Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 47–78 | Cite as

Gambling and Problem Gambling in Victoria, Australia: Changes over 5 years

  • Max Abbott
  • Christine A. Stone
  • Rosa Billi
  • Kristal Yeung
Original Paper


Rates of gambling and gambling-related harm fluctuate over time, influenced by availability, adaptation and demographic change, among other things. Assessing change is compromised by methodological variation. The main aim of this paper is to assess change in gambling participation and problems in adult Victorians over a 5 year period. Data are from the Victorian Gambling Study (VGS) 2008–2012 (n = 15,000) and the 2003 Victorian Longitudinal Attitudes Survey (n = 8479). An additional aim was to determine the impact of methodological differences on prevalence estimates. Despite gambling availability increasing and more activities being included participation rates declined substantially. Decreases occurred across almost all demographic groups and gambling activities. When adjustments were made for methodological differences there were no significant changes in problem, moderate risk and low risk gambling. Males and people with lower education had higher rates in both surveys. In the latter survey, two groups that experienced large participation reductions, namely young adults and metropolitan residents, emerged as additional groups with higher rates of problem and moderate-risk gambling. Further research is required to discover why overall rates of harm may have plateaued when participation continues to fall and why some groups with reduced participation experience increased harm. The findings suggest that availability and total consumption models are over-simplistic. They further suggest that to be effective prevention programmes will need to extend beyond gambling availability to include interventions directed towards individuals at risk and wider environmental determinants of vulnerability and harm. Additionally this study found that restricting administration of the problem gambling measure to subsets of gamblers generate significantly lower prevalence estimates, implying that many previous surveys under-portray gambling-related harm and that without appropriate adjustment for methodological variation findings cannot be validly compared across studies.


Prevalence Problem gambling PGSI Victoria Adaptation Exposure 



The Victorian Department of Justice, Victoria; The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; Elmer Villanueva; Paul Marden; Sarah Hare; Damien Jolley; Jan McMillen.

Conflict of interest

Christine Stone receives funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.


  1. Abbott, M. (2006). Do EGMS and problem gambling go together like a horse and carriage? Gambling Research, 18(1), 7–38.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, M. (2007). Situational factors that affect gambling behaviour. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins, & R. J. Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 251–278). Burlington MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Abbott, M., Bellringer, M., Garrett, N., & Mundy-McPherson, S. (2014a). New Zealand 2012 National Gambling Study Overview and Gambling Participation, report number 1. Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  4. Abbott, M., Bellringer, M., Garrett, N., & Mundy-McPherson, S. (2014b). New Zealand 2012: National Gambling Study: Gambling harm and problem gambling. (Vol. report number 2). Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  5. Abbott, M., Bellringer, M., Vandal, A., Hodgins, D., Palmer, Du, Preez, K., et al. (2012). Effectiveness of problem gambling brief telephone interventions: A randomised controlled trial. Auckland University of Technology: Gambling and Addictions Research Centre: Auckland.Google Scholar
  6. Abbott, M. W., Romild, U., & Volberg, R. A. (2013). Gambling and problem gambling in Sweden: Changes between 1998 and 2009. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9396-3.Google Scholar
  7. Abbott, M., & Volberg, R. (1991). Gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
  8. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1996). The New Zealand national survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(2), 143–160. doi: 10.1007/BF01539171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1999). Gambling and problem gambling in the community: an international overview and critique: Report number one of the New Zealand Gaming Survey. Wellington: DIA.Google Scholar
  10. Abbott, M., & Volberg, R. (2000). Taking the pulse on gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand: A report on phase one of the 1999 National Prevalence Survey (report number three of the New Zealand Gaming Survey). Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
  11. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2006). The measurement of adult and pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Abbott, M. W., Volberg, R., Bellringer, M., & Reith, G. (2004). A review of research on aspects of problem gambling: Final report. London: Responsibility in Gambling Trust.Google Scholar
  13. Abbott, M., Williams, R., & Volberg, R. (1999). Seven years on: A follow up study of frequent and problem gamblers living in the community. Report number 2 of the New Zealand Gambling Survey. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
  14. Billi, R., Stone, C. A., Abbott, M., & Yeung, K. (2014a). The Victorian Gambling Study (VGS) a longitudinal study of gambling and health in Victoria 2008–2012: Design and methods. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-014-9528-8.Google Scholar
  15. Billi, R., Stone, C. A., Marden, P., & Yeung, K. (2014b). The Victorian Gambling Study: A longitudinal study of gambling and health in Victorian 2008–2012. Victoria: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Binde, P. (2005). Gambling across cultures: Mapping the worldwide occurrence and learning from ethnographic comparison. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Binde, P. (2011). What are the most harmful forms of gambling? Analyzing problem gambling prevalence surveys. In (CEFOS Working Paper 12) (Ed.). Retrieved 8 May 8 2014, from the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  18. Bogart, W. A. (2011). Permit but discourage regulating excessive consumption. England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Department of Justice and Attorney General. (2011). Gambling Prevalence Study Standards. Victoria: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Dickerson, M. G., Baron, E., Hong, S. M., & Cottrell, D. (1996). Estimating the extent and degree of Gambling related problems in the Australian population: A national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(2), 161–178. doi: 10.1007/BF01539172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). In The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final Report. Ottawa. Retrieved from the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research, 8 May 2014. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
  22. Gambling Review Body. (2001). Gambling review report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  23. Hare, S. (2009). A Study of Gambling in Victoria: Problem gambling from a public health perspective. Melbourne: State of Victoria: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  24. 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(9), 1184–1188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Marshall, D. (2005). The gambling environment and gambling behaviour: Evidence from Richmond–Tweed, Australia. International Gambling Studies, 5, 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Research Council (NRC). (1999). Pathological gambling: A critical review. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Orford, J. (2005). Complicity on the river bank: The search for truth about problem gambling: Reply to the commentaries. Addiction, 100(9), 1235–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s Gambling Industries: Inquiry Report No. 10. Canberra: Retrieved on 6 June 2014 from the Productivity Commission.
  29. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling Inquiry Report No. 50. Canberra: Retrieved on 6 June 2014 from the Productivity Commission.
  30. Rose, G., & Day, S. (1990). The population mean predicts the number of deviant individuals. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 301(6759), 1031.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sassen, M., Kraus, L., & Buhringer, G. (2011). Differences in pathological gambling prevalence estimates: Facts or artefacts? [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20(4), e83–e99. doi: 10.1002/mpr.354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1997). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behaviour in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis Retrieved 8 May 2014 from.
  33. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R. A., LaPlante, D. A., & Nelson, S. E. (2004). The road less travelled: Moving from distribution to determinants in the study of gambling epidemiology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(8), 504–516.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, M., & Young, M. (2010). Independent correlates of reported gambling problems amongst Indigenous Australians. Social Indicators Research, 98(1), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stone, C. A., Romild, U., Abbott, M., Yeung, K., Billi, R., & Volberg, R. (2015). Effects of different screening and scoring thresholds on PGSI gambling risk segments. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 13(1), 82–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Storer, J., Abbott, M., & Stubbs, J. (2009). Access or adaptation? A meta-analysis of surveys of problem gambling prevalence in Australia and New Zealand with respect to concentration of electronic gambing machines. International Gambling Studies, 9(3), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. The Centre for Gambling Research: Australian National University (2004). 2003 Victorian Longitudinal Community Attitudes Survey. Gambling Research Panel Report No. 6. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
  38. Tovim, B. D., Esterman, A., & Tolchard, B. (2001). The Victorian Gambling Screen. Report prepared for the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Gambling Research Panel, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  39. Treasury, Queensland. (2001). Queensland household gambling survey. Queensland: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  40. Vasiliadis, S. D., Jackson, A., Christensen, D., & Francis, K. (2013). Physical accessibility of gaming opportunity and its relationship to gaming environment and problem gambling: A sytematic review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Volberg, R. (2004). Fifteen years of problem gambling prevalence research: What do we know? Where do we go? eGambling: Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues, 10, 1–19.Google Scholar
  42. Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., et al. (2010). British gambling prevalence survey 2010. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  43. Wildman, R. W. (1998). Gambling: An attempt at an integration. Edmonton, Alberta: Wynne Resources.Google Scholar
  44. Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2010). Best practices in the population assessment of problem gambling. Retrieved 8 May 2014, from Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre. Ontario: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
  45. Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., & Stevens, R. M. G. (2012). The population prevalence of problem gambling: Methodological influences, standardized rates, jurisdictional differences, and worldwide trends. Retrieved 8 May 2014 from. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Abbott
    • 1
  • Christine A. Stone
    • 2
  • Rosa Billi
    • 3
  • Kristal Yeung
    • 3
  1. 1.Auckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Christine Stone ConsultingMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Research UnitVictorian Responsible Gambling FoundationMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations