Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Harm Reduction Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Factors that influence children’s gambling
attitudes and consumption intentions:
lessons for gambling harm prevention
research, policies and advocacy strategies
Hannah Pitt
1*
, Samantha L. Thomas
1
, Amy Bestman
1
, Mike Daube
2
and Jeffrey Derevensky
3
Abstract
Background: Harmful gambling is a public health issue that affects not only adults but also children. With the
development of a range of new gambling products, and the marketing for these products, children are potentially
exposed to gambling more than ever before. While there have been many calls to develop strategies which protect
children from harmful gambling products, very little is known about the factors that may influence children’s attitudes
towards these products. This study aimed to explore children’s gambling attitudes and consumption intentions and
the range of consumer socialisation factors that may influence these attitudes and behaviours.
Methods: Childrenaged8to16yearsold(n= 48) were interviewed in Melbourne, Australia. A semi-structured interview
format included activities with children and open-ended questions. We explored children’s perceptions of the popularity
of different gambling products, their current engagement with gambling, and their future gambling consumption
intentions. We used thematic analysis to explore children’s narratives with a focus on the range of socialising factors
that may shape children’s gambling attitudes and perceptions.
Results: Three key themes emerged from the data. First, children’s perceptions of the popularity of different products
were shaped by what they had seen or heard about these products, whether through family activities, the media (and in
particular marketing) of gambling products, and/or the alignment of gambling products with sport. Second, children’s
gambling behaviours were influenced by family members and culturally valued events. Third, many children indicated
consumption intentions towards sports betting. This was due to four key factors: (1) the alignment of gambling with
culturally valued activities; (2) their perceived knowledge about sport; (3) the marketing and advertising of gambling
products (and in particular sports betting); and (4) the influence of friends and family.
Conclusions: This study indicates that there is a range of socialisation factors, particularly family and the media
(predominantly via marketing), which may be positively shaping children’s gambling attitudes, behaviours and
consumption intentions. There is a need for governments to develop effective policies and regulations to reduce
children’s exposure to gambling products and ensure they are protected from the harms associated with
gambling.
Keywords: Gambling, Marketing, Family, Media, Consumption, Children
* Correspondence: hpitt@deakin.edu.au
1
Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social
Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11
DOI 10.1186/s12954-017-0136-3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Background
The impact of gambling on the health and wellbeing of
individuals, families and communities has become an in-
creasingly discussed and debated public health issue.
With the advent of new technologies making gambling
products and opportunities more accessible in our envi-
ronments than ever before, governments are considering
how best to respond to the potential risks and benefits
posed by these potentially harmful products. While there
has been significant and important evidence about the
harms caused by some forms of land-based gambling,
such as electronic gambling machines (EGMs, “pokies”
or “slots”)[1–3], much less is known about the impacts
of newer forms of gambling, such as online sports bet-
ting. This evidence gap is important given that many
jurisdictions that have legalised online gambling are now
playing “catch up”with regulatory frameworks seeking
to prevent and minimise the harms associated with the
provision and promotion of these products [4]. While
many countries are currently considering the legalisation
of sports and online betting [5], there is limited research
evidence about the potential short- and long-term public
health impacts of introducing these products, both on
those who are legally allowed to gamble, and on children
who are exposed to marketing for these products.
Australia provides an important case study for policy
makers seeking to understand the impact of newer forms
of gambling products on population subgroups [6].
Research suggests that excessive gambling may contrib-
ute to many different types of health and social harms,
including financial harm, relationship conflict and
breakdown, detriments to health, disruptions with study
and/or work, cultural harm, and criminal activity [7].
Australians spend more money per capita on gambling
than any other country in the world [8], with 2014/15
figures estimating that Australian adults spend on aver-
age $1241 per person on gambling each year [9]. While
there have been decreases in participation in some forms
of gambling, the largest increases in spend have been for
online sports betting [9], and recent research estimates
that about 11% of sports betting expenditure can be
attributed to people who are classified as problem gam-
blers [10]. There have also been significant increases in
advertising for some gambling products, with a 160% in-
crease in advertising spend since 2011 [11]. Research has
shown that sporting matches in particular have a high
volume of marketing for gambling products [12–14].
This has stimulated considerable community debate
about the impact of marketing on the normalisation of
gambling for children, who make up a significant pro-
portion of professional sport fans.
While most countries have a legal age for regulated
forms of gambling (in Australia 18 years of age), evi-
dence suggests that approximately two thirds to three
quarters of children will have participated in some form
of gambling in their pre-teen and teenage years [15–18].
While research shows that children mostly engage in
“soft”forms of gambling such as lotteries or scratch
cards, much of this research pre-dates the more perva-
sive and promoted online forms of gambling [17]. Simi-
larly to adults, a broad range of harms are associated
with children’s gambling behaviours, including mental
health problems, issues associated with self-esteem and
self-confidence, truancy, a reduction in academic per-
formance, and other risk-taking behaviours [17, 19].
Children and gambling: the role of consumer socialisation
Theories relating to consumer socialisation have been
central to research that seeks to understand how and
why children decide to consume products that may be
harmful for them. Defined by Ward (1974) as “processes
by which young people acquire skills, knowledge, and at-
titudes relevant to their functioning as consumers in the
marketplace”[20] (pg. 2), socialising agents are factors
that the “learner”interacts with and which are used to
“transmit norms, attitudes, motivations and behaviours”
[21] (pg. 600). They are traditionally associated with
family, peers, and the media (including marketing) [21].
The impact and influence of these socialising agents can
have a different effect on individuals depending on their
life stage and individual make-up [20]. For example, in
relation to marketing John (1999) has proposed that at
different developmental stages, children start to develop
different abilities and skills that they use in consumer
decision making [22]. John (1999) argues that from the
ages of about 3 to 7 years old, children are able to recog-
nise brands, but have limited understanding of the per-
suasiveness of marketing and thus are unable to make
informed consumer decisions [22]. Between the ages of
about 7 and 11, children are able to understand the sell-
ing intentions of advertising, and purchasing and select-
ing products, but they still lack the skills to operate as
sophisticated consumers in the marketplace. Finally,
John (1999) states that older children (approximately 11-
to 16-year-olds) are more reflective about consumer de-
cisions and are able to build upon information to which
they have previously been exposed but are also influ-
enced by the opinions of others to make more informed
consumer decisions [22]. While some would argue that
parents may have some influence over children’s deci-
sion making, others argue that new media environments
mean that after a certain age parents have limited influ-
ence in mediating children’s preferences for highly at-
tractive products (for a summary see Calvert (2008)
[23]).
A range of different socialisation factors may influence
children’s gambling attitudes and consumption intentions.
For example researchers have shown that socio-cultural
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 2 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
factors, such as the influence of family members, and
peers, may play important roles in facilitating children’s
gambling behaviours [24, 25]. Researchers have also dem-
onstrated that children’s first formal contacts with gam-
bling are often via parents or family members [18, 25–28].
Children who believe that their parents gamble are more
likely to want to try gambling themselves, and have higher
rates of gambling [29]. Perceptions of the behaviours of
peers may also influence young people’s attitudes and con-
sumptions intentions towards gambling products [25, 30].
For example, research has demonstrated that peer-based
gambling may also lead children (and in particular girls)
to gamble more than they would if they were on their own
[31]. The perceived popularity of products also plays an
important role in children’s uptake of products [32]. How-
ever, there is very limited information about whether
young people may perceive some types of gambling as be-
ing more popular, and perhaps more importantly what
may influence these perceptions. While research has pre-
viously suggested that electronic forms of gambling are
not particularly attractive for young people [33], these
studies pre-date the newer and more pervasive forms of
online gambling and the associated marketing for these
products [34]. Furthermore, researchers have suggested
that the emergence of gambling via digital media plat-
forms may make gambling more “ubiquitous and socially
acceptable”for children [35] (pg. 175). Finally researchers
have investigated how gambling environments, and the
promotion of gambling within these environments, may
contribute to the normalisation of gambling in children.
For example researchers argue that gambling may be nor-
malised for children who attend gambling venues which
are also promoted as “family friendly”[36] and that the
alignment between gambling marketing and sport may
have a significant influence on normalising gambling for
young people [37, 38]. Research indicates that advertising
may have an impact on children’s recall of and preference
for gambling products [38], their attitudes towards gam-
bling [24, 34, 38] and their perception that gambling is a
normal or common part of sport [37].
Concerned about the impact of gambling advertising on
children, politicians, policy makers, the media, academics
and community members in Australia and the United
Kingdom (countries with significant amounts of televised
gambling advertising) have strongly advocated for prohi-
biting the promotion of gambling prior to the watershed
(the time at which adult content can be shown on televi-
sion) [34, 39, 40]. However, there is very limited know-
ledge about how marketing may interact with other
socialising agents to positively shape children’s gambling
attitudes, product preferences and consumption
intentions.
The following study aimed to contribute to our under-
standing of how a range of consumer socialisation
processes may shape children’s gambling attitudes and
gambling consumption intentions. The study was guided
by three broad research questions:
1. Are there specific socialisation factors that may
positively influence children’s understanding and
perceptions of the popularity of specific gambling
products?
2. Do some factors appear to be more influential than
others in shaping children’s gambling attitudes and
consumption intentions?
3. How can public health strategies be used to reduce
the harms associated with socialising agents which
are particularly influential in positively shaping
children’s gambling attitudes and consumption
intentions?
Methods
Approach
The data presented in this paper was part of a broader
study with parents and children investigating their
attitudes and perceptions towards gambling. When de-
veloping this broader study, we utilised Constructivist
Grounded Theory (CGT) methods in the development
of research questions, and the collection and analysis of
the data [41]. This is because we were interested in the
social processes that may be influencing or shaping
children’s gambling attitudes and perceptions. CGT also
describes the dynamic role that both researchers and
participants play in co-creating meaning about a particu-
lar topic or issue [41], and has been used in a number of
different studies investigating gambling behaviours [24,
42, 43]. CGT principles were applied in a variety of ways
throughout the study. For example, our interest in so-
cialisation factors led us to theoretically sample family
groups so that we could investigate the interaction be-
tween parents and children.
The data presented in this paper focuses only on infor-
mation relating to children in the sample. It uses a the-
matic approach to the interpretation of the data, which
aimed to identify conceptual patterns and links within and
between children’s narratives specifically in relation to
different gambling products. Ethical approval was received
by the University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Recruitment
Parents and children aged 8–16 years old were
approached to participate in the study in Melbourne,
Victoria, from April to July 2016. We chose this age
group because research suggests that from about the age
of 8 children start to understand the persuasive intent of
marketing campaigns [22]. Given the particular focus of
this study on gambling and sport, children had to play
or be a fan of Melbourne’s major sporting code—the
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 3 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Australian Football League (AFL)—to be included in the
study. We invited children’s participation in the study
via their parents, initially using convenience-sampling
techniques to approach parents with information about
the study using local community networks (such as
sporting clubs and community groups). A snowball
sampling approach was subsequently used requesting
parents of children who participated in the study to rec-
ommend other families who might be interested in par-
ticipating. Finally, purposive sampling techniques were
used to reach specific types of young people who might
have had different experiences with or attitudes towards
gambling products [44].
Parents were provided with an information sheet
about the study and asked to discuss participation with
their child or children. Two researchers attended the
interviews at the family home with the lead author con-
ducting most of the interviews with the children. Chil-
dren were provided with information about the study
prior to their participation and verbal consent was ob-
tained. Multiple children from one family were allowed
to participate as previous research has shown that chil-
dren within family groups may hold very different atti-
tudes towards different products [34]. At the conclusion
of the study, the family received a $30 gift voucher for
each participating child.
Data collection
Face to face interviews were conducted with children
using a semi-structured interview format. Interviews
lasted between 25 and 45 min and were audiotaped with
permission. In developing the interviewing techniques
for this study, we considered in detail the potential
power dynamics between the researchers and the
children, as well as between parents and siblings, and
how this could potentially influence children’s responses
to the questions posed. We drew upon many of the pro-
cesses described in other studies investigating the impact
of gambling marketing on children [34, 37]. Children
were interviewed away from parents and any other sib-
lings. We utilised many “child-friendly”activities such as
the use of picture boards at the start of the interview.
We also thought extensively about the language that
would be used when discussing gambling with children
[45]. For example, previous research has shown that
children are more likely to understand colloquial terms
associated with gambling such as “betting”rather than
the more formal term “wagering”[37].
In piloting the study, we also found that there was a de-
gree of social desirability in children’s responses about
gambling participation. In this context, we found that the
framing of our questions was important in allowing chil-
dren to expand upon their answers. Most children were
aware that gambling was not allowed for children. For
example, asking children if they wanted to “try sport bet-
ting”often elicited an immediate “no”response from
younger children. However, if we followed this question
with “what about when you are older, or when allowed to
gamble?”young children were more open to discussing
their gambling consumption intentions. It also provided
us with an insight into the age at which children perceived
that gambling was an acceptable activity. For example,
some younger children described that they would engage
in gambling as “teenagers”which they perceived was a
more likely and “grown up”age for individuals to start to
participate in gambling. We also noted that the structure
of the interview was important. As such, we rearranged
the order of questions for some children to introduce new
concepts and to recall information that was discussed later
in the interview [46].
Children were first asked general questions about them-
selves including their age and gender. This was followed
by questions relating to children’s gambling behaviours.
This included whether they had ever gambled before,
which forms of gambling they believed were most popular,
did they discuss gambling on sports with their family and
friends, and which types of gambling, if any, would they
like to try. A range of visual sociology techniques were in-
corporated throughout the interview as a creative way to
stimulate discussion and to encourage children to think
about questions in different ways [47]. Gambling is some-
times a complex issue for children to think about, and
picture boards have been used in other studies to help
children discuss their attitudes and opinions about differ-
ent forms of gambling [37]. A number of interactive tools
were used to prompt discussions about gambling. These
included a picture board featuring pictures of eight forms
of gambling—casino games, EGMs, horse racing, keno,
lotteries, raffles, scratch cards, and sports betting. When
speaking to children, colloquial language was used for
some products, for example “scratchies”(scratch cards)
and “poker machines”(EGMs). Children were then asked
to circle the two forms of gambling they thought were the
most popular (ranking their choices as first or second)
and the activity they would like to try the most. Children
were then asked qualitative questions about their choices.
Data analysis
Interviews were transcribed by a professional transcription
company, with QSR NVivo 10 being used to manage
the data. Data were analysed throughout the inter-
views, starting from the first interview. This was used
to adjust the interview schedule and also to guide our
sampling strategies. We stopped collecting data and
finalised the analysis when all aspects of the data
were able to illustrate a number of concepts, and
could be categorised in a way that was clear and able
to answer the research aims [44].
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 4 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The first author led the data analysis process, reading
the interviews in their entirety, and then within family
groups. Qualitative notes were regularly taken through-
out the analysis process, with the first two authors meet-
ing regularly to discuss the concepts emerging from the
data. As each interview was completed, a process of cod-
ing occurred, with the researchers initially identifying
broad codes, revising these to more specific codes as the
data analysis progressed. Narratives were read several
times and the meaning associated with children’s
responses was constantly discussed. Where we were un-
certain about the interpretation, we sought advice from
the other researchers, who provided feedback until an
agreed interpretation was reached. Where appropriate,
we inserted tables to represent the key categories that
had emerged from the data, and how these linked with
different attitudes towards different products or different
influences on behaviour. This is presented in the
“Results”section of the paper (Table 2).
Results
General and gambling characteristics
The general and gambling characteristics of the sample
are presented in Table 1. We interviewed 48 children
from 30 family groups. The majority of children were
male (n= 41; 85.4%), with just over half of children aged
12–16 years (n= 25; 52.1%). When we asked children
about their participation in gambling, we did not distin-
guish between formal or informal gambling. Rather, we
asked whether children had ever gambled before and
then asked them to describe what they had participated
in. Just under 40% (n= 19, 39.6%) of children described
having engaged in either formal (using money to place
bets on organised events, usually through family
members) or informal gambling (demonstrated gambling
knowledge and behaviours through creating situations
where a valued object was wagered for something
positive in return). Children were asked about their
current and future intentions to gamble. A third of chil-
dren indicated no desire to gamble currently or in the
future (n= 16, 33.3%), over a third said they would like
to gamble in the future but did not indicate they would
like to try gambling currently (n= 18, 37.5%), a quarter
(n= 12, 25%) said that they would like to try gambling
now and also when they were older, and two children
(4.2%) said they wanted to try gambling now but did not
have any intention of gambling in the future.
Three key qualitative themes emerged from the data.
Factors that influenced children’s perceptions of the
popularity of different gambling products
The first theme explores children’s perceptions of the
popularity of different gambling products and the factors
that they believed contribute to this popularity. A sum-
mary of the main factors can be found in Table 2.
Sports betting, lotteries and horse race betting were
the three forms of gambling that children perceived were
the most popular forms of gambling. Children had
similar reasons for the popularity of sports and horse
race betting. First was that sports betting, unlike other
forms of gambling, was based on “skill”rather than
“luck”. For example, some children described that people
would bet on sports because they know about the teams
Table 1 Children’s general and gambling characteristics
Gender
Male 41 (85.4%)
Female 7 (14.6%)
Age
8–11 years 23 (47.9%)
12–16 years 25 (52.1%)
Most popular product
a
Sports betting 23 (47.9%)
Lotteries 22 (45.8%)
Horse racing 21 (43.8%)
EGMs 13 (27.1%)
Casino games 5 (10.4%)
Keno 5 (10.4%)
Scratch cards 4 (8.3%)
Raffle 2 (4.1%)
Gambling product children would like to try
Sports betting 17 (35.4%)
Lotteries 6 (12.5%)
Horse racing 6 (12.5%)
Casino games 6 (12.5%)
Scratch cards 5 (10.4%)
Raffles 3 (6.3%)
EGMs 1 (2.1%)
Keno 1 (2.1%)
No response 3 (6.3%)
Ever gambled
No 29 (60.4%)
Yes 19 (39.6%)
Consumption intentions
Desire to gamble in the future 18 (37.5%)
No desire to gamble 16 (33.3%)
Desire to try gambling now and in the future 12 (25.0%)
Desire to try gambling now but not in the future 2 (4.2%)
a
Children could select two gambling activities as the most popular. The
percentages reflect the number of children in the sample and not the number
of choices
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 5 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
and “know they are going to win”, with one 13-year-old
commenting:
Well, I think if you watch sport more, you’re more
likely to be able to guess what team is going to win
because you could know which team is in better
form.—13-year-old boy
Second, children believed that sports and horse race
betting were popular because they were prolifically mar-
keted on television. Children commented on the amount
of marketing that they had seen for these activities,
including that they had seen “a lot of ads for sports bet-
ting”,“heaps and heaps of ads for it like everywhere”,
“it’salwaysonTV”and that “themajorityofbetting
ads are horse racing ads”.Third,childrencommented
that these forms of gambling were aligned with cul-
turally valued events (such as sporting matches, and
the Melbourne Cup racing event). For example, some
children commented that sports betting would be
popular because “sport is on all the time”and that
“lots of people watch sport”. Other children
described that horse racing events, and in particular
the Melbourne Cup, were popular in Melbourne, and
meant “lots of people bet”. Children often had an
exaggerated perception of the popularity of formal
betting on the Melbourne Cup, with one child stating
that “millions of people do it”, and another child
commenting that “everyone kind of bets on that [the
Melbourne Cup]”.
Different factors influenced children’s perceptions of
the popularity of other forms of gambling. For example,
children perceived that lotteries and scratch cards were
popular because there was a chance of winning a lot of
money on these forms of gambling. For example, one
child described that with scratch cards people had a
chance of winning “something even if it isn’tmuch
money”. Children also rationalised that lotteries and
scratch cards were popular forms of gambling because
they were less risky as compared to other types of gam-
bling. This was mostly because children perceived that
only a small amount of money was needed to play.
Children also considered that there were “a lot of differ-
ent lotteries”to play which would increase the popular-
ity of the product. The following child believed the
chance of winning was enough incentive to make people
want to enter lotteries:
Well I know a lot of people consider lotteries as like,
they don’t really consider it as full on gambling. But
they do it just because, the chances are not really in
their favour but they do it because…the slim chance
of winning that amount of money is just enough for
them—13-year-old boy
Those children who perceived that EGMs and Keno
were popular chose these forms of gambling because
they had seen them when having family meals at local
pubs or clubs. Some children recalled seeing EGMs on
specific occasions such as at “their beach house”and
“through the window”. However, unlike other types of
gambling, even when children chose EGMs as being a
popular activity, they had a very negative view of the
risks and financial losses associated with these
games. Some children who thought that EGMs were
popular also recalled that they were harmful for
communities because of media attention relating to
these machines:
There’s been a lot of talk about pokies recently on the
news. And they rake in so much money each year.
That’s why it’s such a big deal about getting rid of
it.—15-year-old boy
One 8-year-old boy thought that EGMs were popular
because they required people to continue to put money
into them:
Because I know with pokie machines, you put money
into them and then if you lose you have to keep on
putting money in –until you’re poor.—8-year-old boy
Finally, a small number of children perceived that
casino games were popular because they were consid-
ered as adult forms of entertainment. For example, a few
children described that they thought adults “enjoyed a
night out at the casino”, that they had seen casino gam-
bling in movies, and that casinos were a specific place
where people went to gamble.
Table 2 Factors that influenced children’s perceptions of the
popularity of different gambling products
Sports and horse race betting
Game of “skill”not luck.
Prolifically marketed on television.
Aligned with culturally valued events.
Lotteries and scratch cards
Chance of winning lots of money.
Perceived as less risky or “softer”forms of gambling.
Small amount of money required to enter.
Different lotteries available to enter.
EGMs and Keno
Children had seen the products before.
Children had negative views of the risks and financial losses.
Casino games
Adult entertainment.
Children had seen casinos in movies.
A specific place to gamble.
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 6 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Factors that influence children’s gambling behaviours
Nineteen children in this study described that they had
engaged in gambling (either formally or informally).
Two main factors influenced young people’s gambling
consumption behaviours. The first was the influence of
family members and other adults in participating in
gambling, and the second was the link between gambling
and culturally valued events. These two factors were often
intertwined. While a few children specifically reported
having gambled on scratch cards and on Keno, most chil-
dren who had participated in gambling had bet money on
horse races or sporting events: “I’ve done horse racing with
one or two dollars”.Children’s gambling was mostly linked
to betting with or against adults. Sometimes children
described engaging in “fun”bets with family members and
family friends. While these bets rarely involved money, they
related to specific events during sporting matches, such as
which player would kick the most goals. The following
child described how he placed bets with a family friend,
and with his grandmother, about specific outcomes associ-
ated with matches. The child emphasised that he had won
the bets, and that the person he was betting against was
expected to follow through with their agreement:
I bet my Dad’s friend 10 push ups if Geelong would
beat the Western Bulldogs [AFL teams]. I won. I also
bet my Nana 10 push ups that, Tom Hawkins or
Daniel Menzel [Geelong Cats football players] would
score the first score and Daniel Menzel did, so 10
push ups.—9-year-old boy
Most children bet with either their own pocket money,
or money given to them by their parents. Children who
had participated in betting on the Melbourne Cup horse
race rarely perceived that they had been involved in
gambling. For example, the following child stated that
he had never gambled but had used his pocket money in
a sweep for the Melbourne Cup:
No [I haven’t gambled]. Well, for the Melbourne Cup,
we did a sweep, where I paid just like $5 or $10 of my
pocket money.—10-year-old boy
Some children described that betting on the Melbourne
Cup was an exception from gambling, because other than
this event they had otherwise never participated in
gambling.
Well,oncemyDadletmeput$10ontheMelbourne
Cup but other than that, no [I haven’t gambled]—13-
year-old boy
While some children gave examples of gambling with
their parents or other family members, particularly
during the Melbourne Cup horse race, they rarely con-
ceptualised this as a “real”form of gambling and often
reported never discussing gambling with their family.
For example, some children stated that they did not really
talk about gambling with their family unless “it’sthe
Melbourne Cup”, when they discussed “who we think is
going to win”and how they were going to place bets on
different horses. One child described how they picked
horses: “we usually do it off their names and like the ran-
dom kooky names.”Some children also described entering
sweeps with their family. Another 8-year-old boy described
the Melbourne cup sweep as an annual family event:
So we get a newspaper and we cut up all the names of
the horses and then we give out an even amount to
everyone. I put on a bet, but my Mum did it for
me.—8-year-old boy
Factors contributing to current and future gambling
consumption intentions
Finally, we explored the factors that influenced children’s
reported future gambling consumption intentions. A third
of children in this study indicated that they would never
gamble. The main reason that children did not want to try
gambling was related to a fear of losing money. This was
mostly due to children remembering family discussions
about gambling being a “waste of money”. Some children
thought about adult-related scenarios such as needing to
provide for a family when they were older, with one child
describing that he would “get a job and make money, not
try and win it that way.”These children also perceived
that if they spent money on gambling they would not be
able to afford other valuable items when they were older.
For example one 8-year-old boy said he wanted to be able
to spend his money on buying “adog,houseandcar”.
Many other children described that they were curious
about gambling and wanted to “see how it is”and “try it at
least once”. However, other children were cautious about
gambling, noting that it was something they would do
“maybe a couple of times, but not often”,orwouldonly
gamble “just a few dollars”.Evenwhenchildrensaidthat
they had discussed risks associated with gambling with
their parents, some still indicated that they would like to
try gambling “at least sometimes”when they were adults.
Some clarified this by saying they would not gamble all
the time, but would gamble only now and again “in case
you get addicted”.
Four factors influenced young people’scurrentor
future intentions to consume gambling products: (1)
the alignment of gambling with culturally valued activities;
(2) their perceived knowledge about sport; (3) the
marketing and advertising of gambling products (and
in particular sports betting) and (4) the influence of
friends and family.
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 7 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
First, several children perceived that some forms of
gambling, in particular sports and horse race betting,
were a “normal”or culturally accepted activity. For ex-
ample, one 11-year-old child stated that he would bet
when “the bigger horse races are on”. Some children be-
lieved that it was almost compulsory for Australians to
have a bet at least once on a major event:
It’s the kind of the thing you have to do at least once.
Maybe something on a grand final [Football Match]
or something.—14-year-old boy
Some children perceived that betting would make these
events more fun and exciting, particularly if you were
“winning some money.”For example, one 13-year-old boy
said that he had thought about trying sports betting, but
justified this response by saying that he “wouldn’tdoit
more than once or twice because then you might get
addicted.”
Second, children who believed that they were
knowledgeable about sports perceived that betting was an
easy way to make money. These children believed that
betting was a “skill”and that their knowledge about sport-
ing events or teams indicated that they felt more confident
about being able to pick winners by identifying “who is
good and who is bad, who has the good defenders”.
Children often stated that they would “probably bet on
‘my team’sometimes”because it was the team that they
knew the most about. A few children described that the
most sensible time to bet was when there was a team or
horse that would be a “clear winner”in a match or race.
Children had a strong belief that knowledge of sports
would positively influence the certainty of winning.
For example, one 15-year-old girl explained that “if
you have more knowledge about what team is better”
you would be more likely to know who would win. The
following 8-year-old also described the link between
sporting knowledge both relating to teams and players
and gambling success:
Well if you know a lot about the game you can
usually pick the team that you reckon would win and
then probably the best kick at goal.—8-year-old boy
Children who described very clear intentions to
gamble when they were older described intricate sce-
narios where they would consider different betting
options. Most of these scenarios involved AFL sport-
ing matches. For example, the following 11-year-old
using gambling language such as “punters”and “odds”
described how he could use his understanding of
gambling and the sporting form of two AFL teams to
try to win more money. In this scenario, the child
perceived that betting on the team with the longer
odds and who was less likely to win would give him
a chance of winning more money:
If it’s a clear winner or if it’s a really close game I
might bet $10. Because I could get more money. And
I would get more money, because I’d bet for a team
that probably wasn’t going to win. If the odds were
more, if the punters said Geelong [Geelong Cats AFL
team] was going to win I’d probably go for Sydney
[Sydney Swans AFL team] because it would be really
close and they could win.—11-year-old boy
Third, children who had current or future gambling con-
sumption intentions were strongly influenced by gambling
advertising, particularly for sports betting. Children
described that advertising made betting seem “easy”or
“fun”, while others stated that gambling advertisements
showed that “everyone wins”. Children described that ad-
vertising prompted them to actively think about trying
gambling. For example, one 14-year-old boy described that
he thought about trying gambling “when the ads constantly
run”, telling the research team that he wanted to give sports
betting “acrack”. Others stated that they thought about bet-
ting because of the incentives and promotions that were of-
fered by betting companies. Children stated that taking up
these incentives, in particular “cash back”or “refund”offers,
would reduce their chance of losing money. For example,
some children stated that they would gamble if there were
promotions that offered “money back if your team is win-
ning at half time but loses”or “if they say your team has
good odds”. Incentive promotions were particularly influen-
tial in stimulating future consumption intentions for a few
children who were unsure about whether they would
gamble in the future. For example, a 10-year-old girl who
was unsure about whether she would gamble when
she was older said she would consider gambling if
there was less risk involved. She went on to describe
that “deals”promoted by bookmakers where she could
get her money back if she lost, or would have a
greater chance of winning a lot of money could en-
courage her to gamble:
Maybe if they had a deal or an ad and I think ‘oh I
could get my money back if I do something or get
heaps of money I might do it’.—10-year-old girl
Finally, a few children thought that friends and family
members would influence their gambling when they
were older. For example, a few children described that
they thought “peer pressure”may play an influential role
in gambling behaviours, or if it was normalised by “other
people doing it around me.”Although family influences
were a common theme that was influencing children’s
current gambling behaviours, it was not as present in
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 8 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
children’s discussions of their future gambling consump-
tion intentions.
Discussion and implications for harm reduction
initiatives
Before discussing the results from this study, it is import-
ant to highlight the study limitations. First, the sample
was skewed towards boys and younger children and did
not specifically seek to measure differences between chil-
dren from different socio-demographic and ethnic back-
grounds. This should be considered in future studies. This
study recruited children who were fans of the AFL, which
is a sporting code that has significant saturation of gam-
bling marketing within its sporting matches [12]. For this
reason, the children in this study may have had a height-
ened perception of sports betting compared to children
who are fans of other sports which are not as heavily
sponsored by gambling companies, or for children who
are not fans of sport at all.
Table 3 suggests areas for future research, as well as
strategies that may help to reduce the potential harms
posed by these products to children.
Children in this study had much lower actual participa-
tion in both formal and informal gambling (about 40%) as
compared to other studies. The lower rates of participa-
tion in this study as compared to other studies [15–17]
could be due to the younger age of this sample or that
children were asked to talk about their gambling behav-
iours in a face to face interview (rather than an anonym-
ous survey). Nevertheless, the findings in this study
suggest that children as young as 8 years old showed both
current and future intentions to participate in gambling,
in particular, sports betting. This may indicate that
education about the risks of gambling should begin
prior to adolescence and should aim to counter the
overwhelmingly positive messages children see about
gambling. There is also a role for education initiatives
and public education campaigns, so long as these are
developed independently of industry and part of a
comprehensive public health approach, providing
young people and their parents with clear information
about the marketing strategies and tactics used by the
gambling industry to promote their products. These
campaigns could also challenge perceptions that some
forms of gambling (such as sports betting) are based
on “skill”. Research from other areas of public health,
such as alcohol and tobacco, have demonstrated that
the involvement of industry in the development of
education-based campaigns is ineffective in reducing harm
and may be counterproductive [48]. Some researchers
have suggested that this is because these industries (and
governments) are unwilling to implement education
strategies that may ultimately impact on their profits (or
taxation revenue) [49, 50] and may be a contributing
factor in increasing children’s positive perceptions about
these products [48, 51]. The implementation of gambling
education initiatives may also play a further positive role
in encouraging the community to demand more responsi-
bility from sporting codes and broadcasters about their
marketing relationships with the gambling industry, and
more accountability from government to regulate how the
gambling industry is able to promote their products.
Despite online sports betting being a relatively new
form of gambling in Australia, nearly half of children
chose this form of gambling as one of the two most
popular types of gambling, and about a third stated that
given a choice, they would try this form of gambling
over other gambling activities. Popularity of products,
and the early and repeat exposure to advertising, has
been shown to have a significant influence on children’s
long-term, and risky consumption behaviours of harmful
products such as alcohol and tobacco [52–55]. While
longitudinal research will provide evidence for gambling
consumption over time, there is no reason to expect that
the consumption trajectory for the heavily advertised
sports betting would be any different to products such
as alcohol or tobacco. It would therefore be appropriate
for governments to adopt precautionary principals of
harm reduction, with the burden of proof on the gam-
bling industry to show that the marketing of their prod-
ucts will not influence risky patterns of gambling in
young people either currently, or in the future, before
they are allowed to expose young people to marketing
for their products.
Children who had clear intentions to consume sports
betting products believed that they would have a chance
of winning because of their knowledge of the sport. Past
research has found that children are more likely to
experience harm from gambling because of their
Table 3 Suggestions for future research and harm reduction
Education campaigns
1. Education for children about the risks of gambling.
2. Education initiatives and public education campaigns for parents and
children about the marketing strategies and tactics used by the
gambling industry.
Regulation
1. Restricting gambling company advertisements from depicting
gambling as a way of developing or building friendships and as a
social activity.
2. Restricting gambling advertisements from sporting events and
television broadcasts.
3. Restricting gambling advertisements that may have a high recall or
appeal for young people.
Future research
1. Longitudinal research into children’s gambling consumption.
2. Research to investigate the age at which peers may start to become
influential in gambling behaviours.
3. Research into newer gambling marketing techniques and the effect
on children’s attitudes towards gambling.
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 9 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
misunderstanding of perceived skill in chance-based
games [56–58]. In this study, children clearly perceived
that sports betting and to a certain extent horse race
betting, were based on skill rather than chance. The reg-
ulations governments have implemented suggest they
are conscious of children’s exposure to sports betting ad-
vertisements [59]. However, in play sports betting adver-
tising is still currently allowed during sporting events.
The most effective harm prevention and reduction
strategies should involve government regulation to
significantly reduce children’s exposure to advertising,
particularly within sports.
Three primary socialising agents were influential in
shaping children’s gambling attitudes and consumption
intentions: family members, and in particular parents,
culturally valued events, and marketing. Before discuss-
ing these, it is important to understand the factors that
did not appear to have an influence on children’s behav-
iours. Unlike other areas of public health, such as alco-
hol and tobacco [60–62], and in other gambling studies
[26, 31, 57, 63], peers did not appear to play a significant
role in influencing the gambling attitudes and consump-
tion intentions of this group of children. Further re-
search should investigate the age at which peers may
start to become influential in gambling behaviours, par-
ticularly given that many recent campaigns for betting
companies are dominated by concepts of mateship [64].
Research has indicated that there is a process of sym-
bolic consumption with these marketing strategies, with
young men’s peer-based gambling behaviours reflective
of the themes within sports betting advertising [65].
Further, there is research that has reported that sports
betting in particular is being used as a form of social and
group cohesion amongst groups of young male sports
fans [65]. While further research is needed into the im-
pact of these newer marketing creatives on young
people, one harm reduction strategy may be to prohibit
gambling companies from promoting gambling as an
activity that helps to build peer relationships, or is a nat-
ural addition or complement to social activities.
The factor that appeared to have the most influence
on young people’s current and future gambling attitudes
and intentions to gamble was marketing for sports
betting. Research from other areas of public health such
as alcohol has shown that marketing which reinforces al-
cohol as a fun, social activity is likely to reinforce chil-
dren’s normative assumptions about drinking [66, 67].
As has been demonstrated in other gambling studies
[34, 68, 69], marketing of gambling as a socially accept-
able behaviour has created a perception that gambling
was “easy”and “fun”and that sports betting was differ-
ent from other forms of gambling because it was based
on skill. In addition, the research has shown that specific
forms of marketing, such as inducements, may impact
on children’s gambling attitudes and consumption inten-
tions, particularly for children who were unsure about
whether they would gamble when they were older.
Further, even though many children had never gambled
on a sporting event, they were able to describe different
gambling markets, betting options, and “deals”. While
the sports betting industry argues that the marketing for
their products does not target children [11], children are
nevertheless exposed to and influenced by the marketing
messages that they see. Although we would expect that
adolescents would be influenced and receptive to these
messages, it is concerning that very young children also
appear to be influenced by messages which are increas-
ingly aligned to activities that are popular with children,
such as sport. Prohibiting marketing for gambling prior to
the watershed is important in limiting young people’s
exposure to marketing; however, we would argue that
comprehensive harm reduction approaches must go fur-
ther. This includes regulating marketing strategies, includ-
ing those outside of traditional television advertising, that
have high recall or appeal for young people.
Conclusions
This research suggests that a range of socialisation factors
maybepositivelyshapingchildren’s attitudes towards gam-
bling products. As with other key areas of public health, a
comprehensive approach to preventing the harms associ-
ated with gambling products will include a range of educa-
tion and legislative responses. Given the new pervasive
forms of gambling products, and the marketing for these
products, government responsibility for the development of
effective policies and regulatory structures will be critical in
ensuring that young people are not exposed to gambling
products and promotions in their everyday environments.
Researchers will play a key role in mapping and monitoring
industry tactics and their impact on children and using re-
search evidence to advocate for change.
Abbreviations
AFL: Australian Football League; CGT: Constructivist Grounded Theory;
EGMs: Electronic Gambling Machines
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Ms. Jennifer David for her contribution to the
data collection process. We would also like to acknowledge the members of
the community who participated in this study.
Funding
This research is funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant on
Sports Wagering [DP140102210].
Availability of data and materials
This data will not be made available to ensure the privacy and confidentiality
of the participants.
Authors’contributions
HP was the lead researcher, she led the development of the analytical
framework for the study, contributed to data collection and data analysis,
and prepared the first draft and critical revisions of the paper. ST was the
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 10 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
principle investigator, conceptualised the study, contributed to data analysis
and interpretation, and prepared the first draft and critical revision of the
paper. AB was a researcher, and MD and JD the study investigators, they
contributed to data interpretation, writing and critical revision of the study.
All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Participants consented to the data being used for publications.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Wollongong Human
Research Ethics Committee. Parents provided written consent and verbal
consent was obtained from children.
Author details
1
Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social
Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia.
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin
University, Perth, Australia.
3
International Centre for Youth Gambling
Problems and High Risk Behaviours, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Received: 15 November 2016 Accepted: 2 February 2017
References
1. Storer J, Abbott M, Stubbs J. Access or adaptation? A meta-analysis of surveys of
problem gambling prevalence in Australia and New Zealand with respect to
concentration of electronic gaming machines. Int Gambl Stud. 2009;9(3):225–44.
2. Dow-Schüll N. Addiction by design: machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton:
Princeton University Press; 2012.
3. Dowling N, Smith D, Thomas T. Electronic gaming machines: are they the
‘crack-cocaine’of gambling? Addiction. 2005;100(1):33–45.
4. Hughes L. Daytime gambling adverts could be banned from social media
and television. The Telegraph. 2016 7th October [cited 14.11.16]. Available
from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/daytime-gambling-
adverts-could-be-banned-from-social-media-and-t/.
5. Hobson W. Sports gambling in U.S.: Too prevalent to remain illegal? The
Washington Post. 2015 27th February [cited 14.11.16]. Available from: https://
www.washingtonpost.com/sports/sports-gambling-in-us-too-prevalent-to-
remain-illegal/2015/02/27/f1088e4c-b7d3-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html.
6. Thomas SL, Thomas SD. The big gamble: The need for a comprehensive
research approach to understanding the causes and consequences of
gambling harm in Australia. Australas Epidemiol. 2015;22(1):39.
7. Browne M, Langham E, Rawat V, Greer N, Li E, Rose J, Rockloff M, Donaldson P,
Thorne H, Goodwin B, Bryden G, Best T. Assessing gambling-related harm in
Victoria: a public health perspective. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible
Gambling F oundation ; 2016.
8. The Economist. The House Wins: Who Gambles the Most? The Economist.
2014 3rd February [cited 14.11.16]. Available from: http://www.economist.
com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-0.
9. Queensland Government Statistician’s Office, Queensland Treasury.
Australian Gambling Statistics 1989–90 to 2014–15. Queensland, Australia:
2016 August 2016. Report No. 39.
10. Davidson T, Rodgers B, Markham F, Taylor-Rodgers E. Gambling expenditure
in the ACT (2014): by level of problem gambling, type of activity and
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. ACT, Australia: ACT
Government, Gambling and Racing Commission, Australian National
University; 2016.
11. Hickman A, Bennett L. Gambling ads: place your bets. AdNews. 2016
June 10th:23–7.
12. Thomas S, Lewis S, Duong J, McLeod C. Sports betting marketing during
sporting events: a stadium and broadcast census of Australian Football
League matches. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2012;36(2):145–52.
13. Lindsay S, Thomas S, Lewis S, Westberg K, Moodie R, Jones S. Eat, drink and
gamble: marketing messages about ‘risky’products in an Australian major
sporting series. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):719.
14. Bennett L. Media Watch challenges TV’s gambling addiction. AdNews. 2016
October 11th [cited 5.11.16]. Available from: http://www.adnews.com.au/
news/media-watch-challenges-tv-s-gambling-addiction.
15. Delfabbro P, Lahn J, Grabosky P. Further evidence concerning the
prevalence of adolescent gambling and problem gambling in Australia: a
study of the ACT. Int Gambl Stud. 2005;5(2):209–28.
16. Purdie N, Matters G, Hillman K, Murphy M, Ozolins C, Millwood P. Gambling
and young people in Australia. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia; 2011.
17. Delfabbro P, Thrupp L. The social determinants of youth gambling in South
Australian adolescents. J Adolesc. 2003;26(3):313–30.
18. Derevensky JL. Teen gambling: understanding a growing epidemic.
Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2012.
19. Hardoon KK, Derevensky JL. Child and adolescent gambling behavior:
current knowledge. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;7(2):263–81.
20. Ward S. Consumer socialization. J Consum Res. 1974;1(2):1–14.
21. Moschis GP, Churchill Jr GA. Consumer socialization: A theoretical and
empirical analysis. J Mark Res. 1978;15(4):599–609.
22. John DR. Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five
years of research. J Consum Res. 1999;26(3):183–213.
23. Calvert SL. Children as consumers: advertising and marketing. Futur Child.
2008;18(1):205–34.
24. Thomas S. Parents and adolescents discuss gambling advertising: a qualitative
study. Victoria: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; 2014.
25. Gupta R, Derevensky J. Familial and social influences on juvenile gambling
behavior. J Gambl Stud. 1997;13(3):179–92.
26. Reith G, Dobbie F. Beginning gambling: the role of social networks and
environment. Addict Res Theory. 2011;19(6):483–93.
27. Jacobs DF. Youth gambling in North America. Gambling problems in youth.
New York: Springer; 2005. p. 1–24.
28. Thomas S, Lewis S. Conceptualisation of gambling risks and benefits: a
socio-cultural study of 100 Victorian gamblers. Victoria: Office of Gaming
and Racing, Department of Justice; 2012.
29. Magoon ME, Ingersoll GM. Parental modeling, attachment, and supervision
as moderators of adolescent gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2006;22(1):1–22.
30. Raisamo S, Lintonen T. Misperceptions of peer gambling norms among
adolescents: analysis of a national sample in Finland. Open J Prev Med.
2012;2(2):131–6.
31. Hardoon KK, Derevensky JL. Social influences involved in children’s
gambling behavior. J Gambl Stud. 2001;17(3):191–215.
32. Lynch BS, Bonnie RJ. Growing up tobacco free: preventing nicotine
addiction in children and youths. Oxford: National Academies Press; 1994.
33. Delfabbro P, Lahn J, Grabosky P. Adolescent gambling in the ACT: Centre
for Gambling Research. Canberra: ANU; 2005.
34. Pitt H, Thomas SL, Bestman A. Initiation, influence, and impact: adolescents
and parents discuss the marketing of gambling products during Australian
sporting matches. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):967.
35. King D, Delfabbro P, Griffiths M. The convergence of gambling and digital
media: Implications for gambling in young people. J Gambl Stud.
2010;26(2):175–87.
36. Bestman A, Thomas S, Randle M, Pitt H, Daube M, Pettigrew S. Shaping
pathways to gambling consumption? An analysis of the promotion of
gambling and non-gambling activities from gambling venues. Addict Res
Theory. 2015;24(2):1–11.
37. Pitt H, Thomas SL, Bestman A, Stoneham M, Daube M. “It’s just everywhere!”
Children and parents discuss the marketing of sports wagering in Australia.
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40(5):480–6.
38. Thomas S, Pitt H, Bestman A, Randle M, Stoneham M, Daube M. Child and
parent recall of gambling sponsorship in Australia. Victoria: Victorian
Responsible Gambling Foundation; 2016.
39. The Age. Odds are, sports betting ads are a bad gamble. The Age. 2016
October 23rd [cited 5.11.16]. Available from: http://www.theage.com.au/
comment/the-age-editorial/odds-are-sports-betting-ads-are-a-bad-gamble-
20161023-gs8kmm.html.
40. Martin D. TV gambling adverts could be banned: Maria Miller pledges changes
to ensure ‘children and vulnerable’are protected. Daily Mail. 2014 March 3rd
[cited 5.11.16]. Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571702/
TV-gambling-adverts-banned-Maria-Miller-pledges-changes-ensure-children-
vulnerable-protected.html.
41. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through
qualitative analysis (Introducing Qualitative Methods Series). London: Sage
Publications; 2006.
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 11 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
42. Deans EG, Thomas SL, Daube M, Derevensky J. “I can sit on the beach and
punt through my mobile phone”: the influence of physical and online
environments on the gambling risk behaviours of young men. Soc Sci
Med. 2016;166:110–9.
43. Tira C, Jackson AC, Tomnay JE. Pathways to late-life problematic gambling in
seniors: a grounded theory approach. The Gerontologist. 2014;54(6):1035–48.
44. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.
45. Punch S. Research with children: the same or different from research with
adults? Childhood. 2002;9(3):321–41.
46. Irwin LG, Johnson J. Interviewing young children: explicating our practices
and dilemmas. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(6):821–31.
47. Darbyshire P, MacDougall C, Schiller W. Multiple methods in qualitative
research with children: more insight or just more? Qual Res. 2005;5(4):417–36.
48. Tobacco in Australia. Encouraging young people not to smoke. 2017 [16.01.
17]. Available from: http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-10-
tobacco-industry/10-13-encouraging-young-people-not-to-smoke.
49. Miller PG, de Groot F, McKenzie S, Droste N. Vested interests in addiction research
and policy. Alcohol industry use of social aspect public relations organizations
against preventative health measures. Addiction. 2011;106(9):1560–7.
50. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, Lincoln
P, Casswell S. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of
tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet.
2013;381(9867):670–9.
51. Anderson P, de Bruijn A, Angus K, Gordon R, Hastings G. Impact of alcohol
advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: a systematic
review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol Alcohol. 2009;44(3):229–43.
52. Snyder LB, Milici FF, Slater M, Sun H, Strizhakova Y. Effects of alcohol
advertising exposure on drinking among youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.
2006;160(1):18–24.
53. Collins RL, Ellickson PL, McCaffrey D, Hambarsoomians K. Early adolescent
exposure to alcohol advertising and its relationship to underage drinking. J
Adolesc Health. 2007;40(6):527–34.
54. Lovato C, Watts A, Stead LF. Impact of tobacco advertising and promotion
on increasing adolescent smoking behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2011;10:CD003439.
55. Aitken P, Eadie D, Hastings G, Haywood A. Predisposing effects of cigarette
advertising on children’s intentions to smoke when older. Br J Addict.
1991;86(4):383–90.
56. Derevensky JL, Gupta R. Gambling problems in youth: Theoretical and
applied perspectives. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2004.
57. Gupta R, Derevensky JL. Adolescent gambling behavior: a prevalence study
and examination of the correlates associated with problem gambling. J
Gambl Stud. 1998;14(4):319–45.
58. Messerlian C, Byrne AM, Derevensky JL. Gambling, youth and the Internet:
should we be concerned. Can Child Adolesc Psychiatr Rev. 2004;13(1):3–6.
59. Australian Communication and Media Authority. Commercial television
code of practice 2015 [18.03.16]. Available from: http://www.acma.gov.au/
Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/commercial-television-
code-of-practice-tv-content-regulation-i-acma.
60. Reifman A, Barnes GM, Dintcheff BA, Farrell MP, Uhteg L. Parental and peer
influences on the onset of heavier drinking among adolescents. J Stud
Alcohol. 1998;59(3):311–7.
61. Jackson C. Initial and experimental stages of tobacco and alcohol use
during late childhood: relation to peer, parent, and personal risk factors.
Addict Behav. 1997;22(5):685–98.
62. Simons-Morton B, Haynie DL, Crump AD, Eitel P, Saylor KE. Peer and parent
influences on smoking and drinking among early adolescents. Health Educ
Behav. 2001;28(1):95–107.
63. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, Rohde P, Seeley JR, Rohling ML. Individual, family,
and peer correlates of adolescent gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2004;20(1):23–46.
64. Deans EG, Thomas SL, Daube M, Derevensky J, Gordon R. Creating symbolic
cultures of consumption: an analysis of the content of sports wagering
advertisements in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1.
65. Deans EG, Thomas SL, Daube M, Derevensky J. The role of peer influences
on the normalisation of sports wagering: a qualitative study of Australian
men. Addict Res Theory. 2016;25(2):1–11.
66. Pettigrew S, Roberts M, Pescud M, Chapman K, Quester P, Miller C. The extent
and nature of alcohol advertising on Australian television. Drug Alcohol Rev.
2012;31(6):797–802.
67. Austin EW, Knaus C. Predicting the potential for risky behavior among those
“too young”to drink as the result of appealing advertising. J Health
Commun. 2000;5(1):13–27.
68. McMullan JL, Miller D. Wins, winning and winners: the commercial
advertising of lottery gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2009;25(3):273–95.
69. Derevensky J, Sklar A, Gupta R, Messerlian C. An empirical study examining
the impact of gambling advertisements on adolescent gambling attitudes
and behaviors. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2010;8(1):21–34.
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and we will help you at every step:
Pitt et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2017) 14:11 Page 12 of 12
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
