Gambling in Western and Eastern Europe: The Example of Hungary

Abstract

The history of gambling in post-socialist countries is noticeably different from that of other countries in Europe. The goal of this study was therefore twofold: Firstly, to systematically review all European epidemiological studies related to excessive gambling in the general adult population, and secondly, to provide an overview of the state of gambling in Hungary based on the first ever nationwide representative survey, setting the results against the backdrop of the earlier European studies. A systematic review was carried out of European gambling studies which focus on a representative adult general population. Hungarian data was obtained from the National Survey on Addiction Problems in Hungary general adult population survey (N = 2,710). Pathological gambling was measured by the South Oaks Gambling Screen. Lifetime prevalence of excessive gambling (problem and pathological gambling) in the general adult population of European countries varies between 1.1% (Italy and Spain) and 6.5% (Estonia). In Hungary, the prevalence of problem gambling is 1.9%, with pathological gambling at 1.4%. The socio-demographic characteristics of the results are similar to those of other European countries. Using epidemiological data from the general adult populations of two post-socialist nations, it was possible to compare the results with data from 12 other European countries. Based on the data available, the extremely rapid liberation of the gambling market in the post-socialist countries has led to a similarly swift escalation in associated gambling problems.

Gambling disorders, gambling type preferences, and psychiatric comorbidity among the Thai general population: Results of the 2013 National Mental Health Survey

“…The prevalence rates of pathological gambling (0.94%) and problem gambling (1.2%) in our study are lower than that found in western and eastern Asian countries (Castren et al., 2013; Cox, Yu, Afifi, & Ladouceur, 2005; Hodgins, Stea, & Grant, 2011; Kessler et al., 2008; Kun et al., 2012; Lorains, Cowlishaw, & Thomas, 2011; Park et al., 2010; Subramaniam et al., 2015). This may due to the use of different research instruments and the fact that many kinds of gambling asked in the CIDI are less available in Thailand.…”

“…More recent studies found different prevalence rates of problem and pathological gambling by world regions. The prevalence of problem gambling in western countries including England (Cowlishaw & Kessler, 2016), Finland (Castren et al., 2013), and Hungary (Kun, Balazs, Arnold, Paksi, & Demetrovics, 2012) ranges between 0.7% and 1.9% with rate as high as 3.0% in South Korea (Park et al., 2010). Furthermore, the prevalence of pathological gambling varies between 1.1% (Italy and Spain) and 6.5% (Estonia) in European countries (Kun et al., 2012), while it was 0.8% in South Korea (Park et al., 2010) and 2.7% in Singapore (Subramaniam, Abdin, Vaingankar, Wong, & Chong, 2015).…”

Criterion-related and construct validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index in a sample of South African gamblers

“…The researchers suggest that the high number of questions relating to money matters in the SOGS (e.g., arguments about the handling of money) may be causing the selective overrepresentation among poorer gamblers, a concern also raised by other groups (Battersby, Thomas, Tolchard, & Esterman, 2002;Duvarci, Varan, Coskunol, & Ersoy, 1997;Stinchfield, 2002;Walker & Dickerson, 1996). This explanation would appear to be supported by the high prevalence rates observed in a Puerto Rican study (6.8% pathological gamblers using the SOGS) (Volberg & Vales, 2002) as well as by the rapid rise in SOGS recorded gambling problems noted in post-socialist countries such as Hungry (Kun et al, 2012). However, as Young and Stevens (2008) do not compare their survey screening classifications among the poor with diagnosis via clinical interview, it is not clear how these findings should be interpreted with respect to the DSM classification.…”

“…These subjects are outliers on many psychological dimensions (for a recent review, see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). The same consideration might well apply to gambling studies, where with the exception of prevalence research in Puerto Rico (Volberg & Vales, 2002) and Hungry (Kun, Balázs, Arnold, & Borbála, 2012), very few studies have engaged with gambling (or gambling measures) in non-Westernised countries.…”

Gambling Among Adolescents and Emerging Adults: A Cross-Cultural Study Between Portuguese and English Youth

“…In addition, individuals from one specific cultural background may view gambling as more prevalent, socially acceptable, and less risky than people from other cultural backgrounds (Kun et al 2012). …”