Sports betting: Can the industry do more?

An impulse control disorder (APA, 1994), pathological gambling [PG] is manifested by “the repeated failure to resist the urge to gamble, an inability to cease gambling once commenced, expending more time and/or money than intended, and gambling behaviour that compromises personal, financial, familial, and social functioning” (Blaszczynski et al., 1997). Estimates of prevalence rates were 0.6% between the years of 1999-2007, equating to approximately 250,000 British adults.


One personality factor associated with PG is impulsivity. Zimmerman et al. (1985) defined impulsivity as a loss of control, leading to joy being taken from risk-taking behaviours. McCormack et al. (1987) expanded upon this, finding that pathological gamblers demonstrated a lack of impulse control, as demonstrated by results on the California Personality Inventory.  Steel and Blaszczynski (1998) strengthened the link between impulsivity and PG, finding that impulsivity was positively correlated with gambling severity, meaning that the ‘most pathological’ gamblers also demonstrated the highest levels of impulsivity.


Accessibility is also linked with PG. Some authors predicted that the deregulation of gambling would lead to increased prevalence of PG (Griffiths, 1999; Parke et al., 2004). Although this has not necessarily been reflected in terms of prevalence statistics, the dynamics of gambling activity are changing from traditional lottery forms to more technological forms, such as Internet-based gambling (Wardle et al., 2007). Orford et al. (2003) cite the introduction of the National Lottery as the reason for deregulation of gambling activities in the UK. They argue that government-sanctioned marketing of the Lottery led to other gambling operators feeling discriminated against, leading to industry-wide advertising restrictions being lifted. It has been suggested that “the way in which the government has permitted the Lottery to be marketed is having precisely the effect of driving other sectors of the commercial gambling market to seek relaxation of the rules under which they operate” (Miers, 1996).


One example of gambling operators combining impulsivity with deregulation is in-play sports betting. This is the act of betting on aspects of sporting events whilst they are on-going. Two main methods of in-play betting seem to be in operation: in-stadia betting outlets and online in-play betting.


Many sporting stadia contain betting outlets. Barclays Premier League grounds, such as Old Trafford (Manchester), Villa Park (Birmingham), the Emirates Stadium and the national Wembley Stadium (both London) are examples of where this takes place. This puts a section of fans, such as those who support smaller clubs in the lower leagues of British football visiting the national stadium for, say, an England match or play-off final, in danger of being enticed into placing a bet by the ‘buzz’ of the occasion. These fans may act more impulsively than normal, placing bets in these outlets because of increased adrenaline levels at such events.


In terms of online in-play betting, customers are engaged by operators placing advertisements during the half-time interval of televised events. Presented by well-known celebrities, they use motivational language, encouraging viewers to log on to the operator’s website and place a bet on the range of markets that are able to be bet on. This in-play betting turns simple online gambling into an increasingly popular spread betting phenomenon.


Speaking about William Hill’s results for the first quarter of the financial year on 29th April 2010, Ralph Topping stated that in-play betting opportunities were due to increase.  He indicated that in-play betting accounted for 32% off the total turnover with regards to sports betting with William Hill, up 77% from the same time the previous year, demonstrating increasing popularity form this form of gambling.


At present, the main prevention strategy in operation in this market is that of ‘responsible gambling’. This message has been endorsed by the major sports betting operators, with all of them incorporating it into their TV advertisements and websites.  There seems to be a consensus within the industry about promoting this strategy, with all operator websites have a section explaining the policy and have a facility whereby customers who feel as though they are experiencing problems with their gambling can set customised deposit levels, essentially limiting the amount of money that they can use to gamble. Current methods used include deposit and loss limits and self-exclusion policies.  The main issue with this strategy is that it is left to the customer to monitor their gambling behaviour and recognise when it becomes problematic.  Pulford et al. (2008) suggest that denial is a barrier to problem gamblers not seeking help, questioning the rationale of the current system.


It seems that current online sports betting prevention is not effective. Wardle et al. (2007) estimate the prevalence of problem gambling among people engaging in online sports betting to be 6% - 10 times higher than the national problem gambling prevalence rate.  It is because of the limitations of current prevention strategies that the following recommendations are made:

·        remove betting outlets from major sporting stadia

·        remove betting odds from ‘in-play’ betting adverts in half time TV advert breaks.

(1) The removal of betting outlets from sporting stadia will reduce accessibility to gambling activity. Although bookmakers are readily available around sporting venues, it is up to the providers of sporting entertainment, including the clubs involved, sporting governing bodies (e.g. the Premier League/Football League) and gambling operators to protect their customers whilst inside stadia.


(2) Gambling operators cannot claim that they are being regulated excessively by this recommendation, as general adverts promoting their products would still be permitted. However, by removing these ‘in-play’ odds on, for example, the next goal scorer, customers are being protected by not allowing them to see odds and act impulsively on them. Odds that are displayed are carefully selected to give maximum encouragement to the viewer, enticing them to the provider’s website, potentially raising impulsivity levels before seeing the full range of spread betting opportunities on offer.


To conclude, the gambling industry requires stricter regulation in order to prevent problem and pathological gambling development among sports fans. It is felt that the implementation of the above recommendations would lead to a reduction in the prevalence of PG within this population.


As usual, use the comment boxes to let me know what you think, follow the blog, and follow me on Twitter for updates about the blog.


All the best,
Craig

Should prisoners have the vote?

Over the past couple of weeks there have been various stories in the British media begrudging Court rulings about the human rights of the people inside the British prisons.

In November 2010, the European Court of Human Rights gave the British government 6 months to "get it's house in order" with regards to the issue of prisoner voting rights, an issue that the previous Government "kicked into the long grass" according to a former cabinet minister.  The Court recommended that Britain ended it's blanket ban on not giving criminals the vote whilst they are in prison, suggesting that a discriminatory policy would be fairer, such as a ban for life-sentenced prisoners or allowing more shorter-term inmates the vote.

This sparked weeks of Daily Mail-type stories bemoaning how the rights of offenders are being put about the rights of the law abiding population, a claim that, to me anyway, doesn't seem to make much sense, as no law abiding citizen is likely to be harmed through the act of a prisoner voting.  A Q&A article from the BBC sets out some of the reasons for and against removing the right to vote from prisoners.

In terms of reasons for taking away the vote, the predominant argument is that prisoners shouldn't be entitled to vote by principle.  Put simply, if you've been found guilty of a crime so "serious" that it requires imprisonment, then you give up your right to contribute to how the country is run.  Even the ex-attorney general jumped onto this bandwagon, stating that "if convicted rapists and murderers are given the right to vote it will bring the law into disrepute and many people will see it as making a mockery of justice".

Allow me now to flip this around.  What if giving prisoners the right to vote encouraged them to become more engaged with society.  As you may have guessed, I view prison as a place for rehabilitation.  The vast majority of prisoners will be released at some point, so why don't we encourage them to become active, political citizens, capable of interacting with the rest of society in a "normal", law-abiding way?  Rehabilitation can be encouraged through making the environment as normal as possible for prisoners.  This also reduces the culture-shock that can be experienced upon release from prison, meaning that ex-offenders can continue their new life in the outside world as opposed to trying to re-establish themselves within it.

However, I do appreciate that lifting the ban and allowing all prisoners to vote would not satisfy the vast majority of the British population.  Indeed, Prime Minister David Cameron remarked that the idea made him feel "physically sick".  It may be a good idea to allow prisoners who will be released in the upcoming Parliament to vote in elections.  This would mean anyone with less than 5 years left to serve on their sentence would be eligible to vote.  Again, this would help the rehabilitation process as they feel as though they are contributing to the society that they will soon be rejoining.

That's my view, what about yours?  Use the comments box to contribute your opinions.

Take care,
Craig

P.S. follow me both on here and on Twitter: Craig's Twitter site for updates about the blog and to be informed when new posts are available.

Welcome to the blog!

Welcome to LincPsych!

This will be a blog addressing some of the issues raised by psychological research and looking at how this interacts with everyday life for society at large.  Some topics that will be soon to be addressed are:

• Should prisoners have the vote?
• Videogame addiction
• Are sex offenders entitled to apply to remove themselves from the sex offender register?

Some of the views expressed will be controversial, but this is supposed to be the case.  The topics that will be discussed are emotive and need to be debated.  So keep coming back to check out the blog, and use the opportunities to comment and debate wherever possible!

In between posts, you can follow me on Twitter: Craig's Twitter page.

Take care,

Craig