Online Gambling Addiction: the Relationship Between Internet Gambling and Disordered Gambling

One of the biggest changes in the game environment in the past 15 years is the increase in the possibility of using Internet gaming, including mobile. Internet gambling is the most rapid growing form of gambling, changing how to take players' gambling. There are concerns that internet gambling may increase the ratio of disturbed gambling due to high access, symbolic connection, and ease of use of money. The purpose of this paper is to clarify new and interesting knowledge related to Internet gambling addiction, and clarify the outline of the research so far. We made a comprehensive review of existing literature to provide important trends and progress of research related to disorderly Internet gambling. In this paper, the participation of adult Internet gambling, the characteristics of this interface, related problems related to the Internet gambling, and more gambling behavior, which can affect the seriousness of the problem. Here are some research to deepen your understanding of the role of personal factors related to.

Similar content being viewed by others

Internet Addiction: What Is It?

Chapter © 2015

Conceptual Issues Concerning Internet Addiction and Internet Gaming Disorder: Further Critique on Ryding and Kaye (2017)

Open Open Access October 17, 2017

A Comparison of Online Versus Offline Gambling Harm in Portuguese Pathological Gamblers: An Empirical Study

Open Access November 29, 2017

Avoid mistakes that are common in manuscripts

Introduction

Internet gambling (terms with almost the same meaning as tw o-way remote gambling and online gambling) refers to various bets and gaming that are provided through Interne t-compatible devices such as computer, mobile phone, smartphone, tablet, digital TV. 。 This kind of gambling is promoted by the development of technology, the improvement of the use of the Internet, and the ownership of the Interne t-compatible devices, but does not configure another kind of gambling activity. Rather, gambling at a wel l-equipped retail store or at a retail store on a track and field is a different access method from betting on the phone. Therefore, it is an almost automated activity that can be used personally anytime, anywhere using a hig h-speed Internet connection, and enables quick data placement and results notification. It is a concern that Internet gambling may be part of excess gambling because it is possible to promptly and easy to access to a large number of beds, continuous gambling, quick feedback, and a huge number of betting options. There is [1, 2].

As a result of empirically comparing the fundamental similarity between the problem gambling and the use of substances, the fifth edition of the diagnosis of mental illness and the statistical manual (DSM-5) is an action addiction that does not contain any substances in the substance category. A new category has been added. [3]. Gambling addiction is classified as the first behavioral addiction, becomes a "blue photo" of research on other syndrome, and other similarly, such as "Internet gambling disorder" (currently DSM-5). There is no doubt that it will be a precedent for collecting data related to excessive behavior [4]. The DSM-5 taskforce officially requested further research on this behavior, as the Internet, especially the Internet games, were over-related to problem-related use and evidence of dysfunction with problems and dysfunction. [5] Considering the internet gambling and Internet games experience, similarity in excessive use, and the possibility of harm due to excessive Internet use, special precautions are required for the pathological use of Internet gambling. In this paper, the purpose was to give an overview of the research so far and to clarify new and interesting knowledge about adult Internet gambling addiction. Comprehensive review

Participation

Internet gambling is growing rapidly in its popularity, market share, and products provided. The world's online gambling market was evaluated as 6. 1 billion euros in 2013, and is expected to grow 10. 1%a year in 2018. Online gambling accounts for about 8-10%of the global gambling market in 2012, and this figure seems to be increasing. The largest online gambling products are betting worldwide, accounting for 53 %of the online gambling market, followed by casino games (25, 4 %, including slot/ pocky/ electronic games), poker (14, 2 %). , Bingo (7, 4 %).

Internationally, the number of countries and regions that legalize Internet gambling is increasing. This is the result of the advantages of regulations, including the difficulties of execution and the requirements of measures to enhance consumer protection and minimize the harm of tax revenue. [1] Although the penetration rate of Internet gambling seems to be relatively low, the number of participants is rapidly increasing, especially in the laws that allow access to regulatory sites. For example, in Australia, the penetration rate of Internet gambling increased from less than 1%in 1999 to 8, 1%in 2011 after the legalization of Internet gambling and lottery gambling. Similarly, in the UK, average of 16%of respondents has participated in at least one online gambling in the past four weeks. On the other hand, only 6%of British population used the Internet to gamble in the past year in 2007. However, this number does not include the purchase of online lottery, so the participation rate may have increased.

The use of internet games will continue to increase as the number of online platforms for entertainment and recreational activities, including telephone and other wireless devices, are becoming more common. Survey suggests that the most common motivation and advantages of Internet gambling is the convenience and access of this mode. [15-17] Other advantages of Internet gambling are the physical value of the payout ratio and bonuses, the speed and convenience of online gambling, the number of products and betting options, and the ability to play at home. Convenience, etc.

Internet gambling means the fundamental change in consumer gambling, and various stakeholders have expressed concerns about this change. The disadvantages of Internet gamblers include online and easy money, too convenient, and concerns about account security [15-18, 19-, 20]. Other concerns are that accessing Internet gambling can increase the gambling nature of people who are not used to technology, and increase the incidence of gambling and the rate of illness [1, 21]. 。 Due to these concerns, there is a movement to prohibit the recommendation of Internet gambling or recommend the vice versa, so that there is a movement to enact a policy to minimize harm [1, 12-, 22, 22, 23 - twenty four].

Internet Gambling and Problem Gambling

Features of Internet Gambling That May Impact Problem Severity

There is evidence that it is complicated but relevant between the presence or absence of gambling opportunities. As a result, it is argued that the easy access to gambling provided by the Internet could lead to the onset and deterioration of gambling addiction [1, 22, 24, 31].

Internet gambling also has a unique feature that can lead to further harm to the vulnerable, especially for socially vulnerable. Internet gambling is different from lan d-based gambling, mainly in stable use, easy access, and the ability to gamble without interruption in private, promoted by an interactive Internet environment. [2, 18, 32-34, 35-]. The use of digital money (credit card, electronic bank transfer, electronic wallet, etc.) seems to increase gambling and loss because it feels that it is not using "real" money, especially for gamblers who are particularly problematic. [16, 32, 36, 38, 39]. According to a survey, 19-28%of online gamblers reported that it would be easier to spend more money online [20, 39], 15%of this form is more than land gambling. I feel that it is highly toxic [15].

The immersive nature of Internet gambling is clear from the report that online gamblers, especially the gamblers, are more likely to report sleep disorders and eating disorders than lan d-based gamblers [18, 36, 37. ]. According to data collected from gambling treatment services, Internet gambling is currently increasing, although the contribution to the problem gambling is small among those who are seeking formal help [37, 40, 41]. According to the survey, the problem of gamblers on the Internet is very unlikely to be a formal help than on land problem gamblers [20, 42, 43]. This may not be sufficiently reflected in the samples for treatment for the Internet gambling, and as the number of people who use this means increases and the seriousness of the problem increases over time. It suggests that there is a high possibility. There is evidence that it is complicated but relevant between the presence or absence of gambling opportunities and the relevant level. As a result, it is argued that the easy access to gambling provided by the Internet could lead to the onset and deterioration of gambling addiction [1, 22, 24, 31].

The Relationships Between Internet Gambling and Gambling Problems

Internet gambling also has a unique feature that can lead to further harm to the vulnerable, especially for socially vulnerable. Internet gambling is different from the lan d-based gambling, mainly for stable use, easy access, and gambling without interruption in private, promoted by an interactive and immersive Internet environment. [2, 18, 32-34, 35-]. The use of digital money (credit card, electronic bank transfer, electronic wallet, etc.) seems to increase gambling and loss because it feels that it is not using "real" money, especially for gamblers who are particularly problematic. [16, 32, 36, 38, 39]. According to a survey, 19-28%of online gamblers reported that it would be easier to spend more money online [20, 39], 15%of this form is more than land gambling. I feel that it is highly toxic [15].

The immersive nature of Internet gambling is clear from the report that online gamblers, especially the gamblers, are more likely to report sleep disorders and eating disorders than lan d-based gamblers [18, 36, 37. ]. According to data collected from gambling treatment services, Internet gambling is currently increasing, albeit with a small contribution to the problem gambling among those who are seeking formal help [37, 40, 41]. According to the survey, the problem of gamblers on the Internet is very unlikely to be a formal help than on land problem gamblers [20, 42, 43]. This may not be sufficiently reflected in the samples for treatment for the Internet gambling, and as the number of people who use this means increases and the seriousness of the problem increases over time. It suggests that there is a high possibility. There is evidence that it is complicated but relevant between the presence or absence of gambling opportunities. As a result, it is argued that the easy access to gambling provided by the Internet could lead to the onset and deterioration of gambling addiction [1, 22, 24, 31].

Internet gambling also has a unique feature that can lead to further harm to the vulnerable, especially for socially vulnerable. Internet gambling is different from the lan d-based gambling, mainly for stable use, easy access, and gambling without interruption in private, promoted by an interactive and immersive Internet environment. [2, 18, 32-34, 35-]. The use of digital money (credit card, electronic bank transfer, electronic wallet, etc.) seems to increase gambling and loss because it feels that it is not using "real" money, especially for gamblers who are particularly problematic. [16, 32, 36, 38, 39]. According to a survey, 19-28%of online gamblers reported that it would be easier to spend more money online [20, 39], 15%of this form is more than land gambling. I feel that it is highly toxic [15].

The Impact of Internet and Land-Based Gambling on Gambling Problems

The immersive nature of Internet gambling is clear from the report that online gamblers, especially the gamblers, are more likely to report sleep disorders and eating disorders than lan d-based gamblers [18, 36, 37. ]. According to data collected from gambling treatment services, Internet gambling is currently increasing, although the contribution to the problem gambling is small among those who are seeking formal help [37, 40, 41]. According to the survey, the problem of gamblers on the Internet is very unlikely to be a formal help than land problem gamblers [20, 42, 43]. This may not be sufficiently reflected in the samples for treatment for the Internet gambling, and as the number of people who use this means increases and the seriousness of the problem increases over time. It suggests that there is a high possibility.

Initial concerns about the harmful effects of Internet gambling were valid, with many studies finding higher severity of gambling problems in Internet-using samples compared to non-Internet-using gamblers [13, 31, 41, 43-46, 47-, 48]. For example, a nationally representative prevalence study in Australia found that the overall rate of problem gambling among Australian non-Internet gamblers was 0. 9%. In comparison, the rate among Internet gamblers was three times higher at 2. 7% [13]. Less than 60% of Internet gamblers were classified as non-projective gamblers, compared to more than 80% of non-Internet gamblers, a significant difference. Furthermore, the mean PGSI scores of Internet gamblers were significantly higher than those of non-Internet gamblers. Similarly, a total of 16, 4% of Internet gamblers were classified as moderate or problem gamblers, compared with 5, 7% of non-Internet gamblers [43]. However, there are few data available to determine the causal relationship of Internet-related problem gambling, and most longitudinal studies have too few Internet gamblers to allow meaningful analysis.

Despite the evidence of positive relevance, no relationship between participation in the Internet and the problem has been confirmed. Some studies have discovered that the ratio of gambling between the Internet gambler and the land gambler is the same. [15, 41]. There are also studies suggesting that there are only a few gambling online online with Internet gamblers [12-, 24, 24, 48, 49]. According to a further analysis of a diseas e-rate research that controls factors such as population statistical variables and gambling participation, participation in the Internet gambling does not independently predict the severity of gambling [. 13, 20, 36, 46, 50-, 51, 52]. For example, in the national leading survey, Internet gamblers were highly likely to be classified as risky or experienced problem gambling, but if other variables were controlled, participation in the Internet was the severity of gambling. It was not a prediction factor. Similarly, using the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Study data, Laplante and their colleagues [50--] have gambling and gambling in gambling (especially online gambling). He discovered that there was no significant relationship, including the number of gambling acts in the model. This findings were contrasting with the previous analysis

Further evidence that Internet gambling asks you to increase the ratio of the problem gambling can be obtained from a medical survey. Despite the increase in the proportion of Internet gambling in some areas, there is almost no evidence that the problem gambling is increasing [13, 53, 54]. Analysis for 3 0-jurisdiction in Europe cannot identify the prohibition of online gambling, the degree of gambling license system, the degree of legal gambling opportunities, and the disordered gambling illness. [55--]. < SPAN> Despite the evidence of positive relevance, no relationship between participation in the Internet and the problem has been confirmed. Some studies have discovered that the ratio of gambling between the Internet gambler and the land gambler is the same. [15, 41]. There are also studies suggesting that there are only a few gambling online online with Internet gamblers [12-, 24, 24, 48, 49]. According to a further analysis of a diseas e-rate research that controls factors such as population statistical variables and gambling participation, participation in the Internet gambling does not independently predict the severity of gambling [. 13, 20, 36, 46, 50-, 51, 52]. For example, in the national leading survey, Internet gamblers were highly likely to be classified as risky or experienced problem gambling, but if other variables were controlled, participation in the Internet was the severity of gambling. It was not a prediction factor. Similarly, using the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Study data, Laplante and their colleagues [50--] have gambling and gambling in gambling (especially online gambling). He discovered that there was no significant relationship, including the number of gambling acts in the model. This findings were contrasting with the previous analysis

Risk Factors for Internet Gambling Problems

Personal Variables

Socio-demographic Variables

Further evidence that Internet gambling asks you to increase the ratio of the problem gambling can be obtained from a medical survey. Despite the increase in the proportion of Internet gambling in some areas, there is almost no evidence that the problem gambling is increasing [13, 53, 54]. Analysis for 3 0-jurisdiction in Europe cannot identify the prohibition of online gambling, the degree of gambling license system, the degree of legal gambling opportunities, and the disordered gambling illness. [55--]. Despite the evidence of positive relevance, no relationship between participation in the Internet and the problem has been confirmed. Some studies have discovered that the ratio of gambling between the Internet gambler and the land gambler is the same. [15, 41]. There are also studies that suggest that there are only a few gambling online online with Internet gamblers [12-, 24, 24, 48, 49]. According to a further analysis of a diseas e-rate research that controls factors such as population statistical variables and gambling participation, participation in the Internet gambling does not independently predict the severity of gambling [. 13, 20, 36, 46, 50-, 51, 52]. For example, in the national leading survey, Internet gamblers were highly likely to be classified as risky or experienced problem gambling, but if other variables were controlled, participation in the Internet was the severity of gambling. It was not a prediction factor. Similarly, using the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Study data, Laplante and their colleagues [50--] have gambling and gambling in gambling (especially online gambling). He discovered that there was no significant relationship, including the number of gambling acts in the model. This findings were contrasting with the previous analysis

Further evidence that Internet gambling asks you to increase the ratio of the problem gambling can be obtained from a medical survey. Despite the increase in Internet gambling in some areas, there has been little evidence that the problem gambling is increasing [13, 53, 54]. Analysis for 3 0-jurisdiction in Europe cannot identify the prohibition of online gambling, the degree of gambling license system, the degree of legal gambling opportunities, and the disordered gambling illness. [55--].

Physical and Mental Health Comorbidities

Internet gambling is not only a predictor of gambling addiction, but also evidence that if you control other variables, you may have a lower ratio of gambling addiction. Ta. Studies that separate only Internet gambling players have shown that these players have a lower gambling problem than players who only play offline and online and offline. 51, 56-]. Players who participate not only in online but also in offline mode seem to be at the highest risk of harm, but this seems to be related to the large number of participants [48, 56-, 57-. ].

The relationship between the Internet and the gambling is likely to be mediated by the use of gambling. According to a study in which the actual Internet gambling account activity was investigated in combination with the sel f-reporting ceremony measurement of the gambling gambling, the involvement of the gambling played in the past year and the gambling shown in the number of days of bed, which is analyzed. It was confirmed that it was a prediction factor of the gambling in the sample. [58] These results match a wide range of research that suggests that gambling disorders are associated with hig h-level participation (spending, time, frequency, and gambling forms to be used). [13, 36, 52, 59-63]. For those who are highly dependent on gambling, there are people with higher gambling (including those with existing gambling dependence) than those with low gambling. Research has suggested that there is a high possibility of participating in online mode. However, according to a study that compares the behavioral data of online gambling sites with sel f-reported gambling problems, all highly involved players do not have the risk of gamblin g-related issues, and all players with low involvement are all negative factors. I understand that. < SPAN> Internet gambling is not only forecast factor for gambling addiction, but also evidence that if you control other variables, you may have a lower ratio of gambling addiction. It came out. Studies that separate only Internet gambling players have shown that these players have a lower gambling problem than players who only play offline and online and offline. 51, 56-]. Players who participate not only in online but also in offline mode seem to be at the highest risk of harm, but this seems to be related to the large number of participants [48, 56-, 57-. ].

The relationship between the Internet and the gambling is likely to be mediated by the use of gambling. According to a study in which the actual Internet gambling account activity was investigated in combination with the sel f-reporting ceremony measurement of the gambling gambling, the involvement of the gambling played in the past year and the gambling shown in the number of days of bed, which is analyzed. It was confirmed that it was a prediction factor of the gambling in the sample. [58] These results match a wide range of research that suggests that gambling disorders are associated with hig h-level participation (spending, time, frequency, and gambling forms to be used). [13, 36, 52, 59-63]. For those who are highly dependent on gambling, there are people with higher gambling (including those with existing gambling dependence) than those with low gambling. Research has suggested that there is a high possibility of participating in online mode. However, according to a study that compares the behavioral data of online gambling sites with sel f-reported gambling problems, all highly involved players do not have the risk of gamblin g-related issues, and all players with low involvement are all negative factors. I understand that. Internet gambling is not only a predictor of gambling addiction, but also evidence that if you control other variables, you may have a lower ratio of gambling addiction. Ta. Studies that separate only Internet gambling players have shown that these players have a lower gambling problem than players who only play offline and online and offline. 51, 56-]. Players who participate not only in online but also in offline mode seem to be at the highest risk of harm, but this seems to be related to the large number of participants [48, 56-, 57-. ].

The relationship between the Internet and the gambling is likely to be mediated by the use of gambling. According to a study in which the actual Internet gambling account activity was conducted in combination with the sel f-reporting ceremony measurement of the gambling gambling, the involvement of the gambling played in the past year and the gambling shown in the number of days of bed is analyzed. It was confirmed that it was a prediction factor of the gambling in the sample. [58] These results match a wide range of research that suggests that gambling disorders are associated with hig h-level participation (spending, time, frequency, and gambling forms to be used). [13, 36, 52, 59-63]. For those who are highly dependent on gambling, there are people with higher gambling (including those with existing gambling dependence) than those with low gambling. Research has suggested that there is a high possibility of participating in online mode. However, according to a study comparing the behavioral data of online gambling sites with sel f-reported gambling problems, all highly involved players do not have the risk of gamblin g-related issues, and all players with low involvement are all negative factors. I understand that.

Gambling Behaviours

Participation in Internet gambling appears to be more prevalent among problem gamblers than among non-problem gamblers [35 -]. Studies have shown that one-third to one-half of problem Internet gamblers attribute their gambling problems to land-based gambling, and more than half report that they had problems before gambling online [13, 20]. This is consistent with studies that suggest that problem Internet gamblers prefer land-based gambling over online gambling [24]. Few studies have investigated the types of gambling most likely to be associated with Internet gambling-related problems. In a national survey in Australia, nearly half of problem gamblers, including Internet gamblers, reported that electronic land-based gambling machines were the primary cause of their problems [13]. Internet gamblers were more likely to associate their problems with casino games, sports, sports betting, and poker betting [13, 20]. In particular, sports betting appears to be associated with moderate risk or problem gambling, a finding that has not been replicated among single players [13, 20]. However, this finding may be specific to Australia, as sports betting is one of the few legal online gambling options. Internet gambling participation appears to be more prevalent among problem gamblers than among non-problem gamblers [35 -]. Studies have shown that one-third to one-half of problem internet gamblers attribute their gambling problems to land-based gambling, and more than half report that they had problems before gambling online [13, 20]. This is consistent with research showing that problem internet gamblers prefer land-based gambling over online gambling [24]. Few studies have investigated the type of gambling most likely to be associated with internet gambling-related problems. In a national survey in Australia, nearly half of problem gamblers reported that electronic land-based gambling machines were the main cause of their problems, including internet gamblers [13]. Internet gamblers were more likely to associate problems with casino games, sports, sports betting, and poker betting [13, 20]. In particular, sports betting appears to be associated with moderate risk or problem gambling, a finding that has not been replicated among single players [13, 20]. However, this finding may be specific to Australia, as sports betting is one of the few legal online gambling options. Internet gambling participation appears to be more prevalent among problem gamblers compared to non-problem gamblers [35 -]. Studies have shown that one-third to one-half of problem Internet gamblers attribute their gambling problems to land-based gambling, and more than half report that they had problems before gambling online [13, 20]. This is consistent with research showing that problem Internet gamblers prefer land-based gambling over online gambling [24]. Few studies have investigated the types of gambling most likely to be associated with problems related to Internet gambling. In an Australian national survey, nearly half of problem gamblers reported that electronic land-based gambling machines were the primary cause of their problems, including Internet gamblers [13]. Internet gamblers were more likely to associate their problems with casino games, sports, sports betting, and poker betting [13, 20]. In particular, sports betting appears to be associated with moderate risk or problem gambling, a finding that has not been replicated among single players [13, 20]. However, this finding may be unique to Australia, as sports betting is one of the few legal online gambling options.

Conversely, for some of the problem gamblers, this gambling form seems to be the cause of the problem, and the problem gambler reports that the problem has begun after the first online gambling, and about half of the gambling form is a problem. [13, 20] reported that there is. These results are consistent with other research results [57-, 48], and for some problem gamblers, it seems that Internet gambling has worsened due to Internet gambling. It suggests that some people have existing problems. However, most of the research that examines the relationship between the Internet gambling and the relationship between the problems, is a simplicity that cannot determine the causal relationship, and sel f-reporting is susceptible to biased and based on the accuracy of the report. 。 A vertical study is an important study in this field to solve these problems. As the popularity and use of Internet gambling increases, the nex t-generation gambler is more likely to use the Internet function at an early stage of gambling carriers, and the percentage of individuals who experienced problems caused by this operation form will increase. be. However, it is growing that Internet gamblers are heterogeneous groups, and it is necessary to consider how to integrate Internet gambling behavior more widespread.

Analysis of population statistical variables suggests that gamblin g-related people who have Internet gambling are clearly different from gamblin g-related people who have problems with gambling on land. The dangerous factors of the Internet gambling problem have been confirmed that they are male, young, and have a variety of backgrounds [13, 20, 41, 66, 67]. The consistent relevance between the Internet gambling problem and the young people suggests that this group is particularly vulnerable to harm associated with this form, and the use of young men's Internet gambling is used. This is an area where you need to pay more attention not only in minimizing harm but also in research. < SPAN> Conversely, for some problem gamblers, this gambling form seems to be the cause of the problem, and the gambler reports that the problem has begun after the first online gambling, and about half of this gambling It has been reported that there is a problem in the form [13, 20]. These results are consistent with other research results [57-, 48], and for some problem gamblers, it seems that Internet gambling has worsened due to Internet gambling. It suggests that some people have existing problems. However, most of the research that examines the relationship between the Internet gambling and the relationship between the problems, is a simplicity that cannot determine the causal relationship, and sel f-reporting is susceptible to biased and based on the accuracy of the report. 。 A vertical study is an important study in this field to solve these problems. As the popularity and use of Internet gambling increases, the nex t-generation gambler is more likely to use the Internet function at an early stage of gambling carriers, and the percentage of individuals who experienced problems caused by this operation form will increase. be. However, it is growing that Internet gamblers are heterogeneous groups, and it is necessary to consider how to integrate Internet gambling behavior more widespread.

Analysis of population statistical variables suggests that gamblin g-related people who have Internet gambling are clearly different from gamblin g-related people who have problems with gambling on land. The dangerous factors of the Internet gambling problem have been confirmed that they are male, young, and have a variety of backgrounds [13, 20, 41, 66, 67]. The consistent relevance between the Internet gambling problem and the young people suggests that this group is particularly vulnerable to harm associated with this form, and the use of young men's Internet gambling is used. This is an area where you need to pay more attention not only in minimizing harm but also in research. Conversely, for some of the problem gamblers, this gambling form seems to be the cause of the problem, and the problem gambler reports that the problem has begun after the first online gambling, and about half of the gambling form is a problem. [13, 20] reported that there is. These results are consistent with other research results [57-, 48], and for some problem gamblers, it seems that Internet gambling has worsened due to Internet gambling. It suggests that some people have existing problems. However, most of the research that examines the relationship between the Internet gambling and the relationship between the problems, is a simplicity that cannot determine the causal relationship, and sel f-reporting is susceptible to biased and based on the accuracy of the report. 。 A vertical study is an important study in this field to solve these problems. As the popularity and use of Internet gambling increases, the nex t-generation gambler is more likely to use the Internet function at an early stage of gambling carriers, and the percentage of individuals who experienced problems caused by this operation form will increase. be. However, it is growing that Internet gamblers are heterogeneous groups, and it is necessary to consider how to integrate Internet gambling behavior more widespread.

Conclusions

Analysis of population statistical variables suggests that gamblin g-related people who have Internet gambling are clearly different from gamblin g-related people who have problems with gambling on land. The dangerous factors of the Internet gambling problem have been confirmed that they are male, young, and have a variety of backgrounds [13, 20, 41, 66, 67]. The consistent relevance between the Internet gambling problem and the young people suggests that this group is particularly vulnerable to harm associated with this form, and the use of young men's Internet gambling is used. This is an area where you need to pay more attention not only in minimizing harm but also in research.

The identified risk factors do not appear to be universal. For example, Gainsbury, Russell, Wood, Hing and Blaszczynski [13] found that problem Internet gamblers tend to be younger, less educated and more indebted than non-problem Internet gamblers. A later study found that when controlling for Internet participation, only age differed between Internet and non-Internet problem gamblers, but education and income did not differ significantly [20]. In contrast, Jiménez-Murcia et al. [68] found that online problem gamblers had higher education levels and higher socioeconomic status than non-problem gamblers. However, both groups showed similar psychopathological or personality profiles. Other studies have also found that Internet gamblers have higher education levels and socioeconomic profiles than non-Internet gamblers [e. g. 43, 48, 65] and higher levels of problem gambling. However, these are associations that do not control for interactions between variables, so it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about problem gamblers compared to non-Internet gamblers. It may be that the profile of people at risk for developing problematic Internet use is more likely to result in this.

Also, studies have found that Internet players have higher rates of comorbid health and mental disorders, such as smoking and alcohol use, substance abuse and dependence, and mood disorders, compared to non-Internet players [13, 15, 30, 31, 43, 44, 47 -, 49, 57 --, 67, 69, 70]. \ In one study, Internet gambling frequency was significantly associated with poorer physical and mental health after controlling for demographics and pathological gambling, but overall gambling frequency was not [71]. A study investigating irrational and faulty thinking found that higher levels of faulty cognitive measures significantly predicted gambling severity in Internet gamblers when controlling for other variables [46]. Given that psychological comorbidity and irrational thinking are associated with problems in land-based gamblers, these results suggest that the clinical characteristics of Internet problem gamblers are similar to offline gamblers.

There is also evidence that problem Internet gamblers have higher rates of drug and alcohol use than non-problem gamblers. An analysis of 1119 questionnaires completed by online gamblers showed that compared with non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers were more likely to smoke tobacco, have disorders, and drink alcohol while gambling online. [67] This is consistent with higher rates of mood disorders, substance use disorders, and self-harm among active online gambling participants. [70] An Australian telephone survey found that illegal drug use was a significant predictor of higher levels of problem gambling. [13] These results may suggest that Internet gamblers at risk for gambling addiction may engage in different risk-taking behaviors, such as due to higher impulsivity. [72] However, the relationship between Internet gambling, problem gambling, and other mental health problems is still unclear. [73] For example, many Swedish studies did not support the hypothesis that Internet gambling attracts people with low social support, psychological problems, physical problems, or health problems such as risky alcohol use [41]. Similarly, in an Australian study comparing at-risk and problem gamblers, offline gamblers were more likely than Internet gamblers to report health and psychological consequences of problem gambling [20]. Furthermore, in a nationally representative telephone survey in Australia, Internet gamblers were less likely to drink alcohol and smoke when gambling online than when gambling at land-based betting establishments [13].

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

1. Overall, existing studies have not been able to identify specific personal or behavioral risk factors to distinguish Internet players from non-Internet players. There is some evidence that they are at least partially distinct groups. However, heterogeneity within each group makes it difficult to identify specific risk factors. No studies have established a causal relationship between Internet gambling problems and their direction. Individual factors associated with Internet gambling problems are underestimated, and longitudinal studies would be beneficial to clarify the mechanisms of relationships between variables.
2. Many participation in gambling have been verified as a predictor of gambling addiction in online and offline gamblers. Other gamblin g-related behaviors have also been identified as potential gambling indicators on the Internet. The use of online gambling [41, 74] on untreated sites, multiple different accounts [75] and different online activities [20, 48, 57--] can predict higher levels of problem gambling. It is known. Untrained websites are likely to attract individuals with high risk of gambling, and the use of multiple online accounts and multiple activities is a proxy for participation in gambling, a known prediction factor of harm. It is.
3. By analyzing not only players who have closed their accounts due to gambling issues, but also players' accounts that seem to be dangerous behavior, it is possible to identify the gambling indicators of the early prediction factors. I have done it. Hig h-risk Internet gambling and problem gambling potential prediction factors include multiple online gambling activities, high betting volatility, multiple beds per day, multiple active beds per month, per day There are multiple beds, high-beds and net losses, bet size and loss, tracking of losses, and periods when the bed size increases rapidly [58, 59, 76-80]. The notable knowledge obtained from the study of Bwin. party dataset (including most of the behavioral analysis implemented so far) is a live action sports betting (also known as an i n-play (Impreity) if you control gambling. It is a consistent knowledge that participation in the problem is the independent prediction factor of the gambling [58, 59, 79]. In this type of betting, you can bet frequently during one sporting event, and the results are quickly determined, which may be particularly attractive to gamblin g-addicted patients. < SPAN> A lot of participation in gambling has been verified as a prediction factor for gambling addiction in online and offline gamblers. Other gamblin g-related behaviors have also been identified as potential gambling indicators on the Internet. The use of online gambling [41, 74] on untreated sites, multiple different accounts [75] and different online activities [20, 48, 57--] can predict higher levels of problem gambling. It is known. Untrained websites are likely to attract individuals with high risk of gambling, and the use of multiple online accounts and multiple activities is a proxy for participation in gambling, a known prediction factor of harm. It is.
4. By analyzing not only players who have closed their accounts due to gambling issues, but also players' accounts that seem to be dangerous behavior, it is possible to identify the gambling indicators of the early prediction factors. I have done it. Hig h-risk Internet gambling and problem gambling potential prediction factors include multiple online gambling activities, high betting volatility, multiple beds per day, multiple active beds per month, per day There are multiple beds, high-beds and net losses, bet size and loss, tracking of losses, and periods when the bed size increases rapidly [58, 59, 76-80]. The notable knowledge obtained from the study of Bwin. party dataset (including most of the behavioral analysis implemented so far) is a live action sports betting (also known as an i n-play (Impreity) if you control gambling. It is a consistent knowledge that participation in the problem is the independent prediction factor of the gambling [58, 59, 79]. In this type of betting, you can bet frequently during one sporting event, and the results are decided quickly, so it may be particularly attractive for gamblin g-addicted patients. The fact that gambling is high has been verified as a prediction factor for gambling addiction in online and offline gamblers. Other gamblin g-related behaviors have also been identified as potential gambling indicators on the Internet. The use of online gambling [41, 74] on untreated sites, multiple different accounts [75] and different online activities [20, 48, 57--] can predict higher levels of problem gambling. It is known. Untrained websites are likely to attract individuals with high risk of gambling, and the use of multiple online accounts and multiple activities is a proxy for participation in gambling, a known prediction factor of harm. It is.
5. By analyzing not only players who have closed their accounts due to gambling issues, but also players' accounts that seem to be dangerous behavior, it is possible to identify the gambling indicators of the early prediction factors. I have done it. Hig h-risk Internet gambling and problem gambling potential prediction factors include multiple online gambling activities, high betting volatility, multiple beds per day, multiple active beds per month, per day There are multiple beds, high-beds and net losses, bet size and loss, tracking of losses, and periods when the bed size increases rapidly [58, 59, 76-80]. The notable knowledge obtained from the study of Bwin. party dataset (including most of the behavioral analysis implemented so far) is a live action sports betting (also known as an i n-play (Impreity) if you control gambling. It is a consistent knowledge that participation in the problem is the independent prediction factor of the gambling [58, 59, 79]. In this type of betting, you can bet frequently during one sporting event, and the results are decided quickly, so it may be particularly attractive for gamblin g-addicted patients.
6. Online operators can also observe other information on the risk level of the player in addition to the behavior variable. Analyzing communication with customers with online operators, the risk indicators to predict customers who have closed their accounts due to gambling issues have been reported. This includes express questions about the game results, requests for resuming accounts, inquiries about financial transactions and account management, frequency of contact per month (urgent), and intimidating tone. These results were based on relatively small samples with limited control groups. Later research revealed that automatic text analysis of e-mail exchanges supported by human evaluation would not only do not only angry (abusive) but also urgency (tim e-related words) and sel f-exclusion. [83] It turned out that the low use of justification and/ or behavior could be identified. [83]
7. Since a single clear indicator indicating a problem is rare, detection of risk indicators usually depends on the algorithm that detects interaction between indicators. Further research is required to elucidate whether gamblin g-related characteristics play a causal role in the occurrence of gambling problems. In addition, most of the research is performed in a single dataset from a European gambling site, so it may not be possible to generalize other online gamblers, so research on various players is required. 。 By identifying, detecting, and dealing with early risk indicators, the gamblin g-related harm of Internet gamblers can be reduced. However, there are few online operators who share data used for research purposes, detect potentially risky players and implement policies and strategies to introduce appropriate resources. Such active actions are not generally required by Internet gaming regulations, so future measures will depend on busines s-led actions. Online operators can also observe other information on the risk level of the player in addition to the < SPAN> behavioral variable. Analyzing communication with customers with online operators, the risk indicators to predict customers who have closed their accounts due to gambling issues have been reported. This includes express questions about the game results, requests for resuming accounts, inquiries about financial transactions and account management, frequency of contact per month (urgent), and intimidating tone. These results were based on relatively small samples with limited control groups. Later research revealed that automatic text analysis of e-mail exchanges supported by human evaluation would not only do not only angry (abusive) but also urgency (tim e-related words) and sel f-exclusion. [83] It turned out that the low use of justification and/ or behavior could be identified. [83]
8. Since a single clear indicator indicating a problem is rare, detection of risk indicators usually depends on the algorithm that detects interaction between indicators. Further research is required to elucidate whether gamblin g-related characteristics play a causal role in the occurrence of gambling problems. In addition, most of the research is performed in a single dataset from a European gambling site, so it may not be possible to generalize other online gamblers, so research on various players is required. 。 By identifying, detecting, and dealing with early risk indicators, the gamblin g-related harm of Internet gamblers can be reduced. However, there are few online operators who share data used for research purposes, detect potentially risky players and implement policies and strategies to introduce appropriate resources. Such active actions are not generally required by Internet gaming regulations, so future measures will depend on busines s-led actions. Online operators can also observe other information on the risk level of the player in addition to the behavior variable. Analyzing communication with customers with online operators, the risk indicators for predicting customers who have closed their accounts have been reported due to gambling issues. This includes express questions about the game results, requests for resuming accounts, inquiries about financial transactions and account management, frequency of contact per month (urgent), and intimidating tone. These results were based on relatively small samples with limited control groups. Later research revealed that automatic text analysis of e-mail exchanges supported by human evaluation would not only do not only angry (abusive) but also urgency (tim e-related words) and sel f-exclusion. [83] It turned out that the low use of justification and/ or behavior could be identified. [83]
9. Since a single clear indicator indicating a problem is rare, detection of risk indicators usually depends on the algorithm that detects interaction between indicators. Further research is required to elucidate whether gamblin g-related characteristics play a causal role in the occurrence of gambling problems. In addition, most of the research is performed in a single dataset from a European gambling site, so it may not be possible to generalize other online gamblers, so research on various players is required. 。 By identifying, detecting, and dealing with early risk indicators, the gamblin g-related harm of Internet gamblers can be reduced. However, there are few online operators who share data used for research purposes, detect potentially risky players and implement policies and strategies to introduce appropriate resources. Such positive actions are not generally required by Internet gaming regulations, so future measures will depend on busines s-led actions.
10. Overall, the evidence reviewed here suggests that Internet gambling does not, in and of itself, cause gambling problems. However, Internet gambling use is more prevalent among high-involvement gamblers, and for some Internet gamblers, this medium appears to be a significant factor in their gambling problems. Internet gamblers are a heterogeneous population, and the impact of this access method on gambling problems is moderated by individual, social, and environmental variables. As Internet gambling continues to evolve and increases participation, especially among young people who are more familiar with Internet technology and online commerce, associated problems are likely to emerge. Research and regulation need to be developed to further understand the impact of this access method on the experience and incidence of gambling disorders.
11. There appear to be some unique differences between Internet gamblers and land-based problem gamblers [20]. Theoretical models of gambling and problem gambling have been developed based on land-based gambling and have rarely taken into account the recent emergence of the Internet as a form of operation. It is important to reexamine these conceptual models to examine whether they explain pathological gambling among Internet gamblers and whether new variables or interactions should be included to explain the emergence of problem gambling. Future research will continue to identify characteristics (mediators and moderators) that can be used to identify Internet gamblers at risk for gambling-related problems. This is necessary to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how people become addicted to gambling.
12. You need a research to understand how to reduce the possibility of gambling addiction. The Internet may provide a powerful environment for providing responsible gambling. This includes tools and resources focusing on players to reduce gambling, such as spending monitoring, sel f-setting of expenditure restrictions, outlet, and information [19- ,, 84]. In addition, operators support customers, such as gaming pattern s-based target alerts (such as po p-up messages) and other customizable contacts derived from the analysis of player accounts to identify risks. [2, 85] can be established. To strengthen the provision of a responsible gambling environment, design, evaluate, and verify strategies, independent researchers, operators that allow access to appropriate data, processes that require effective responsibilities. Regulatory authorities need to cooperate. Treatment and preventive strategies need to be reviewed to confirm that it is appropriate and effective for Internet gamblers. Not only online interventions, but also online thorough treatment programs may be related.
13. The findings shown here are important for policy proppons, as the evidence that the Internet gambling is not harmful. It is also an important study for clinicians, as a specific gambling form is more likely to lead to problems, and that gambling access to gambling also suggests that it will affect subsequent harm. This emphasizes the importance of taking into account a wide range of gambling behavior and how different gambling patterns are related to gamblin g-related experiences. Further research is required to identify the protection factors of the online gambling environment, which can reduce the harm level of Internet gamblers. This includes a lower bet size than the land gambling field (due to the low cost of the operator). Gambling can only be performed for a short time because you can track wins and losses and deposits using an online account, other activities are occurring at home or outside the gambling field. There are other people at the time of gambling. Access to responsible gambling tools and resources [51]
14. GAINSBURY S, WOOD R. Internet gambling policy critical comparison viewpoint: Effective of existing regulatory frameworks. Google Scholar
15. Responsible gambling strategy in Internet gambling: Responsible gambling strategy in Internet gambling: A theoretical and empirical basis for founding messaging that promotes sel f-awareness. Google Scholar
16. The American Psychiatric Association DSM 5. The US Psychiatric Society. 2013.
17. Dowling Na. Problems arising from the DSM-5 classification and diagnostic standard for Internet game failure. Poisoning. 2014, 109 (9): 1408-9. PubmedGoogle scholars
18. H2 capital gambling. Online gambling market. Source: Bwin. Party Digital Entertainment. 2014. Available URL: https: // www.
19. Global Betting and Gaming Consultants. World Gaming Report (6th edition).
20. H2 Gambling Capital. There is no virtual opportunity to gamble in real money games. Gibraltar: Odobo? 2013.
21. Price Water House Coupers. Http: // www. Pwc. Com/ja_gx/gx/entertainment-medical/publications/global-gaming-outlook.
22. Online gambling: Toward regulations across borders. Gambling Law. Econ. 2011-15 (4): 179-95. Google Schoolar
23. Gaming Committee. Participation in gambling: Activity and access method. Gambling Committee. 2014. APRHTTP: // www. %20To%20march%202014.
24. Commission P. Gambling. Australian government: Productivity Commission (Productivity Committee). 2010. Google Scholar
25. GainSbury S, Russell A, Hing N, Wood R, Lubman D, Blaszczynski A. Problem Gambling in Australia: Evaluate the effects of tw o-way gambling and new technology. Psychol Addict Behav. This paper compared the problem gambling between the Internet and the no n-Internet gambler using a national telephone survey, revealing the variables related to each. As a result, the problem gambler on the Internet has also experienced harm to land gambling, and that gambling is related to the overall participation and strength rather than the usage form. PUBMEDGOOGLE SCHOLAR
26. Gamble's Patent Survey 2007 (UK Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007). http: // www. gamblingCommission. GOV. UK/PDF/Britsh%20GAMBLING%20prevaleNCE%20SURVEY%202007%20-%202007. pdf.
27. GainSbury S, Russell a, Hing N, Blaszczynski a. A. Gital Revolution: Comparing Demographic Profiles Net and Non-Internet Gamblers.
28. Makomac A, Griffith MD. Motivation factors and suppression factors in online gambling behavior: Grounded theory research. Google Scholar
29. Why do Internet gamblers prefer online gambling? Several preliminary findings and suggestions. J Gambl Issues. Google School
30. Blackjack in Cotte J, Latour Ka. Kitchen: Understand online gambling and casino gambling. J Consum RES. 2009-35 (5): 742-58. Google Scholar
31. Attitude toward Internet gambling: Responsible gambling, consumer protection, recognition of gambling regulations. Google Scholar
32. Internet gambling impact on gambling: Comparison of medium risk and problematic Internet gambler and no n-Internet gambler comparison Psychol Addict BEHAV. Based on the use of Internet gambling based on a larg e-scale online survey, moderate risk I compared the gambler and the gambler. As a result, the Internet gambler, which has experienced gambling harm, has shown that it is a slightly different group from no n-Internet gamblers and moderate risk gamblers. PUBMEDGOOGLE SCHOLAR
33. Social effects of Internet gambling. SoC Sci Comput Rev. 2002, 20 (3): 312-20. Google School
34. The US Gaming Impact Investigation Committee. 1999. Http: // www. NCFPC. Org/SpecialNGISC. HTML.
35. Watson S, Liddell JR R, Moore RS, ESHEEE JR WD. Internet gambling from the viewpoint of consumer protection. J Public Policy Markk.
36. Problem gambling on the Internet: Implications for Internet gambling policy in North America. 2007, 9 (3): 520-42. This paper is based on one of the first comprehensive studies of Internet gambling in Canadian and international samples. It provides new insights into the differences between Internet and land-based gambling. Google Scholar
37. Adams GR, Sullivan AM, Horton KD, Menna R, Guilmette AM. Canadian college students' gambling and proximity to a casino. J Gambl Issues. 2007, 19: 9-18. Google Scholar
38. Understanding the effects of gambling opportunities: an extension of the exposure model to include adaptation. 2007, 77(4): 616-23. PubMedgoogle Scholar
39. Reith G. Beyond addiction and compulsion: the continuing role of the environment in pathological gambling. Addiction. 2012, 107: 1736-7. PubMedgoogle scholar
40. Sévigny S, Ladouceur R, Jacques C, Cantinotti M. Associations between proximity to casinos and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology. Psychol Addict Behav.
41. Storer J, Abbott M, Stubbs J. Access or adaptation? A meta-analysis of studies on the prevalence of problem gambling and electronic gaming machine concentration in Australia and New Zealand.
42. Welte JW, Wieczorek WF, Barnes GM, Tidwell MC, Hoffman JH. Relationships between ecological and geographic factors in gambling behavior and pathology. J Gambl Stud. 2004 - 20 (4): 405-23. pubMedgoogle scholar
43. Griffiths MD, Wardle H, Orford J, Sproston K, Ellens B. Socio-demographic correlates of Internet gambling: Findings from the 2007 UK Gambling Survey. CyberPsychol Behav.
44. Hing N, Cherney L, Gainsbury S, Lubman D, Wood R, Blaszczynski A. Retention and loss of control during Internet gambling: a qualitative study of gamblers' experiences. 1177/1461444814521140Google Scholar
45. McCormack A, Griffiths MD. A field study of the components and conditions of Internet gambling. Int J Cyber ​​Behat Psychol Learm.
46. Valentine G, Hughes K. Understanding family and intimacy at home through the lens of online play. T I Brit Geogr. 2012 - 37 (2): 242-55.
47. Relationship between online gambling and problem gambling. WILLIAMS RJ, Wood RT, PARKE J, EDITORS. Routedge Handbook of Internet Gambling. 212.
48. Gainsbury S, Russell A, Wood R, Hing N, Blaszczynski A. How dangerous is Internet gambling? Comparison of Internet gambler su b-groups depending on the presence or absence of gambling addiction. NEW MEDIA SOC. 1177/1461444813518185. Based on the online survey, the problem gambler and the no n-problem gambler were compared. The gambler was shown to be a separate group among gamblers, indicating the heterogeneity of the Internet gambler. Respondents of the problem gambler are younger, less educated, have more household debt, have more losings, and tend to use drugs during gambling compared to no n-problem gamblers and risk gamblers. Ta. For problem gamblers, Internet gambling causes a unique problem related to electronic payments and constantly available, leading to sleep disorders. Google Scholar
49. Hing N, GAINSBURY S, BLASZZCZYNSKI A, WOOD R, LUBMAN D, Russell A. Interactive gambling. A report from Gambling Research Australia. CENTER FOR GAMBLING EDUCATION & AMP; AMP; AVAILABLE from: http: // www. Interactive+Gambling+PDF
50. Siemens JC, Kopp Sw. Online gambling environment has an effect on sel f-control. Signal Public Policy Journal. 2011; 30: 279-93. Google School
51. Wood R, PREVALENCE, PATTERNS, Problems and Policy Options. Gle Scholar
52. Gamcare. Gamcare Annual Statistics 2013/14. Http: // www. VL7VDUEUFWG.
53. Internet gambling incidence in SVENSSON J, ROMILD U. Sweden: As a result of Swedish vertical gambling research Int Gambl Stud. 11 (3): 357-75.
54. Hing N, Russell AMT, GAINSBURY SM, BLASZZCZYNSKI A. Characteristics and Help-Seeking BEHAVIORS OFNTERNET GAMBLERS BASED ON THEIR MOST PROBLEMATIC Balling Mode. J Med Internet Res; 17 (1): E13. 2196/JMIR.
55. Wood R, WILLIAMS R. A Comparative Profile of Internet Gamblers: DeMographic Characteristics, Gambling Patterns, and Problem Gambling Status. New Media Society. 13: 1123-41. Google Schoolar
56. Internet gambling, health, smoking, alcohol using alcohol: Installation from the 2007 British gambling rate survey. Int J Ment Health Addict; 9: 1-11. Google Scholar
57. Is the online gambler more risky than the offline gambler? Cyberpsychol Behav SoC Netw. 15: 175-80.
58. MACKAY TL, Hodgins DC. Cognitive distortion as a problem risk factor in Internet gambling. Int Gambl Stud. 12 (2): 163-75. Google Scholar
59. Internet gambling: New concerns in home medicine? Family Practice. 23: 421-6. PubmedGoogle Schoolar
60. Definition and behavior of online gambling: Velk from the 2010 British gambling rate survey Int Gamb Stud. 11 (3): 339-56. This paper is based on the 2010 British gambling rate survey. An analysis of the integration of online gambling and offline gambling, including gamblers using both gambling. This paper is one of the first paper that emphasizes that there are few gamblers on the Internet, and that gambling problems are high among those who are absorbed in various forms of gambling.
61. Internet gambling behavior in Mcbride J, Derevensky J. Online Gambler Sample. Int J Ment Health Addict. 7 (1): 149-67. Google Scholar
62. In 2007 British gambling, gambling, gambling type, gambling participation EUR J Public Health. 2011;
63. Participation in online gambling and the severity of gambling of gambling: Is there a causal relationship; Int Gambl Stud? 14: 214-27. Controling gambling indicates that Internet gambling is unrelated to gambling addiction, and may be exaggerated for public health concerns based on simplified analysis. Google Scalar
64. Welte JW, Barnes GM, Tidwell Mo, Hoffman JH. Psychol Addict Behav;
65. Abbott M, Bellringer M, Garrett N, Mundy-Mcpherson S. New Zealand 2012 National Gambling Study MP; amp ;. Auckland, New Zealand. Google Schoolar.
66. Welte JW, Barnes GM, Tidwell MCO, Hoffman JH, WEECZOREK WF. Gambling and Problem Gambling: Gambling and Problem Gambling: Changes between 1999 and 2013.
67. Related to Planzer S, Gray HM, Shafer HJ. Related to gambling policies and gambling addiction in Europe. Int J Law Psychiat.
68. GainSbury S, Russell A, Blaszczynski A, Hing N. Gambling and access methods: Internet only, land only, mixed gambling comparison. Addict Behav. Based on a large online survey, participants were compared based on the use of Internet and lan d-based gambling. As a result, gamblers, which use both the Internet and the land, have the highest overall gambling involvement, and the level of the problem gambling is the highest. This study confirms the importance of considering participation in gambling through all the subgroups of the Internet or gambler. PUBMEDGOOGLE SCHOLAR
69. LLOYD J, Doll H, Hawton K, Dutton WH, Geddes Jr, GOODWIN GM, et al. Internet gamer: The potential class analysis of their actions and health experiences. 2010-26 (3): 387-99. This paper reports the results of a larg e-scale online survey in the UK using the incubation order analysis to identify the gambler su b-group. This paper is one of the first papers that escaped from the tw o-part method of Internet gambler and no n-Internet gambler, and the gambler gambling cluster is higher, and the Internet gambler is a different group. By indicating that, he made a great contribution.
70. Laplanteda, Nelson SE, Gray Hm. Involved in amplitude and depth: Understand the relationship between the involvement of Internet gambling and the gambling. This is a series of papers based on the online database of the actual player of European businesses in European businesses. This paper includes an innovative methodology called a sel f-reported screen using behavioral data. The gambling of various types of activities has been analyzed to demonstrate that the overall participation (the type of game type and the number of play days) is related to the gambling problem. PUBMEDGOOGLE SCHOLAR
71. BROSOWSKI T, MEYER G, HAYER T. Multiple gambling type analysis for one provider: Extended framework for evaluating actual online gambling behavior.
72. Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Wang J, EL-Guebaly N, Wynne H, Chen S, et Al. Addiction. 2006, 101: 570-80. PubmedGoogle Scholar
73. Evaluation of gambling severity index. J Gambl Stud. 2009-25 (1): 105-20.
74. Raplante Da, Afifi To, Shafer HJ. Casino customers are involved in gaming and gambling. 2013, 29: 191-203. PubmedGoogle scholars
75. Makomac A, Smaller GW, Griffith MD. Verify the relationship between participation in online gambling and gambling. J Addict. 2013-2 (1): 31-41. PubmedGoogle Scholar
76. TOM MA, Laplainte Da, Shaffer HJ. The Pareto Rule of Internet Gambling? Important minority "and" Numerous many ". J Gambl Bus Econ. 2014-8 (1): 73-100. Google Scholar
77. Can Dowling Na, Lorains FK, Jackson AC. Is the profile of university online players generalized to ordinary Internet players? Comput Hum BEHAV. 2015-43: 118-28. Google Scholar
78. Hayer T, Meyer G. ONLINE SELF-EXCLUSION ICT. 2011; 9 (3): 296-307. Google Scholar
79. Makomac A, Smaller GW, Griffith MD. Problem gambling features and prediction factors on the Internet. Int J Ment Health Addict.
80. Jimenez-Murcia S, Stinchfield R, Fernández-Aranda F, Santamaria JJ, Penelo E, Granero R, et al. Do online pathological gamblers and non-online pathological gamblers differ in terms of demographics, gambling problem severity, psychopathology, and personality traits? Int Gambl Stud. 11(3): 325-37. Google Scholar
81. Hopley AA, Nicki RM. Predictors of excessive online poker. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 13 (4): 379-85. PubMedGoogle Scholar
82. Lloyd J, Dole H, Houghton K, Dutton WH, Geddes JR, Goodwin GM, et al. How psychological symptoms relate to different motives for gambling: an Internet study of Internet gamblers. Biol Psychiat. 68(8):733-40. PubMedGoogle Scholar
83. Petry NM, Weinstock J. Internet gambling is prevalent among college students and associated with poorer mental health. Am J Addiction. 16:325-30 Google Scholar
84. Lehman RF, Potenza MN. Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance use disorders: Focus on impulsivity and compulsivity. Psychopharmacology. 2012; CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
85. Scholes-Balog KE, Hemphill A. E. The relationship of online gambling to mental health and substance use: a review. Cyberpsych Behav Soc Netw. 15(12):688-92. google scholar

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Tryggvesson K. Internet poker in Sweden: Scope, growth, and structure in 2006. Stockholm: Stockholm University;. 2007. English abstract of Nätpokerspelandet i Sverige: Omfattning, utveckling och karaktär 2006 Soradrapport 43.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

Gainsbury S, Russell A, Blaszczynski A, Hing N. Increasing online gambling participation and diversity as risk factors for problem gambling. Eur J Pub Health. 1093/eurpub/ckv006PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Adami N, Benini S, Boschetti A, Canini L, Maione F, Temporin M. Indicators of unsustainable gambling for early detection of risky online gamblers. 188-204 Google Scholar