Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 1257–1259 | Cite as

Reply to Griffiths: The Relationship Between Gambling and Homelessness

  • Steve Sharman
  • Mike Aitken
  • Luke Clark
Review Paper

‘Commentary’ articles are new to the Journal of Gambling Studies, and therefore articles that reply to Commentaries are equally novel. Nevertheless, we felt that we should address some of the issues raised in Griffiths (2014), concerning our study ‘Rates of problematic gambling in a British homeless sample: A preliminary study’ (Sharman et al. 2014).

The Commentary provides some contextual literature on mental health problems in the homeless, and draws attention to the need for extra care in the interpretation of our study, given the potential for data to be used by those with a specific legal agenda. Naturally, the same care is required in the interpretation of the Commentary.

One of Griffiths’ key claims is that “One of the most notable findings in the Sharman et al. (2014) study—and on which there was no comment—was the fact that 80 % of the 456 homeless people (n = 363) has not gambled in the year prior to the study.” This claim is incorrect, and appears to arise from a...


Problem Gambling Pathological Gambling Homeless People Factual Error Gambling Disorder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Conflict of interest

The Centre for Gambling Research at UBC (Dr. Clark) is supported by funding from the British Columbia Lottery Corporation and the Province of BC to the University of British Columbia. None of the authors have received financial benefits from the gambling industry or groups opposed to gambling.


  1. Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., & Casey, D. M. (2013). Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 311–327. doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9300-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Griffiths, M. D. (2014). The relationship between gambling and homelessness: A commentary on Sharman et al. (2014). Journal of Gambling Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10899-014-9491-0.
  3. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sharman, S., Dreyer, J., Aitken, M., Clark, L., & Bowden-Jones, H. (2014). Rates of problematic gambling in a British homeless sample: A preliminary study. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10899-014-9444-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., et al. (2011). British gambling prevalence survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  6. Wardle, H. & Seabury, C. (2013). Gambling behaviour. In R. Craig & J. Mindell (Eds), Health Survey for England 2012 (Vol.1) Health, social care and lifestyles. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre.Google Scholar
  7. Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M. D., Constantine, R., et al. (2007). The British gambling prevalence survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and NeuroscienceKings College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, Centre for Gambling Research at UBCUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations