Search

Assessing the harmful consequences of gambling is an area of active investigation. One measure intended to capture gambling-related harm is the 10-item short gambling harm screen (SGHS). Although good psychometric properties have been reported, it has been suggested that the screen's less severe probes may not represent genuinely harmful consequences, but rather may reflect rational opportunity costs. Consequently, it has been argued that the screen may lead to overestimation of the extent of gambling-related harm in the population. The current study sought to examine the psychometric performance of three less severe suspect items in the SGHS. Associations between each of these items and a specially constructed scale of relatively severe "unimpeachable" gambling harms were calculated from archival data from 5551 Australian and New Zealand gamblers. All three suspect items, both individually and upon aggregation, predicted greater endorsement of "unimpeachable" harms, and indicated the presence of gambling problems. Moreover, the SGHS as a whole is highly correlated with "unimpeachable" gambling harms. Including suspect items in the SGHS was found to improve predictions of low- and moderate-risk gambling status, but slightly decreased predictions of severe gambling problems. The results are inconsistent with the notion that SGHS harm probes capture either inconsequential consequences or opportunity costs. They confirm prior findings that harm symptomatology is unidimensional, and that the report of multiple more prevalent, but less severe, harms serves as an effective indicator of the spectrum of experienced harm.

Individual differences in the risk of developing gambling-related harm play an important role in theoretical models and practical interventions. The present study attempted comprehensive measurement and evaluation of 25 known risk factors for gambling-related harm in order to determine which factors provided large and unique explanatory power. We surveyed 1650 regular gamblers from an online panel, screening in 1174 (466 male) who passed all checks of attention and response consistency. We evaluated each risk factor based on bivariate correlations with harms, then made separate multivariate evaluations of proximal (e.g., gambling motivations) and distal (e.g., religiosity) risk factors. Almost all bivariate correlations were significant, but most distal factors were not significant in multivariate models. Trait impulsivity was the most important risk factor by a large margin. Excessive consumption, less use of safe gambling practices, and more fallacies were key proximal risks of harm. Many well-known correlates of gambling harm (e.g., youth, lower educational attainment) do not show a direct role in the development of gambling harm when controlling for other factors. The results support theoretical models that emphasise early conditioning and biological vulnerability (manifested through impulsivity). Since maladaptive cognitive and behavioural schemas appear to be more important than motivations (e.g., escape, excitement, ego), interventions may benefit by targeting these proximal drivers of harm.