Gambling Harm Experienced by Children Exposed to Parental Gambling: An Online Survey of Australians - Aino Suomi^1,2 · Nina Lucas² · Nicki Dowling³ · Paul Delfabbro⁴  : 7 May 2023  -  Journal of Gambling Studies (2024) 40:181–200

 
  Abstract

Although child wellbeing is known to be negatively affected by gambling, relatively little is known about the specific harms experienced by children exposed to parental gambling problems. The current study aimed to better understand gambling harm directly attributed to regular parental gambling in key areas of child wellbeing: financial, psychological, interpersonal wellbeing and intergenerational transmission of problem gambling. Using data from a national survey of Australian adults exposed to parental gambling under the age of 18 (n = 211), the results show that parental gambling was related significant levels of financial harm, abuse, neglect as well as relational and psychological problems as a direct result of parental gambling. The likelihood of experiencing gambling harms was positively associated with parental problem gambling severity. Harmful impacts of parental gambling as a child were also associated with a range of psychological problems in adulthood including depression, anxiety, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and intimate partner violence victimisation. Parental problem gambling severity was negatively associated with own lifetime gambling problems, suggesting a specific pattern of intergenerational transmission of problem gambling in children of regular, or heavy, gamblers. This research highlights the need for more supports for families with children in which at least one parent gambles regularly.

Introduction

Gambling harms experienced by gamblers and their significant others include financial problems, physical health concerns, psychological distress, and poor family functioning (Bellringer et al., 2013; Cowlishaw & Kessler, 2016; Dowling et al., 2016a; Hodgins et al., 2007; Langham et al., 2016). Children are likely to be most vulnerable to these negative impacts, and recent data shows that over 10%, and as many as 14% of the Australian child population is exposed to parental at-risk or problem gambling (Suomi et al., 2022a; Tulloch et al., 2022). The direct impacts of parental gambling and problem gambling on children have to date only received a modest amount of attention

A recent systematic review of 35 studies (Suomi et al., 2022b) provides evidence of six broad areas of child wellbeing that are likely to be affected by parental problem gambling. These areas are: (1) psychological (mood disorders, emotional distress); (2) relational (child-parent relationship, family dysfunction); (3) violence exposure (parental violence in the home home); (4) behavioural (conduct problems, hyperactivity); (5) financial (lack of money for food or education); and (6) untreated physical health conditions. In this review, a convergence of evidence supported the view that parental problem gambling can lead to psychological harm in children, as well as dysfunctional family relationships. In addition, 17–43% of parents with gambling problems have perpetrated child physical abuse and that children in these families are also likely to experience parental neglect (Afifi et al., 2010; Dowling et al., 2016a; Lesieur & Rothschild, 1989; Suomi et al., 2019). Similarly, previous research shows that parental problem gambling is strongly associated with poor parent–child relationships and maladaptive family environments (Suomi et al., 2022b). Only a few studies have addressed the financial impacts of gambling specifically focusing on children, that are likely to manifest as lack of food, poor housing or needing to take on financial responsibilities at a young age (Mathews & Volberg, 2013; Schluter et al., 2007, 2008). Less is known, however, about the financial and physical health impacts of parental problem gambling on children, even though these are recognised as major domains of harm in the adult gambling affected other literature (Dowling et al., 2021a; Kalischuk et al., 2006; Langham et al., 2016). In addition, the review highlighted the need for more evidence about the direct impacts of parental gambling across a broad range of child wellbeing domains (Suomi et al., 2022b).

Studies examining the impact of gambling on families also has implications for the study of the potential intergenerational transmission of gambling, whereby children of people with gambling problems develop gambling problems themselves (Dowling et al., 2016b, 2017, 2018, 2021b; Govoni et al., 1996; Gupta & Derevensky, 1997). Although children with problem gambling parents are at risk for this pattern of problem transmission, only a small proportion develop gambling problems themselves, suggesting an interplay between risk and protective factors (Dowling et al., 2016b). Known mediators of the intergenerational transmission of gambling problems include gambling expectancies, gambling motives, parental psychopathology (problem drinking and drug use), financial debts, parental separation, and child psychopathology (depression, drug use) (Dowling et al., 2016b, 2018). Moreover, family factors, such as parental involvement, single- parenthood, and a higher number of siblings have been found to buffer the intergenerational transmission of gambling problems (Dowling et al., 2017).

Empirically-derived extended list of adverse childhood events (ACE) now include parental problem gambling (Afifi et al., 2020), however, there is little evidence about the longer-term consequences of experiencing parental problem gambling as a child (Suomi et al., 2023). Other ACEs broadly known to predict a range of poor outcomes in adulthood such as physical and mental illness, drug and alcohol use, interpersonal and self-directed violence and homelessness (Bellis et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2021), and it is likely that parental gambling would similarly translate to poor adult outcomes. This longer-term evidence is needed to better understand the extent of gambling harms in families and appropriately respond to it.

Taken together, it is well-established that children living with a problem gambling parent can be at risk of harm. More research is needed, however, to understand the relationship between parental gambling and the mechanisms of negative consequences for the adult child. The current study therefore aimed to examine: 

1.  The specific harms reported by Australian adults in childhood as a result of regular parental gambling;

2.  The degree to which parent factors during childhood (parent problem gambling severity, two gambling parents, years of exposure to problem gambling, responsive parenting, and primary gambling parent gender) are associated with harms in childhood resulting from regular parental gambling;

3.  The ways harms resulting from regular parental gambling in childhood relate to outcomes later in life (depression, anxiety, general health, PTSD, IPV victimisation and perpetration, alcohol abuse, smoking, drug use and lifetime gambling problems).

  Methods

Recruitment and Sampling

The sample for the current study included 211 participants who endorsed the question: “Has your parent(s) ever regularly participated in electronic gaming machines (pokies), race betting, sports betting, casino table games, private betting or poker for money before you were under the age of 18?”. Participants were 36.1 years old, on average (SD = 13.7), and 68% of them were female, 3% were Indigenous and 9% born outside Australia. Eight percent of the participants had not completed high school, 15% had completed high school as their highest level of education, over half (54%) had a University degree and 22% had another post-school qualification. The Qualtrics online survey was open from August 2020 until February 2021 to Australian residents aged 18 years and older. Recruitment was via social media platforms and no participant remuneration was provided.
 

Measures

The gambling harm, parent factors and current wellbeing outcome scales employed in this study are described in full in Table 1Gambling harm. Gambling harm to children was assessed using six items adapted from the U.S. National Alcohol’s Harm to Others Survey (Kaplan et al., 2017), with two additional items (7 and 8 below) identified in the literature as key types of gambling harm experienced by children due to parental gambling. This measure has not been previously validated in the gambling context and the adaptation was developed for the purposes of this study. The questionnaire used the following wording: “Thinking about when you were a child, did the following ever happen to you because of your parent’s gambling?” with yes/no response options. The eight harms on this adapted scale, herein called the Gambling Harm to Children Scale, assessed were: (1) physical abuse; (2) verbal abuse; (3) being left unsupervised; (4) not enough money; (5) witnessing violence; (6) child welfare services contacted; (7) distress or upset; and (8) relationship problems with the gambling parent.
 

Parent factors. Parent problem gambling severity was assessed using an adaptation of the Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST-6; Hodgins et al., 1993). Wording of items was adapted to parental gambling and endorsements were counted to create a continuous symptom severity score (Hodgins et al., 1993). Respondents also indicated whether they had two gambling parents (yes/no). Participants also reported the years exposed to parental gambling under the age of 18 years. Responsive parenting of the gambling parent was assessed via the Emotional Responsiveness subscale from the Parenting Style Inventory (Darling & Toyokawa, 1997). Participants with two gambling parents were also required to indicate the primary gambling parent gender (male, female) (i.e., the parent who they thought engaged in more severe gambling).
 

Current wellbeing outcomes. Participant depression was assessed via the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2; Kroenke et al., 2003); anxiety via the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-2; Kroenke et al., 2007); general health via the first item on SF-36 (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992); Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) via the Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC-PTSD; Cameron & Gusman, 2003) and intimate partner violence (IPV; victimisation and perpetration) via the Physical Assault subscale of the Short Form Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). For other addictive behaviours, participant alcohol abuse was assessed via a short form of the Alcohol use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C; Bush et al., 1998); smoking via an item from the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Use Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST; WHO Assist Working Group, 2002); and drug use via the Single-Question Screening Test for Drug Use (Smith et al., 2010). Participants’ own lifetime gambling problems was assessed using the NODS- CLiP (Volberg et al., 2011).
 

Analysis

Data analyses were conducted using STATA version 14.2. Descriptive statistics were employed to identify participants’ demographic profiles and the specific gambling harms they experienced during childhood. Spearman correlations examined bivariate associations between gambling harm items and parent factors. Significantly correlated variables (with any harm item) were then entered into a series of multivariable logistic regressions to examine the independent predictors of each harm item after adjusting for covariates. Spearman correlations also examined associations between each harm item, gambling parent factors and participants’ current (adult) wellbeing outcomes. Significantly correlated variables (with any outcome measure) were then entered into a series of multivariable models (negative binomial and logistic regressions) to predict scores on each current wellbeing outcome measure after adjusting for covariates. Covariates included in the models were participant age, gender, Indigenous status, whether they were born in Australia, and highest level of education.¹ Missing data, which ranged from 0.5 and 24.1percent across the variables, were identified as Missing at Random (MAR). Pairwise deletion of missing data was employed for the bivariate analyses and complete case analysis was employed for the multivariate models. Violations of normality were addressed with log transformations, however the analytical approach used in the current study is robust for non-normal data (Spearman’s Rho, negative binomial and logistic models) (Elhai et al., 2008).