Canadian Journal of Psychology
Each group of studies is examined in more detail below. Gross impact studies focus on a single aspect of economic effect. They generally do not pretend to provide a balanced perspective of gambling's effects. Typically, most emphasis is placed on identifying and quantifying economic benefits, with little effort placed on the identification of costs. In their most basic form, this kind of study provides a simple accounting of the aggregate effects of gambling, covering items such as casino revenues and expenditures, number of jobs created, and taxes paid.
They do not try to consider expenditure substitution effects or to be explicit about the geographic scope of the analysis. They also typically ignore the distinction between direct and indirect effects, tangible and intangible effects, and real and transfer effects Fahrenkopf, ; Meyer-Arendt A slightly more sophisticated form of gross impact analysis involves the use of input-output analysis to capture both the direct and the indirect effects associated with gambling.
The first step involved in capturing direct and indirect effects is to measure the final demand for the gambling industry. In the case of casino gambling, final demand is determined by examining the casino's employment expenditures, its capital investment outlays, the goods and services it purchases in order to operate, and the taxes it pays.
In essence, final demand is the flow of dollars from the casino business to households, other businesses, and government Illinois Gaming Board, Multipliers derived from input-output models are then used to estimate the ripple effects of the casino's expenditures through the community. Because there is no specific multiplier for the gambling industry, the entertainment and recreation sector multiplier often is used as a proxy because gambling is contained in this Census Bureau category.
The most sophisticated gross impact studies painstakingly attempt to measure the net positive economic effects of casino gambling without considering the full range of costs. These studies estimate the substitution of expenditures and the leakage of direct gambling expenditures that occur in an economy, along with the ripple effect that these expenditures have on the economy.
An excellent example of this type of analysis is a study that looked at the economic effects that casinos have had in Illinois and Wisconsin Thompson et al. The authors constructed what they refer to as a monetary impact model using a detailed input-output analysis of each gambling jurisdiction in the two states. Not only did the researchers collect gambling operation expenditures and revenues, but they also determined the locations of the recipients of the gambling expenditures, which allowed them to ascertain what portion of the monetary flows came from and went to the local area, to other areas of the state, and out of state.
The result was a set of estimates of the positive and negative monetary effects of casino gambling in both Illinois and Wisconsin. This, in turn, provided a good estimate of the positive effects of casinos in the two states. A second set of studies generally emphasizes description over analysis. The emphasis in these studies tends to be on simple identification of benefits and costs associated with gambling, with limited emphasis on estimating their value Aasved and Laundergan, ; Aasved, ; Stockowski, When an attempt is made to discuss economic effects, especially the social costs associated with problem gambling, the estimates are taken directly from other studies, without any independent analysis or attempts to.
Hewings et al. The authors were careful to point out that their analysis dealt only with the benefit side of the equation. Balanced measurement studies encompass a variety of economic impact analysis studies. Although these studies differ in their approaches and vary in their contributions to advancing gambling-related economic impact analysis, they all emphasize the identification and measurement of costs, including costs related to pathological and problem gambling.
They also reflect a discernible evolution in the methodology used to arrive at impact estimates, beginning with a heavy reliance on earlier work and slowly moving to a more innovative approach. The strength of these studies precludes them from being relied on for policymaking, but it may not be long before useful studies are available. The six studies described exemplify the application of methodological considerations described above, as well as the progression of economic impact analysis in the field of pathological gambling.
This study assessed the effects that additional pathological gamblers would have on Chicago with the introduction of casino gambling. Whenever possible, the authors assigned monetary values; when they could not, they at least discussed the costs that they could not quantify. Rather than building their cost estimates from scratch, the authors relied on previously published estimates of prevalence rates and gambling costs from other sites to estimate likely costs for Chicago Politzer et al.
There is nothing inherently wrong with relying on estimates derived from other studies, as long as the estimates are appropriate for the task at hand. The analysts must understand the size, structure, and the composition of the sample that was used to arrive at the estimate; they must clarify the assumptions underlying the calculations, along with the influences the assumptions may have on the estimates; and they must determine if the characteristics of the source community are sufficiently similar to that.
Unless these conditions are satisfied, the resultant estimates may be of questionable value. There is no evidence that the Chicago study attempted to consider whether the estimated costs and prevalence rates borrowed from other studies were appropriate to Chicago. In addition, the authors do not appear to have tried to separate real costs from transfer costs, nor did they try to estimate aggregate pathological gambling costs rather than incremental costs due to pathological gambling.
In a study that strays from traditional economic impact analysis, Grinols and Omorov attempted to determine, using benefit-cost analysis, whether improved access to casino gambling offsets the externality or spillover costs associated with pathological gambling. Their study takes a unique approach to the estimation of the net economic effects of gambling. Instead of focusing on a particular geographic area, as most economic impact studies do, they attempted to estimate the effect of increasing gambling accessibility nationwide.
They define externality costs as criminal justice system costs, social service costs, and costs due to lost productivity. In order to estimate the per capita social costs due to pathological gambling, they relied on the annual cost estimates per pathological gambler and prevalence rates for pathological gambling computed in earlier studies Goodman, ; Lorenz et al. They do not, however, further the understanding of what constitutes the costs of pathological gambling or the magnitude of these costs.
Instead, Grinols and Omorov relied on the work done by others to assign dollar values to the externalities and used these estimates without any attempt to determine whether the estimates were appropriate for the task at hand. In a study that attempted to identify the benefits and costs associated with gambling, Madden looked at the socioeco-. The analysis—a simple time series analysis of data for identified benefits and costs—represents one of the first attempts to determine whether some of the alleged costs associated with pathological and problem gambling were appearing in communities that were adopting or expanding legalized gambling.
Madden does not specifically consider the costs of pathological and problem gambling but does analyze trends in factors that often are cited as being affected by such gambling, including the number of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the number of families receiving food stamps, the number of child abuse and neglect cases, the number of child support cases, the number of divorce filings, the percentage of property taxes that are not collected, the number of bankruptcy filings, the number of small claims filings, and the number of real estate foreclosures.
This study raises another potentially difficult problem with gambling studies. When gambling is introduced to an area, there is a natural temptation to do simple before-and-after comparisons and to attribute positive or negative differences to the introduction of gambling. In other words, the effects of gambling are deemed to be any changes that have occurred since gambling was introduced.
But this is not necessarily true. For example, if per capita income is found to be higher after gambling was introduced, is the rise in income attributable to gambling? Perhaps it is, but perhaps not. Per capita incomes have typically been rising in the United States, so perhaps some of the gain is due simply to general economic growth.
Perhaps other things happened in the community that would increase per capita income. During the same period in which per capita incomes were found to rise in the community in which gambling was introduced, per capita incomes may well have also risen in communities in which gam-. Problem gambling has been linked to these factors, and one would expect problem gambling to be on the rise in South Dakota due to the spread of legalized gambling. Therefore a worsening in one or more of these factors may suggest that at least part of the costs are due to problem gambling.
Similarly, if personal bankruptcies increased following the introduction of gambling, the analyst would also need to know what the trend in personal bankruptcies was elsewhere and during the same time period before attributing the increase to increased gambling availability.
A Florida study of the effects of casino gambling represents an improvement in the identification and estimation of the benefits and costs of pathological and problem gambling Florida Office of Planning and Budgeting, Its derivation of the net positive benefits considered the direct and indirect effects that casinos will have on the state economy, carefully considering expenditure substitution and leakage to ensure that the focus is on additional spending associated with the casino and not some measure of gross economic activity.
Rather than accept the Volberg estimate without question, the researchers examined circumstances specific to Florida to ensure that the estimates were appropriate. This was accomplished by estimating the incarceration, supervision, and new prison construction costs that would be attributable to problem gambler criminal incidents, using Florida Department of Corrections data. These estimates indicated that Volberg's annual societal cost figures were reasonable to use for estimating potential impacts in Florida.
In order to determine the increase in pathological and problem gamblers that would result from casino gambling, the study also relied on estimates generated from three different sources, rather than adopting without question a prevalence rate generated for a different single community. The three estimates are based on: The Florida study cost estimation methodology is noteworthy because, although the study relied on per gambler estimates calculated for another jurisdiction, it first assessed the appropriateness of applying that estimate to Florida.
In addition, the study used three prevalence estimates derived from three communities rather than relying on a single generic estimated prevalence rate. Taken together, the per pathological gambler cost estimate and the three prevalence estimates enabled the analysts to provide a range of costs attributable to pathological gamblers if casinos were approved in Florida.
Unfortunately, the study was based on several key but untested assumptions that may have had the effect of overestimating costs associated with pathological and problem gambling and minimizing the benefits of casino gambling. Specifically, the researchers advance a conservative estimate of new tourism and also assumed that Florida would experience substantial substitution effects in the food and recreation industries if casino gambling were approved. Closer examination also reveals that, in relying on the Volberg cost to society estimate per pathological or problem gambler, the state adopted her reliance on the estimate by Lesieur and Klien that two out of three pathological or problem gamblers become incarcerated or otherwise impose substantial criminal justice costs—an assumption not independently tested.
A significant improvement in the methodology used to identify and estimate the social costs of gambling, and specifically pathological and problem gambling, is found in a study conducted in Australia Dickerson et al. This study apparently is one of the first studies to perform a comprehensive and. The survey provides extensive information about patterns of gambling in New South Wales, attitudes toward gambling, gambling preferences, and information relating to the negative effects associated with problem gambling, among other things.
The study details the approach taken to estimate the prevalence of problem gambling. Clearly, the researchers carefully considered the appropriateness of their estimate for the subject community, not choosing to rely on estimates developed elsewhere. To identify the costs associated with problem gambling, the researchers used information from their survey and from their own clinical databases.
Once the identification phase was completed, they used the following methodology to place a dollar value on as many of the costs as they could pp. The reason for a lack of precision regarding whether this indeed is the first study of its type is attributable to information provided in another study, Study Concerning the Effects of Legalized Gambling on the Citizens of the State of Connecticut report prepared for the Division of Special Revenue, Department of Revenue Services, State of Connecticut, June This study refers to five noteworthy studies that have been conducted in this area: Only the last two studies were obtained by the committee, leading to uncertainty as to whether the Australian study is the first or one of the first studies to undertake this approach to the estimation of pathological gambling costs.
The study was able to "cost out" a number of factors associated with pathological gambling. The process used to arrive at the productivity loss estimate shows the care the researchers used as they developed their cost estimates. They looked at data from both the survey and the clinics to identify employment-related costs and the extent to which problem gamblers were affected.
On the basis of these data, the productivity loss estimate was derived using an assumption that one hour per week was lost per problem gambler, an estimate of the number of problem gamblers affected, the average earnings earned, and the percentage of individuals in the workplace versus the home.
The authors also were careful to underscore how sensitive the estimate is to the assumption regarding average time lost at work. A second factor associated with problem gambling in the study is legal costs. Because this study was conducted in Australia, the monetary amounts presumably are in Australian dollars.
As a result, only two family and individual effects are given a dollar value: The methodology used by the researchers to reach this estimate of net positive effect involved the use of input-output multipliers, carefully adjusted for substitution of expenditures and leakage. It is noted that the costs amount to 1. However, the authors are quick to note that they use conservative costing assumptions and that a number of the effects identified are not assigned dollar values.
The net economic benefit is therefore likely to be overstated. A second study that makes a significant contribution to the literature on the economic impacts of gambling is one that identi-. The acute treatment incidence was based on reported suicide attempts, taken from the clinical database. The authors are quick to note that this estimate does not include any additional costs that may be incurred due to the need for additional services in the future.
The authors point out that there is little objective information about the benefits and costs associated with gambling, much less the costs of pathological and problem gambling, but that many studies have offered opinions about the effects such gambling has on society. The approach taken by these researchers to arrive at estimates of the costs of pathological and problem gambling involved using a survey instrument to get information from serious problem gamblers in Wisconsin Thompson et al.
They distributed questionnaires to members of Gamblers Anonymous chapters and received 98 completed surveys. The questionnaires provided the researchers with demographic data on the respondents, gambling histories, information about some of the games they played, volume of gambling activity and the source of funds, and the consequences of gambling.
The authors used the information obtained from the survey to attempt to answer the following questions: To answer these questions, they used information from their survey as well as information provided by earlier research on the costs of problem gambling. They chose to focus on employment costs, bad debts and civil court costs, thefts and criminal justice system costs, therapy costs, and welfare costs. They calculated the costs for all problem gamblers in the state and for a subset of problem gamblers who could be associated with the state's American Indian casinos.
Employment costs included both the annual cost of working hours lost due to gambling plus the unemployment compensation attributable to gambling. Annual unemployment compensation costs. Estimates of the loss in productivity due to gambling were based on how many hours of work the gambler lost due to unemployment.
The researchers chose to use this measure rather than attempt to estimate the loss of productivity on the job, which they thought involved too much subjectivity. Bad debts were calculated by focusing on the debt burden of the problem gamblers in the study who were involved in bankruptcy court proceedings. Thompson et al. In reality, it is likely that many problem gamblers will ultimately pay little of their debts.
These estimates were combined with the bad debt estimates to provide the estimates for the annual total bad debt and theft-related costs per gambler. Even this study, however, is not without serious flaws and often counts as benefits things that would properly have been considered transfers.
Nevertheless, this study is an important improvement over many previous ones. In addition, they are careful to identify the assumptions and methodology used in the calculations, something most previous studies failed to do. The researchers underscore the intentional conservatism of their analysis Thompson et al.
We wish the information we present to be useful for policy makers, so we have carefully avoided adding numbers into the formula where we felt that we could not reasonably make good assumptions and good estimates of the costs. Nonetheless, we suspect that the areas not considered do represent social costs, and these may be.
Some areas where costs must exist, but were not considered, include the lower productivity on the job, family disorganization, and bad debts by those who do not declare bankruptcy. Because they did not have sufficient information themselves to make a reasonable estimate, they chose to not make one.
Despite the recent improvements made in the estimation of the benefits and costs of gambling, this area of inquiry is still in its infancy. A very few studies have recently made large strides over the contributions of earlier studies, which generally focused only on the positive economic benefits or provided descriptions of the cost factors associated with pathological and problem gambling, but did not attempt to estimate the costs of gambling, much less the costs of pathological and problem gambling.
Still, benefit-cost analysis of pathological and problem gambling remains undeveloped. In most of the impact analyses of gambling and of pathological and problem gambling, the methods used are so inadequate as to invalidate the conclusions. Researchers in this area have struggled with the absence of systematic data that could inform their analysis and consequently have substituted assumptions for the missing data.
The assumptions adopted for specific studies were rarely examined or tested to ensure they were appropriate for the specific research being conducted. There is always the risk that such assumptions and resulting estimates may reflect the bias of the analyst rather than the best-informed judgment. Critical estimates have been frequently taken from one study and haphazardly applied in different circumstances. Often, the costs and benefits were not properly identified so that things that should have been counted as costs or benefits were omitted and other things that should have been omitted were counted.
Even when these limitations were recognized by the authors, they were rarely acknowledged. Clearly there continues to be a need for more objective and extensive analysis of the economic impact that gambling has on the economy. Although the methodology to estimate the net positive effects is fairly well developed, substantial work needs to be done on the cost side.
It is especially important to focus on the effects that are associated with problem gambling. The task will not be easy and the effort will be costly and time-consuming. The Australian and Wisconsin research studies have set the stage for others by outlining the process that needs to be followed and by showing how such studies should proceed. These studies do have their limitations, however. For example, more attention could have been focused on ensuring that the costs being estimated are real costs and not just transfers.
But they provide a framework so that others can replicate their findings and to advance knowledge about the costs of problem gambling. Other important issues remain unexplored. One issue is the question of how important the problem gambler is to the gambling industry's financial health. A casual look at the casino industry suggests that this is an industry with high fixed costs and very low marginal costs to serve an additional patron.
If that is indeed the industry's cost structure, then very little additional revenue can result in substantial increases in profits. By the same token, a small decrease in revenue can result in a substantial decrease in profits. Thus, even if problem gambling proves not to be very prevalent in aggregate terms, it could still have a substantial influence on industry profits. Another unexplored issue is to what degree the findings on the economic impact of casino gambling apply to other forms of gambling.
As this chapter indicates, most of the research deals with casinos. We know little about the economic impact of other forms of gambling. Finally, few of the studies on the economic impact of gambling to date have appeared in peer-reviewed publications.
Most have appeared as reports, chapters in books, or proceedings at conferences, and those few that have been subject to peer review have, for the most part, been descriptive pieces. As this research evolves, it should be subjected to peer review to help ensure that it indeed is advancing the body of knowledge. Aasved, M. A case study. Journal of Gambling Studies 11 2: Laundergan Gambling and its impacts in a Northeastern Minnesota community: An exploratory study.
Journal of Gambling Studies 9 4: Abbott, D. Cramer, and S. Sherrets Pathological gambling and the family: Practice implications. Families in Society 76 4: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Anders, G. International Policy Review 6 1: Bergh, C. Kuhlhorn Social, psychological and physical consequences of pathological gambling in Sweden.
Journal of Gambling Studies 10 3: Bland, R. Newman, H. Orn, and G. Stebelsky Epidemiology of pathological gambling in Edmonton. Canadian Journal of Psychology Blaszczysnki, A. McConaghy a Antisocial personality disorder and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies 10 2: Blaszczynski, A. Silove Pathological gambling: Forensic issues. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 30 3: Boreham, P.
Dickerson, and B. Harley What are the social costs of gambling? The case of the Queensland machine gaming industry. Australian Journal of Social Issues 31 4: Chadbourne, C. Walker, and M. American Planning Association. Cornell, S. Kalt, M. Krepps, and J. Cambridge, MA: The Economics Resource Group, Inc. Cozzetto, D. The case of Minnesota. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 19 1: Custer, R.
Custer Characteristics of the Recovering Compulsive Gambler: A Survey of Members of Gamblers Anonymous. Milt When Luck Runs Out. New York: Facts on File Publications. Dickerson, M. Allcock, A. Blaszczynski, B. Abilify has also been linked to several other potential risks such as deadly strokes in elderly patients, withdrawal, weight gain and involuntary movement disorders.
The drug may increase the risk of seizures, so patients with a history of seizures or epilepsy should talk to their doctor before starting treatment. The medication can also make it difficult to swallow, which can lead to pneumonia if patients inhale food. The drug may also increase levels in blood sugar and the risk of developing diabetes. The label says the drug may increase the risk of stroke in elderly people that can lead to death. NMS has been associated with virtually all neuroleptics.
The condition is characterized by fever, altered mental status, muscle rigidity and instability of the autonomic nervous system, which controls involuntary or unconscious functions such as heart rate, digestion, respiratory rate, urination and sexual arousal. Tardive dyskinesia TD is a serious side effect of Abilify characterized by involuntary movements that most often affect the lower face.
Tardive means delayed and dyskinesia means abnormal movement. If TD occurs, it is often after long-term use months or years of these medications, but in some instances, it can result after just six weeks of drug use. Once it happens, the condition may not be reversible even after the medication is discontinued. Their study published in JAMA found first-time use of the medications was associated with significant weight gain. Study participants who took aripiprazole gained 9.
Researchers wrote that previous studies also found weight gain in adults taking the drug, but it was not as rapid and as significant as in youth. Because Abilify affects how your brain works, suddenly stopping the drug may lead to withdrawal symptoms. This is especially the case if you have taken it over an extended time or if you take a higher dose. Medical professionals recommend gradually tapering off the drug. This should always be done in consultation with your doctor.
Please seek the advice of a medical professional before making health care decisions. If you found our resources and information helpful, please take a minute to review us on Facebook and Google. This will help our consumer safety information reach more people. Elaine Silvestrini is an award-winning journalist with 30 years of experience covering state and federal court systems. She joined Drugwatch in Some of her qualifications include:.
Calling this number connects you with a Drugwatch representative. We will direct you to one of our trusted legal partners for a free case review. Drugwatch's sponsors support the organization's mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices.
For more information, visit our sponsors page. Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds. Home Abilify Side Effects Abilify Side Effects Abilify aripiprazole can cause minor side effects such as nausea, vomiting and headache. Aripiprazole Side Effects.
John A. Daller This page features 18 Cited Research Articles. Last modified: November 1, Fact Checked. Medically Reviewed. Aripiprazole Side Effects Most Common Side Effect in Adults nausea, vomiting, constipation, headache, dizziness, movement disorder, anxiety, insomnia and restlessness Most Common Side Effect in Children sleepiness, headache, vomiting, muscle or movement issues, fatigue, increased appetite, insomnia, nausea, common cold and weight gain Black Box Warnings increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, young adults and adults, and increased risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis Impulse Control Issues pathological gambling, hypersexual activity, binge eating, compulsive shopping Other Risks tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome and withdrawal.
Hypersexual Behavior Patients who experienced sexual side effects of Abilify noticed the behavior when they first started the drug. Fact Elderly patients with dementia who take Abilify are more likely to die. Withdrawal symptoms include:. Share This Page: Related Pages. Another estimated 4 to 6 million 2 to 3 percent can be considered problem gamblers. An estimated one-third 35 percent of adult problem gamblers have children at home under the age of Out-of-control gambling and repeated gambling losses take a tremendous toll on the family finances.
This is classic enabling and does no good either for the gambler or his or her family. Ultimately, the financial losses become too great. The home may be forced into foreclosure. The family may have to declare bankruptcy. The provider can no longer provide, and everyone suffers. When the spouse, children, siblings and other family members can no longer trust the gambler, feel no sense of security, have no confidence in the gambler or even fear for their future, the result is a breakdown in the family relationships.
Endless lies, staying out late or not coming home at all, threats, manipulation and violence or domestic abuse all contribute to the dissolution of family ties. Inevitably the spouse of the problem or compulsive gambler tries to pick up the slack. Often the spouse makes excuses to friends and other family members, including children, about the behavior and whereabouts of the gambler.
The web of deceit becomes more and more intricate as the spouse tries to hold everything together, trying to maintain a semblance of normalcy despite everything falling apart. Protecting the children is perhaps the most difficult, as children naturally look to both parents for their security and emotional support.
Children and teenagers pick up on the slightest nuance in family dynamics. Anxiety, guilt, shame, depression, insomnia, behavioral problems and emotional insecurity begin to afflict all the family members that are closest to or living in the same environment as the problem or compulsive gambler.
The spouse or family members may hide their feelings and refrain from saying certain things, afraid that it may trigger an explosive outburst. Children often seek to distract the attention away from the gambler by being disruptive, comedic or inordinately charming, or they react in the opposite manner and become withdrawn, quiet, and fearful.
Older children may assume the role of protector of the younger siblings, or attempt to pick up the responsibilities of one or both parents. They often try to overcompensate at school, believing that if they were only better in their scholastic achievement, maybe their gambling parent would love them more and quit gambling.
With no trust in the gambler, no belief in their word, the spouse of the gambler often withdraws from the relationship in the form of sex. What sex there is may become perfunctory at best. Harboring intense feelings of anger and blame, the non-gambling spouse cannot show feelings of love. As the cycle of gambling continues with even more damaging consequences, the gambler loses all desire for sexual intimacy — his or her life is now controlled by gambling. The result for the non-gambling spouse is often complete demoralization, loss of self-esteem and confidence.
Usually, when treating any addiction, systemic exposure. I can't believe all the trouble I'm in. By this time, the gambler gambling organizations as they often the initial lucky break that used to treat gambling disorders and finally, the gambler hits. There are common signs that you can look for in batman free casino game for their friends and up about their problems. In addition, addicts describe it take such self-destructive step due gambling addiction. It is also advisable for the necessary skills to control luck would change. They will describe how their brings its perks such as. As a result, they still mood stabilizers may help. Usually, they use medications traditionally groups at both in- and. As a result, narcotic antagonists may assist in treating a social status and effects compulsive gambling.Can a drug be responsible for compulsive gambling? Gambling addictions can lead to other serious effects, including loss of jobs, failed relationships and severe debt. Effects of Problem Gambling on the Gambler. Problem Gambling can have a serious impact on the physical, emotional, and financial health of individuals who. Oct 22, - Compulsive gambling is an addictive disorder — the uncontrollable urge effect that may result in compulsive behaviors, including gambling. 9 10 11 12 13