IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/esr/resser/sustat119.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Problem gambling: A narrative review of important policy-relevant issues

Author

Listed:
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid
  • Timmons, Shane
  • Robertson, Deirdre
  • Lunn, Pete

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Problem gambling: A narrative review of important policy-relevant issues," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT119.
    • Handle: RePEc:esr:resser:sustat119
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.26504/sustat119
    Note: Published by the ESRI
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.esri.ie/pubs/SUSTAT119.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.26504/sustat119?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frédéric Dussault & Natacha Brunelle & Sylvia Kairouz & Michel Rousseau & Danielle Leclerc & Joël Tremblay & Marie-Marthe Cousineau & Magali Dufour, 2017. "Transition from playing with simulated gambling games to gambling with real money: a longitudinal study in adolescence," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 386-400, September.
    2. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Blair, Graeme & Coppock, Alexander & Moor, Margaret, 2020. "When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias: A Social Reference Theory and Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1297-1315, November.
    4. Robert Ladouceur & Alex Blaszczynski & Daniel R. Lalande, 2012. "Pre-commitment in gambling: a review of the empirical evidence," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 215-230, January.
    5. Nilsson, Håkan & Andersson, Patric, 2010. "Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: Effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 172-180, April.
    6. David Zendle & Paul Cairns, 2019. "Loot boxes are again linked to problem gambling: Results of a replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    8. Jun-Wu Yu & Guo-Liang Tian & Man-Lai Tang, 2008. "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 251-263, April.
    9. McGinnity, Frances & Creighton, Mathew & Fahey, Éamonn, 2020. "Hidden versus revealed attitudes: a list experiment on support for minorities in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number BKMNEXT372.
    10. Paul H. Delfabbro & Daniel L. King, 2021. "The behaviour-attitude divide: understanding public attitudes towards gambling," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 153-167, January.
    11. Cristina Bicchieri & Eugen Dimant, 2022. "Nudging with care: the risks and benefits of social information," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 443-464, June.
    12. Newall, Philip W. S., 2015. "How bookies make your money," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 225-231, May.
    13. Bryn Rosenfeld & Kosuke Imai & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2016. "An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 783-802, July.
    14. Carroll, Eamonn & Timmons, Shane & McGinnity, Frances, 2023. "Experimental tests of public support for disability policy," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS159.
    15. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2011. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 169-193, February.
    16. Sally M. Gainsbury & Nerilee Hing & Paul H. Delfabbro & Daniel L. King, 2014. "A taxonomy of gambling and casino games via social media and online technologies," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 196-213, August.
    17. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    18. Graeme Blair & Kosuke Imai & Yang-Yang Zhou, 2015. "Design and Analysis of the Randomized Response Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(511), pages 1304-1319, September.
    19. Rachel A. Volberg & Dean R. Gerstein & Eugene M. Christiansen & John Baldridge, 2001. "Assessing self-reported expenditures on gambling," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1-3), pages 77-96.
    20. Erceg, Nikola & Galić, Zvonimir, 2014. "Overconfidence bias and conjunction fallacy in predicting outcomes of football matches," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 52-62.
    21. Tim Kuypers, 2000. "Information and efficiency: an empirical study of a fixed odds betting market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(11), pages 1353-1363.
    22. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco Gregori & Martijn G. Jong & Rik Pieters, 2024. "The Crosswise Model for Surveys on Sensitive Topics: A General Framework for Item Selection and Statistical Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1007-1033, September.
    2. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    3. Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    4. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    5. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Carroll, Eamonn & Timmons, Shane & McGinnity, Frances, 2023. "Experimental tests of public support for disability policy," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS159.
    7. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    8. Claire Cullen, 2023. "Method Matters: The Underreporting of Intimate Partner Violence," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 37(1), pages 49-73.
    9. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    10. Sylvain Chassang & Christian Zehnder, 2024. "Secure Survey Design in Organizations: Theory and Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 371-405, November.
    11. James E. Prieger, 2023. "Tax noncompliance: The role of tax morale in smokers' behavior," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(4), pages 653-673, October.
    12. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2021. "Cognitive bias in insurance: Evidence from a health scheme in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    13. Nerilee Hing & Cassandra K. Dittman & Alex M. T. Russell & Daniel L. King & Matthew Rockloff & Matthew Browne & Philip Newall & Nancy Greer, 2022. "Adolescents Who Play and Spend Money in Simulated Gambling Games Are at Heightened Risk of Gambling Problems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, August.
    14. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    15. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    16. Liu, Yin & Tian, Guo-Liang, 2013. "A variant of the parallel model for sample surveys with sensitive characteristics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 115-135.
    17. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Measures of problem gambling, gambling behaviours and perceptions of gambling in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS169.
    18. Robin Chark & Soo Chew, 2015. "A neuroimaging study of preference for strategic uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 209-227, June.
    19. Shen-Ming Lee & Phuoc-Loc Tran & Truong-Nhat Le & Chin-Shang Li, 2023. "Prediction of a Sensitive Feature under Indirect Questioning via Warner’s Randomized Response Technique and Latent Class Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2017. "Cognitive Bias in Insurance: Evidence from India," CEPR Discussion Papers 12242, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:esr:resser:sustat119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Burns (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esriiie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.