International Journal of the Addictions

ISSN: 0020-773X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/isum19

“Compulsive” Gambling: The Problem of Definition Igor Kusyszyn To cite this article: Igor Kusyszyn (1978) “Compulsive” Gambling: The Problem of Definition, International Journal of the Addictions, 13:7, 1095-1101, DOI: 10.3109/10826087809039329 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826087809039329

Published online: 03 Jul 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 43

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=isum19 Download by: [Purdue University Libraries]

Date: 23 March 2016, At: 19:46

Downloaded by [Purdue University Libraries] at 19:46 23 March 2016

The International Journal of the Addictions. 13(7), 1095-1 101, 1978

“Compulsive” Gambling: The Problem of Definition* lgor Kusyszyn, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Counselling and Development Centre York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 7P3

Abstract

A model depicting 16 varieties of healthy and pathological gambling is presented. The 16 varieties are formed by combinations of 4 variables-money (won or lost), time devoted to gambling (a lot or a little), otherpeople (negatively affected or not affected), and the gambler’sfeelings (feels good or bad about his gambling). The model has a logical base and is multifaceted. Its purpose is to force the serious student of gambling to consider all 16 forms, not just the pathological forms. Certain philosophical, ethical, social, and scientific questions arise.

A classification scheme portraying 16 varieties of healthy and pathological gambling is presented in an attempt to provide a framework within which “compulsive” gambling may more clearly reveal itself. The entire framework is composed of the combinations of only four variables: *This paper was prepared for the annual meetings of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1976. 1095

Copyright @ 1978 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. Ail Rights Reserved. Neither this work nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

KUSYSZYN

l09h

otlirr people, and tlzr ganzhlrr. The four factors are depicted a s relatively independent: a lot of money is either won or it is lost; a lot of time or only a little time is spent on gambling, other people are either

Downloaded by [Purdue University Libraries] at 19:46 23 March 2016

i ~ i o n c > j .r. i i i i r .

interfered with or are not interfered with, and the gambler perceives himself as healthy or he perceives himself as sick. In regard to the first factor. large, not small, amounts of money are intended here. In . r o c i d gambling only small amounts are either won or lost. For this reason social gambling is omitted from the present framework. It should be stated for the record, however, that social gambling is the most common form of gambling in real life. In terms of the present scheme, the frame outlining the prof2.s.siond yuiiihler is the one in which a lot of money is won, a lot of time is devoted to gambling, other people are not affected, and the gambler feels good about himself (see Type 1 ). One common type of “compulsive” gambler is depicted as a person who loses a lot of money, spends a lot of time gambling. interferes with the lives of others, and feels badly about it all (see Type 12). All 16 forms of gambling are depicted in Table I . The present framework employs combinations of variables based purely on logic. Because of its logical base the framework is all-inclusive and forces the serious scholar to consider all 16 possible forms of gambling. Although some of the healthy forms of gambling may be distasteful to or even repressed by the pathologically oriented scientist, selecti\.e perception is not given the chance to operate within the present model. Because objectivity is forced upon the reader, certain questions--philosophical, ethical, social, and scientific---pertaining to the study of gambling automatically arise. A few of these questions will be found below, accompanied by the descriptions of certain gambling types.

THE WINNING TYPES Type 1 :

T j p e 2:

T)pe 3:

Wins a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels good about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This is the happy professional. He is not sick. In Maslow’s (1970) terms he may be .self~uctuuli~ed. Wins a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This is the unliuppy proj2.ssio~rl.Is he compulsive? Possibly. Is he sick‘?Probably. How is he sick ? Existential problems’?Will help be volunteered or must he seek it out for himself? Wins a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels

“COMPULSIVE” GAMBLING

1097

Table 1 Sixteen Gambling Types

Downloaded by [Purdue University Libraries] at 19:46 23 March 2016

Winners Type 1. The professional gambler Wins a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels good Others not affected Type 2. The unhappy professional Wins a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels badly Others not affected Type 3. The bothersome professional Wins a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels good Affects others negatively Type 4. The bothersome unhappy professional Wins a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels badly Affects others negatively Type 5. The happy lottery winner Wins a lot of money Spends very litte time Feels good Others not affected Type 6. The unhappy lottery winner Wins a lot of money Spends very little time Feels badly Others not affected Type 7. The bothersome lottery winner Wins a lot of money Spends very little time Feels good Affects others negatively Type 8. The bothersome unhappy lottery winner Wins a lot of money Spends very little time Feels badly Affects others negatively

Losers Type 9. The happy sportsman Loses a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels good Others not affected Type 10. The unhappy sportsman Loses a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels badly Others not affected Type 1 1 . The happy habitual Loses a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels good Affects others negatively Type 12. The classic “compulsive” gambler Loses a lot of money Spends a lot of time Feels badly Affects others negatively Type 13. The happy binge player Loses a lot of money Spends very little time Feels good Others not affected Type 14. The unhappy binge player Loses a lot of money Spends very little time Feels badly Others not affected Type 15. The bothersome binge player Loses a lot of money Spends very little time Feels good Affects others negatively Type 16. The acute “compulsive?” Loses a lot of money Spends very little time Feels badly Affects others negatively

K US YS Z Y N

iOYS

Downloaded by [Purdue University Libraries] at 19:46 23 March 2016

Type 4:

Type 5:

.Type 4:

Type 7:

Type 8:

good about his gambling. Aflects other people negatively. This is the happy professional among people who don’t understand.That is, his friends and family disapprove. Is he sick? No. Is he compulsive‘?Doubtful. Yet “help” may be forced upon him. He may even be ostracized if he does not accept the “help.” What should he do? Wins a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. AfTects others negatively. This is the unhappy professional among disapproving friends. Is he sick? Probably. Is he compulsive? Probably. Does he need help? Most likely. Will he seek it out himself? Most likely. Wins a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels good about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This is the happy lottery winner among understanding friends. Obviously not sick or compulsive. Wins a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This is the unhappy lottery winner among understanding friends. Why is he unhappy? Is he sick? How? Wins a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels good about his gambling. Affects others negatively. This Is the happy lottery winner among friends who don’t understand. Who is “sick?” Wins a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. Affects others negatively. This is the unhappy lottery winner who bothers other people. Is he compulsive’?No. Is he sick? Probably. In which way is he sick ‘?

THE LOSERS Type 9:

Type 10:

Loses a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels good about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This is the millionaire playboy who loves to gamble. Is he compulsive? Probably. Should he receive clinical help? This is a moral question. Loses a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This is the sad loser who is alone in the world. He does not bother others because there is no one who cares. He is probably

“COMPULSIVE” G A M B L I N G

Downloaded by [Purdue University Libraries] at 19:46 23 March 2016

Type 11:

Type 12:

Type 13:

Type 14:

1099

compulsive and sick in other ways as well. How will help reach him? Loses a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels good about his gambling. Affects others negatively. This is the happy loser who bothers other people. This is probably the most common type of habitual gambler. He does not see himself as being compulsive. He sees his gambling as a positive activity which adds pleasure and meaning to his life. In Glasser’s (1976) terms, this is a positive addiction. Is this man sick? How do we know? Loses a lot of money. Spends a lot of time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. Affects other people negatively. This is the sad loser who makes other people’s lives miserable. This is the most common type of gambler to come to the attention of treatment agents and institutions. This is the classical compulsive gambler about whom so much has been written. Regrettably, this single type, out of a myriad of at least 16 types, is the only type that exists for most clinicians, laymen, newspaper reporters, and Hollywood film producers. This sad state of affairs offers an instructive comment on the sometimes perverted power of the press. Thanks to the media this rare type (the frequency of this type is probably one in a thousand persons who gamble) is, in the eyes of the world, the most common type. I believe it is the responsibility of every social scientist who works with gamblers to correct the imbalance. Loses a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels good about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This type and the three types which follow are rare because it is difficult to lose a lot of money in a short span of time. However, Type 13 is found among wealthly gamblers who go on occasional junkets to Las Vegas and among wealthy gamblers who have high credit ratings with their bookmakers during the football season. Well-to-do business men and famous movie stars regularly lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in these quick and painless ways. Are they sick? Loses a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. Does not affect other people. This is the unhappy binge player who is without friends. Is he

KUSYSZYN

I I00

Type 15:

Downloaded by [Purdue University Libraries] at 19:46 23 March 2016

Type 16:

compulsive? Not in the usual way. Is he sick? How? Who will help him‘? Loses a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels good about his gambling. Affects other people negatively. This is the happy, wealthy binge player who bothers other people. How is he sick? Loses a lot of money. Spends very little time gambling. Feels badly about his gambling. Affects other people negatively. This is the unhappy binge player who bothers other people. He is sometimes found in the stockmarket. He sometimes commits suicide. How is he sick?

IMPLICATIONS OF THE 16 TYPES MODEL Marshall McLuhan and others before him have demonstrated how imperfect language is for describing reality. McLuhan accuses us of “label-libel.” Once we have labeled a piece of reality we tend to focus our attention on the implications of the label rather than on the actual piece of reality. Label-libel impedes scientific progress. In medicine and in psychology the careless labeling of pathologies can have perilous consequences for treatment. For these reasons it is important to recognize that the problem of defining pathological gambling is multifaceted. Any definition approaching veridicality must include references to nonpsychological as well as psychological attributes. Thus the definition should include:

I . The gambler’s self-percept 2. The perceptions of professionals (clinicians) 3. The perceptions of nonprofessionals (the gambler’s family and friends) 4. The amount of time spent in gambling 5 . The amount of money involved 6. Whether the money is being won or lost The present writer’s bias is that the gambler’s self-percept be the determining factor as to whether his gambling is labeled as pathological or healthy. However, a completely objective approach to the problem must consider all six attributes of the definition. This multifaceted approach to gambling types has a myriad of implications. At the level of the individual, the model suggests that one can be healthy although a loser and that one

Downloaded by [Purdue University Libraries] at 19:46 23 March 2016

“COMPULSIVE” GAMBLING

1101

can be unhealthy although a winner. These two possibilities may appear paradoxical, even to professionals, in our materialistic achievementoriented culture. An open-minded stance is required if we are to understand all the possibilities (see Newman, 1975). At the family level the model underlines the importance of the attitudes of the family members toward the gambler. Their attitudes can significantly contribute as to whether his gambling is labeled healthy or pathological. Also, the degree of their concern will determine how soon the gambler receives treatment (whether he needs it or not). This brings us to the level of the treatment agent or agency. If one subscribes to the model, one must face the possibility of confronting a healthy gambler who is being pushed into treatment by selfish relatives. The agent’s values are forced to the surface. To what degree should he intervene? To whom is he responsible? Who will benefit from his actions? Who may suffer? Who will take the responsibility for the consequences of his actions? These are existential questions (see Kusyszyn, 1976). There are no ready answers. Nevertheless, as long as the model continues to raise such questions it will be proving its worth in terms of contributing to our knowledge of both pathologcal and nonpathological gambling. REFERENCES GLASSER, W. Positive Addiction. New York: Harper and Row, 1976. KUSYSZYN, I. A n Existential Interpretation of Gambling. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Gambling, Las Vegas, December 1976. MASLOW, A.H. Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. NEWMAN, 0. The ideology of social problems: Gambling, a case study. Can. Rev. Sociol. Anthropol. 12(4, Part 2 ) : 1975.

"Compulsive" gambling: the problem of definition.

International Journal of the Addictions ISSN: 0020-773X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/isum19 “Compulsive” Gambli...
460KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views