Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical Evidence Relating to the Relative Riskiness of Scratch-Card Gambling

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Gambling Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scratch cards (SCs) or tickets are lottery-based games which are played by scratching to reveal numbers, letters or symbols to win prizes. Such activities have sometimes been likened to paper-based slot-machines, but relatively little systematic analyses have been conducted to examine the risk or harm associated with these activities. In this paper, we provide a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature relating to the potential association between SCs and problem gambling and what is known from publically available data sources (e.g., prevalence studies and treatment data). Evidence is analysed within the context of the Bradford Hill Criteria. Both prevalence and peer reviewed literature suggest that SCs are less strongly associated with problem gambling than most other gambling activities. We argue that this difference is due to the nature of the products. SC gambling differs from slot-machine gambling in a number of structural ways; it is less continuous; has a slower event frequency; and, emerging literature suggests that near-miss design features are unlikely to have a significant impact upon behaviour. Thus, in our view, and based on the empirical evidence, it appears that earlier parallels between SCs and slot-machines now appear more tenuous. Nevertheless, we encourage further investigation into the potential impact of new and emerging online lottery products because of the more immersive, faster and more technology-based nature of these products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We did not find any studies that included online games (sometimes referred to as ‘Instant Win Games’). But the term ‘instant win’ is often applied to describe scratch tickets.

  2. For consistency, we have only drawn upon the peer reviewed studies. However, inclusion of the Australian prevalence finding positions bingo even lower and sports and racing and casino games are found in the middle of the rankings. The similarity of the odds ratios for racing and casino games is evident in Table 1. The principal purpose of this paper was to focus on evidence relating to the relative risk of scratch tickets.

References

  • ACIL Allen Consulting. (2011). Second social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania. Hobart: Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACIL Allen Consulting. (2014). Third social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania. Hobart: Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACIL Allen Consulting. (2018). Third social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania. Hobart: Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afifi, T. O., Cox, B. J., Martens, P. J., Sareen, J., & Enns, M. W. (2010). The relation between types and frequency of gambling activities and problem gambling among women in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 21–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Afifi, T. O., LaPlante, D. A., Taillieu, T. L., Dowd, D., & Shaffer, H. J. (2014). Gambling involvement: Considering frequency of play and the moderating effects of gender and age. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2011). Lottery gambling: A review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, 15–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binde, P., Romild, U., & Volberg, R. A. (2017). Forms of gambling, gambling involvement and problem gambling: Evidence from a Swedish population survey. International Gambling Studies, 17, 490–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, L., Thomas, S., Moodie, R., Peeters, A., White, V., Pierce, H., Anderson, A. S., & Pettigrew, S. (2020). Gambling-related harms attributable to lotteries products. Addictive Behaviors, 109, 106472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford Hill, A. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 5, 295–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M., Rockloff, M., Hing, N., Russell, A., Murray-Boyle, C., & Rawat, V. (2019). NSW gambling survey, 2019. Sydney: NSW Responsible Gambling Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, S., Perhoniemi, R., Kontto, J., Alho, H., & Salonen, A. H. (2018). Association between gambling harms and game types: Finnish population study. International Gambling Studies, 18, 124–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission, G. (2017). Young people and gambling 2017. Birmingham: Gambling Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costes, J.-M., Kairouz, S., Monson, E., & Eroukmanoff, V. (2018). Where lies the harm in lottery gambling? A portrait of gambling practices and associated problems. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34, 1293–1311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeFuentes-Merillas, L., Koeter, M. W. J., Bethlehem, J., Schippers, G. M., & van den Brink, W. (2003). Are scratchcards addictive? The prevalence of pathological scratchcard gambling among scratchcard buyers in the Netherlands. Addiction, 98, 725–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeFuentes-Merillas, L., Koeter, M. W., Schippers, G. M., & Van Den Brink, W. (2004). Temporal stability of pathological scratchcard gambling among adult scratchcard buyers two years later. Addiction, 99, 117–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delfabbro, P. H. (2020). Analysis of South Australian gambling data. Adelaide: Department of Human Services

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfabbro, P. H., & Wallace, E. (2020). Analysis of South Australian gambling data. Adelaide: Department of Human Services

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfabbro, P. H., & Winefield, A. H. (1999). The danger of over-explanation in psychological research. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 447–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfabbro,. P., King, D., Browne, M., & Dowling, N. (2020, in press). Do EGMs have the strongest association with problem gambling than racing and casino table games? Evidence from a decade of Australian prevalence studies. Journal of Gambling Studies. 36(2), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09950-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dow-Schull, N. (2012). Addiction by design. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, N., Smith, D., & Thomas, T. (2005). Electronic gaming machines: are they the ‘crack-cocaine’of gambling? Addiction, 100, 33–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Felsher, J. R., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2003). Parental influences and social modelling of youth lottery participation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 361–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsher, J. R., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2004). Lottery participation by youth with gambling problems: Are lottery tickets a gateway to other gambling venues? International Gambling Studies, 4, 109–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuentes-Merillas, L., Koeter, M., Schippers, G. M., & van den Brink, W. (2004). Temporal stability of pathological scratchcard gambling among adult scratchcard buyers two years later. Addiction, 99, 117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GamCare. (2019). Annual statistics. London: GamCare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. D. (2000). Scratchcard gambling among adolescent males. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 79–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. D., & Wood, R. T. A. (2008). The psychology of lottery gambling. International Gambling Studies, 1, 27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüsser, S. M., Plöntzke, B., Albrecht, U., & Mörsen, C. P. (2007). The addictive potential of lottery gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. L. (1998). Adolescent gambling behavior: A prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 227–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Russell, A., Tolchard, B., & Nower, L. (2016). Risk factors for gambling problems: An analysis by gender. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32, 511–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konkolÿ Thege, B., & Hodgins, D. C. (2014). The “light drugs” of gambling? Non-problematic gambling activities of pathological gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 14, 29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kundu, P. V., Pilver, C. E., Desai, R. A., Steinberg, M. A., Rugle, L., Krishnan-Sarin, S., & Potenza, M. N. (2013). Gambling-related attitudes and behaviors in adolescents having received instant (scratch) lottery tickets as gifts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 456–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambos, C., Delfabbro, P., & Puglies, S. (2007). Adolescent gambling in South Australia. Adelaide: Report prepared for the Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, M. A. (2001). “If you do not gamble, check this box”: Perceptions of gambling behaviors. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 247–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Health. (2006). Problem gambling intervention services in New Zealand. Auckland: Ministry of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • NatCen (2010). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London:Gambling Commission

  • Oei, T., & Raylu, N. (2009). The relationship between cultural variables and gambling behavior among Chinese residing in Australia. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orford, J., Wardle, H., & Griffiths, M. (2013). What proportion of gambling is problem gambling? Estimates from the 2010 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. International Gambling Studies, 13, 4–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papoff, K. M., & Norris, J. E. (2009). Instant ticket purchasing by Ontario baby boomers: Increasing risk for problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 185–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parke, J., Parke, A., & Blaszczynski, A. (2015). Key issues in product-based harm minimisation. London: The Responsible Gambling Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petry, N. M. (2003). A comparison of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activity. Addiction, 98, 645–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pisklak, J. M., Yong, J. J., & Spetch, M. L. (2019). The near-miss effect in slot machines: A review and experimental analysis over half a century later. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36, 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Raposo-Lima, C., Castro, L., Sousa, N., & Morgado, P. (2015). SCRATCH THAT!—Two case reports of scratch-card gambling disorder. Addictive Behaviors, 45, 30–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scalese, M., Bastiani, L., Salvadori, S., Gori, M., Lewis, I., Jarre, P., et al. (2016). Association of problem gambling with type of gambling among Italian general population. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32, 1017–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharman, S., Murphy, R., Turner, J. J. D., & Roberts, A. (2019). Trends and patterns in UK treatment seeking gamblers: 2000–2015. Addictive Behaviors, 89, 51–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shead, W. N., Derevensky, J. L., & Meerkamper, E. (2011). Your mother should know: A comparison of maternal and paternal attitudes and behaviors related to gambling among their adolescent children. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 264–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, M. M., Penney, A. M., Mazmanian, D., & Jamieson, J. (2015). Lottery ticket and instant win ticket gambling: Exploring the distinctions. Journal of Gambling Issues, 30, 6–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Stange, M., & Dixon, M. J. (2020). Scratch card near-miss outcomes increase the urge to gamble, but do not impact further gambling behaviour: A pre-registered replication and extension. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36, 887–902

  • Stange, M., Graydon, C., & Dixon, M. J. (2016). “I was that close”: Investigating players’ reactions to losses, wins, and near-misses on scratch cards. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32, 187–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stange, M., Graydon, C., & Dixon, M. J. (2017). Increased urge to gamble following near-miss outcomes may drive purchasing behaviour in scratch card gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33, 867–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stange, M., Grau, M., Osazuwa, S., Graydon, C., & Dixon, M. J. (2017). Reinforcing small wins and frustrating near-misses: Further investigation into scratch card gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33, 47–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, M., Tang, B., Abdin, E., Vaingankar, J. A., Picco, L., & Chong, S. A. (2016). Sociodemographic correlates and morbidity in lottery gamblers: Results from a population. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32, 291–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle, H. (2017). Trends in children’s gambling. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (1998). The acquisition, development and maintenance of lottery and scratchcard gambling in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 265–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004). Adolescent lottery and scratchcard players: Do their attitudes influence their gambling behaviour? Journal of Adolescent, 27, 467–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, K., Sproston, K., Brook, K., Delfabbro, P., & O’Neil, M. (2018). Gambling prevalence in South Australia. Adelaide: Department of Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, K., & Wraith, D. (2017). Considering gambling involvement in the understanding of problem gambling: A large cross-sectional study of an Australian Population. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15, 166–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This narrative review did not require any funding support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Paul Delfabbro

  2. Sophro, UK

    Jonathan Parke

Authors
  1. Paul Delfabbro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Parke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Delfabbro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Paul Delfabbro: I have received funding for research, support for conference travel and speaking engagements from government and non-government research bodies such as AGRI, VRGF, IAGR and the Department of Consumer Affairs, GambleAware/ RGT, Gambling Research Australia, Independent Gambling Authority, the ARC, NHMRC, Channel 7 Children’s Foundation and Australian Institute of Criminology. I have conducted paid consultancy work on responsible gambling for regulatory bodies, government, peak bodies such as the Australasian Gambling Commission and reviews of responsible gambling programs for some industry groups (e.g., reviews of list of indicators, self-exclusion program, host responsibility quality in relation to international best practice), but not received direct industry funding for any research. I acknowledge that many peak research bodies are indirectly funded by industry through levies or contributions. Jonathan Parke: Jonathan has received support for research, travel and speaking engagements from a variety of government and non-government sources including AGRI and GambleAware. He has conducted a number of commissioned reports for industry groups. The principal focus of this work has been on harm minimisation, responsible gambling and risk associated with different gambling products and features.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delfabbro, P., Parke, J. Empirical Evidence Relating to the Relative Riskiness of Scratch-Card Gambling. J Gambl Stud 37, 1007–1024 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10033-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10033-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation