such, the comparison with ‘real’ gambling becomes a way for Elliot to downplay the risk of playing poker for money.

Setting boundaries and relying on personal skills

In the dominant discourse, there is a tension between the appeal of gambling and the fear of the problems it might cause. Similarly, our participants compare and discuss the problems and dangers of gambling and their own possibilities to handle and resist them. Both for those who gamble and those who do not, gambling means a risk of losing money, and, by extension, the possibility to become addicted. As our participants are aware of the economic risks involved, they represent themselves as responsible consumers attuned to the dominant discourses on gambling.

The participants generally stress the more problematic aspects of gambling, and associate gambling with an image of indebted addicts unable to control their behavior. Half of the sample, 14 participants, referred to a person with a problematic gambling behavior among general others, friends, and significant others. They had chosen to handle this in a variety of ways. For the non-gamblers, the perceived risk of losing money and becoming addicted are reasons to refrain from gambling altogether. Avoiding gambling becomes a way to individually set boundaries and take responsibility for this risk:

It’s all about losing money and the chances of winning are small. It’s just a waste of money. (Sana, 17, non-gambler)

The thing is, I don’t like betting and such, and I don’t want to be caught up in those games. I’ve seen a few become pretty addicted to those games, they start betting everything they have. (Khalil, 17, non-gambler)

The non-gamblers may feel sorry for those who become addicted (Emilia, 17, non-gambler) or blame them for starting such a risky activity (Mateo, 17, non-gambler). However, in both cases they emphasize the importance of not choosing to gamble as a responsible choice. The participants who choose to gamble also underline responsible gambling and take distance from excessive gambling by setting their gambling within clear boundaries. For example, both Leo and Sophie enjoy gambling, but are also careful to point out that every gambling occasion needs limits:

Well, if you keep it within reasonable limits and don’t gamble for too much, that’s good. But if it’s on a harmful addiction level and you gamble away all your money, it’s obviously not good at all. (Sophie, 21, occasional gambler)

When it comes to blackjack in bars and such, definitely I go for it. But most often I spend 20 euro at most. And if I lose everything I quit gambling. Setting a limit sort of. (Leo, 20, regular gambler)

Here, the risks of gambling are handled by talking about moderation and setting limits on how much money to spend. Similarly, the participants who do gamble talk about keeping to less risky games:

We have a friend who won 150,000 euros, but he’s a gambling addict. He will waste that in an instant. There are many people gambling in our circle of friends. My colleagues too. Recently a colleague said ‘bet this, it’s great, you’ll have a bigger chance of winning’. And he showed me. But I didn’t get it, it just sounded stupid. (…) I’m not tempted by easy money. (Arin, 20, regular gambler)

In the above quotes, Sophie, Leo, and Arin draw a clear line between risky gamblers (‘gamble away all your money’, ‘gambling addict’) and those who come across as safe and smart (‘setting a limit’, ‘not tempted’). The gambling participants relate their examples of risky gamblers to general others, friends, and significant others. Two participants confess to having been risky gamblers themselves in the past (Dino, 20, regular gambler; Robert, 19, regular gambler). In all these cases, the idea of ‘risky gamblers’ legitimized a structured form of gambling just like our non-gambling participants use stereotypical ‘gambling addicts’ to legitimize their abstinence from gambling.

However, there are also finer differences in the rhetoric between gamblers and non-gamblers as well as between men and women. Gender works as an important mediator of gambling behavior. Both men and women in the study perceived gambling as a masculine practice:

It’s mainly the boys in the class. It’s not a thing for the girls at all. (Sana, 17, non-gambler)

Young men who practise more strategic forms of gambling (skill games) stress that the economic risks differ depending on what and how you gamble. This is in line with the findings by Kristiansen et al. (2014), who found that young men were less likely to regard frequent gambling as a risky activity because they were confident that they were ‘skilful’ gamblers. Michael’s quote below exemplifies this:

I’ve always preferred gambling with more thought efforts. I’m also a huge chess enthusiast. I got caught up in poker and found it interesting. My father has gambled some, he’s a mathematician. There is some math in it. They actually brought up examples in math class, where the teacher talked about counting with poker hands. (…) Many of the others’ gambling seems to have a great interest in gambling for money. I don’t find it primarily as the most important thing, it’s more like adding excitement to it. (Michael, 18, regular gambler)

By associating poker with chess and math, Michael distinguishes himself from other gamblers that are in it for the money. In his reasoning, the risk of playing poker for money can be denied by pointing to certain motives for playing; skill and strategy are described as safe and interests in winning money as risky. Similarly, reading up and being well prepared is described as a way of avoiding risks with gambling:

It’s [sports betting] really fun … but also a bit risky if you’re not well prepared. If I betted, I think I’d have a much better probability to win certain games, because I read a lot of football news and such. You have to engage in it and be informed for it to be acceptable to bet. (Henry, 17, non-gambler)

Like Michael and Henry, several of the gamblers in our material are careful to stress that they are aware of the potential risks, therefore emphasizing their own ability to control risky situations. Such control is also stressed in statements about different forms of gambling. Games considered to be based on skill are seen as acceptable (e.g. poker) while games considered to be based on chance are seen as risky (e.g. slot machines). Thus, our interviewees set boundaries and rely on personal skills to justify their positions as gamblers in a context that treats gambling in general as a risky activity.

Differentiating between contexts and relationships

Context is also pivotal in the interviewees’ approaches to gambling. Different rationalities are foregrounded in different situations. In fact, the participants relate gambling to liminal situations where everyday obligations and actions can be bracketed (e.g. partying), or to specific social contexts (e.g. social bonding) that are substantially detached from the more marginalized social contexts associated with problematic gambling.

For several of the male participants who gambled on slot machines or casino games, the practice of gambling was related to alcohol and going out with friends. Gambling occurred in liminal circumstances aided by alcohol or while traveling (see also, Lalander & Johansson, 2017), such as at a casino abroad or on a cruise ship to Finland. Gambling in these situations is described as emerging within the logic of the situation. This is illustrated in the quote below, where Sam clearly disagrees with gambling as an acceptable activity in everyday life:

If I want to play a little blackjack when I’m out having fun and excited, I think it’s worth it. Because it’s a nice feeling. But I’d never do it normally (…). (Sam, 21, regular gambler)

This comparison between contexts (being ‘out’ vs. ‘normally’) underscores how certain ways of gambling can be seen as accepted in contrast to gambling that is associated with a time and a space where gambling is linked to irresponsible behavior. If gambling occurs during alcohol consumption in a pub as a part of a liminal phase, it is often described as dependent on random availability. Sam continues:

If I and the friend I was talking about went out and we’d see a blackjack table, I’d buy 20 euros’ worth of chips. Then we’d gamble and we might lose them, then he’d buy chips for 20 euro or he wouldn’t. But it’s absolutely not a problem. And now we mostly party in a place where it’s not even accessible. (Sam, 21, regular gambler)

In this account, the importance of blackjack is downplayed; if drinking happens at a place without gambling it may not be missed. Similarly, several participants who gambled more regularly, and on what can be seen as more risky gambling forms (not lottery tickets), said that they stopped gambling when school started or they started a new job. What these statements have in common is that they emphasize gambling as voluntary, sparsely occurring, and unimportant for life in general. This clearly accentuates that the participants are not addicted to gambling, and that playing blackjack occasionally is not a dominant aspect of their identity.

Another contextual framing that helps to neutralize the stigma of gambling are situations presented as rituals for social bonding. Several participants describe gambling as an activity that can bring family and friends together. For example, bingo is an important part in Sandra’s relation to her grandmother. She describes her gambling as a social commitment to elderly people in her community:

Well it started with my grandmother, who helped out in a club with a lot of pensioners, knitting and such. They also had bingo once a week. They were short on people, and my grandmother asked me if I could help. (…) Since I got to know all the pensioners, I used to go there and play bingo with them also when I didn’t work. Now I work full-time elsewhere, and I don’t live there anymore but when I’m around I try to go there and gamble. (Sandra, 20, occasional gambler)

The social aspect is at the center of gambling for several of the young women. This is also illustrated by Arin, who regularly buys a lottery ticket with her boyfriend to celebrate their anniversary. The lottery ticket is described as a shared ritual:

We have a rule my boyfriend and I that every other month on the 26^th, we buy a lottery ticket. (…) We don’t buy any gifts, this is our thing. (…) It’s just a waste, it’s a one in a million chance that you’ll win. I definitely don’t believe I’ll win (…) But instead of buying a flower or something like that, I might as well gamble and it’s fun. Nothing big, just 5 euro. I’d never do it constantly, because it’s just addictive. (Arin, 20, regular gambler)

When talking about gambling in general, Arin claims that she does not believe in winning, thus recognizing several risks related to gambling (spending too much money, addiction). By juxtaposing these ideas about gambling with the ‘fun’ and intimate ritual of buying a lottery ticket once a month she underlines that this is not a real risk. Her ambivalence indicates a more rational way of gambling. The quotes from Sandra and Arin also illustrate that gambling is usually pictured as a social event. Although the choice to gamble is described as an individual decision and a personal responsibility, the accounts also have repeated references to the collective element of gambling. Within certain groups of friends or relationships gambling is accepted as a fun and exciting activity – something that can strengthen social bonds. Still, the participants take care to describe how they keep gambling within certain contextual limits; otherwise gambling is portrayed as a relational risk. Robert had drifted apart from his friends who gambled for more money than they intended or could afford:

I notice that they [friends] get affected. It’s not for fun. It’s bloody serious. (…) They say that they gamble because it’s fun. But it doesn’t stay fun. (…)(Robert, 19, regular gambler)

As seen in this section, the gambling youth of this study carefully differentiate between contexts that make gambling an acceptable behavior. As Robert above, they also explain that gambling should be done for the right reasons – it should be fun. This will be explored more carefully in the next section.

Problematic motives in gambling and negotiating gambling

The interviews in this study show that there is a broad repertoire of motives that our interviewees use as culturally accepted or culturally problematic orientations to gambling. The motives can be structured around three main categories: hedonism, escapism, and social reward. The hedonistic motives for gambling range from accepted and positive (e.g. gambling for fun and intellectual challenge) to more negative associations (e.g. gambling for fast money, or because one is addicted). Escapist motives include a range from culturally accepted temporary time-out gambling at nightclubs to more regular and culturally problematic gambling, which has helped to escape boredom or social problems. For example, Dino and Robert had incorporated gambling in their lives as opposed to special occasions, as a means to handle everyday fatigue or melancholy.

It’s a thing that gave us a thought of having something to look forward to today or tomorrow or something. To have something going. What made me stop thinking about the gambling is that I started working and don’t just hang out anymore and try to pass away the time. (Dino, 20, regular gambler)

I used to play poker much more often before. Especially when I felt bad mentally. (…) It’s like with alcohol. In the moment you forget your problems. (…) You can definitely escape the situation. (Robert, 19, regular gambler)

When Dino’s and Robert’s motives in gambling were related regularly to escapist orientations, they considered their gambling as problematic, in line with earlier studies (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002; Wood & Griffiths, 2010), and its negative character also manifested as a concern by friends and a loss of money:

I have had non-gambling friends who call me a gambling addict. And I felt “Shit, it is true!” I gambled too much. All my money went to gambling. (Dino, 20, regular gambler)

I felt low due to gambling. It cost too much money and time. (Robert, 19, regular gambler)

The motives associated with social bonding stressed aspects of gambling from a positive way of bringing family and friends together to social pressure on those who usually did not gamble. The participants who did gamble emphasized the more positive end of the continuum of different motives as a way of justifying their gambling.

For example, a common interview statement was that gambling should be fun. This illustrates a central navigation point for the young people in this study; that gambling can only be acceptable if it is not taken too seriously, is not done for monetary gain, and is done voluntarily. Risky aspects of gambling (e.g. losing money) can be neutralized if the gambling is driven by the ‘right’ motive:

That money isn’t profit, it’s for fun. We’d buy shots and keep some chips to bring back for next time. (…) That money is just gone. You pay for having fun and if you win it’s a bonus, that’s how I see it. (Sam, 21, regular gambler)

In this quote, Sam describes that he might lose money while gambling at blackjack tables at nightclubs with his friends, but he also acknowledges that money has no importance on these occasions, as gambling is ‘for fun’. Similarly, the economic risk of gambling can be negotiated in statements about the thrill and entertainment that comes with the slim chance of winning. But just like Sam above, the participants usually explain that they recognize that in the end ‘the house always wins’ and that ‘you’ll lose everything’. Showing this type of awareness is a way for the participants to draw a boundary between themselves and the out-of-control gamblers who believe in the prospect of fast money, and the responsible and safe way of gambling they associate themselves with.

There are, however, also stories about gambling for monetary gain, although they are uncommon. The participants also tend to quickly nuance such statements:

If you grow up in a neighbourhood where … you don’t travel, you never go on a vacation abroad. You’re in your neighbourhood all the time and surrounded by ten people. And all have the same situation. In the end, you think ‘well, I’d like to be able to do this and that’. You start thinking. And that’s why some people become criminals. Some become gambling addicts, others are so bored they use drugs. But if money hadn’t been a problem and you’d have things to do all the time, I don’t think I had gambled at all. None of my friends either. (Dino, 20, regular gambler)

Here, Dino talks about winning money as a core aspect of gambling. Without it he would probably not have ‘gambled at all’. By putting gambling for money in the context of economic and social marginalization, and by relating it to ‘gambling addicts’ he illustrates the problematic nature of this approach.

Discussion

This study has examined how young people make sense of and articulate gambling in everyday lives and how they negotiate their gambling position. Neutralization theory helped to analyze different navigational strategies among 35 interviewees aged 17 to 21 with varying gambling experience. First and foremost, both gamblers and non-gamblers displayed a general negative attitude toward gambling, circling around risks of losing money and becoming addicted. By being exposed to gambling either voluntarily or involuntarily, all our participants had developed a reflexive stance to it. Most of them showed reflexive risk management toward gambling and positioned themselves as responsible consumers.

According to our analysis, the participants used the neutralization techniques of ‘scapegoating’, ‘self-confidence’, and ‘comparison between risks’ to navigate the risks of gambling. The ‘scapegoating’ technique took multiple forms and was used by non-gambling youth as well as youth who gambled. Those who used this technique distanced themselves from regular gambling by drawing a line between themselves and excessive gamblers who thus ‘earned’ the label of deviant behavior against which one’s own gambling appeared as free from problems. Scapegoating helped to draw a line between safe and unsafe gambling. According to this argument, safe gambling was responsible, controlled, moderate, and occasional in contrast to unsafe gambling that was irresponsible, uncontrolled, excessive, and regular. Moreover, scapegoating neutralized the perceived dangers of gambling, as some of the participants refrained from gambling altogether. The ‘self-confidence’ technique was prominent especially among male participants, who wished to highlight that their skills and strategic thinking made gambling less problematic. And the ‘comparison between risks’ technique helped to neutralize the risks and the deviant label of gambling by linking it to situations where it, in comparison to other situations, had an accepted and ‘natural’ function. These situations were described as occurring in liminal phases such as time-out events abroad or in alcohol-serving venues, separate from everyday life practices or when the main aim was to strengthen social bonds. Overall, in avoiding the label of risky gambling, the central navigation point was that gambling should be fun, should have a voluntary basis, and should not be driven by monetary gain.

The interviewees negotiated the risk of gambling by positioning themselves as responsible consumers, drawing on a neoliberal discourse of responsibilisation. This discourse reflects wider socioeconomic trends where the decline of external forms of regulation is matched by rising demands for individual self-control (Brown, 2015). This is also applicable to gambling (Reith, 2007). The current policies of gambling regulation are heavily influenced by neoliberal ideas of rational, controlled subjects in their conceptualization of ‘responsible behaviour’ (Livingstone & Rintoul, 2020). In neoliberal discourse, problem gamblers become constructed in a stigmatized way as a deviant group (Miller et al., 2016).

Even those participants – like Dino and Robert – who said that they had had problems with gambling, aligned with the neoliberal discourse of responsibilisation by underlining that through hardships they had decreased their gambling, indicating becoming responsible gamblers. This is in tune with findings from previous research on alcohol consumption among young people, who navigated acceptable alcohol consumption by stressing moderate, nuanced, and controlled ways of using substances in their paths toward adulthood (Månsson et al., 2022; Samuelsson et al., 2022; Törrönen et al., 2021).

Gambling also emerged as a gendered field in our study in regard to both neutralization techniques and how they negotiate their gambling. There was a tendency among our male participants to emphasize personal skills and calculated risk-taking in gambling, while the female participants tended to motivate their gambling by referring to feminine social rewards such as social bonding and taking care of others. This gendered character of gambling dates back to a tradition and a society in which gambling was a male domain (Casey, 2006; Svensson, 2013) and in which female gambling was treated as irresponsible or deviant behavior. Our participants still align with these gendered positions but modify them to meet the challenges of the neoliberal conditions in which individual responsibilities are cherished. Nowadays, both boys and girls may participate in responsible gambling, but responsibility means different things to them. Our study suggests, as does Casey’s study (Casey, 2003), that responsibility in girls’ gambling is related to ‘respectable’ behavior. To make their gambling responsible, both male and female participants in this study emphasize control, personal abilities, and freedom to have fun. Girls also underline how their gambling is a part of normal sociability, related to safe forms (lottery, bingo) that do not involve big sums of money and is strictly ritualized to specific contexts. The importance of social relations and gambling for young women is in line with earlier findings (Kristiansen et al., 2015; McCarthy et al., 2020). These aspects neutralize individual risk-taking. However, some of our participants aligned with even more traditional gendered positions around gambling by considering it a deviant pastime for girls and women (Svensson, 2013; de Visser & McDonnell, 2013). These participants disapproved of all forms of gambling for ‘respectable’ females.

Interestingly, motives referring to psychological states or trust played an important role only among the participants who had experienced problems with gambling. Similarly to Riley’s study (Riley et al., 2021), this indicates that among our participants gambling is not related to a particular subculture or deviant lifestyle. Instead, the experiences of problematic gambling in our data represent specific kinds of vulnerable positions. They exemplify cases of which we need more research so that we can specify what kinds of everyday life experiences, practices, and sociocultural contexts prevent or facilitate the development of problem gambling. Further, to prevent gambling problems among youth, policy and preventive measures should consider the importance of social contexts and be based on interventions that aim to eliminate from them elements that encourage excessive gambling and to cultivate in them elements that foster moderate gambling. Moreover, research and interventions to prevent problem gambling among adolescents should include a gender perspective and relate to the association between masculinity and gambling. Recent research points toward an increased normalization of online sports betting among young men in the UK (McGee, 2020) as well as greater gambling accessibility and feminization of gambling products and environments among young women in Australia (McCarthy et al., 2020), which calls for a recognition of gambling as a public health issue rather than a concern for self-regulating individuals (Livingstone & Rintoul, 2020).

As the results are based on purposive sample with a small number of participants, they cannot be regarded as representative for youth in general. Moreover, the data collection took place within a specific sociocultural setting. The Swedish gambling market is characterized by relatively high accessibility to both online and land-based gambling. Swedish gambling regulation has recently been subject to substantial change and has therefore been open for debate, which might have been influential for the participants’ approaches. However, considering the heterogeneity of the participants, the similarities with previous research and the applicability of theory, we believe that the study contributes with in-depth knowledge of how youth negotiate gambling risks and responsibilities. The findings provide important cues to how young people locate gambling in their everyday life, knowledge that can be transferable to similar settings.

Ethical approval

Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm, Sweden 2016/2404-31/5, supplement 2019-01255

Preregistration statement

No preregistration was declared by the authors in relation to this manuscript.

Data availability statement

No data set was declared by the authors in relation to this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

This work was supported by the research program ‘Responding to and Reducing Gambling Problems Studies (REGAPS)’ financed by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forte) under Grant no 2016-0709 and ‘Youth, health and risk-taking’ Grant no 2020-00457). The authors report no publishing constraints or conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jessika Spångberg

Jessika Spångberg (PhD) is a public health scientist and gender researcher who works with problem gambling and other public health issues at the Public Health Agency of Sweden. Further, she conducts research on youth and gambling within the research program Responding to and Reducing Gambling Problems Studies (REGAPS) at Stockholm University.

Josefin Månsson

Josefin Månsson (PhD) is a researcher and senior lecturer at the Department of Social Work at Stockholm University. Her main research interests are in substance use, perspectives on treatment, drug policy and drug discourse. Her teaching covers topics such as alcohol and other drug issues and qualitative research methods.

Jukka Törrönen

Professor Jukka Törrönen has a long-term interest in alcohol and drug research, in theoretical sociology and in qualitative methods. His ongoing work is focused on disorderly public drinking, on young people’s drinking cultures, on women’s health and substance use, and on comparative studies on changes in the cultural position of drinking.

Eva Samuelsson

Eva Samuelsson (PhD) is a researcher and senior lecturer. Her research focuses on substance use and gambling problems, help-seeking processes and service user perspectives. The current studies are conducted within the frame of the research program Responding to and Reducing Gambling Problems Studies (REGAPS).