References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been

highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
1. Gainsbury S, Wood R. Internet gambling policy in critical comparative
perspective: the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks. Int
Gambl Stud. 2011;11:309–23.

Google Scholar 

2. Monaghan S. Responsible gambling strategies for Internet gambling:

the theoretical and empirical base of using pop-up messages to
encourage self-awareness. Comput Hum Behav. 2009;25(1):202–7.

Google Scholar 

3. American Psychiatric Association. DSM 5. American Psychiatric

Association; 2013.
4. Dowling NA. Issues raised by the DSM-5 internet gaming disorder
classification and proposed diagnostic criteria. Addiction.
2014;109(9):1408–9.

Google Scholar 

5. H2 Gambling Capital. The online gambling market. Reported by

Bwin.party digitial entertainment; 2014. Available
from: https://www.bwinparty.com/AboutUs/OurMarkets/The
%20online%20gaming%20market.aspx
6. Global Betting and Gaming Consultants. Global Gaming Report (6th
ed.). Castletown, Isle of Man, British Isles: Author; 2011.
7. H2 Gambling Capital. There’s nothing virtual about the opportunity in
real-money gambling. Gibraltar: Odobo; 2013.

Google Scholar 

8. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Global gaming outlook. Dec 2011. Available

from http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/entertainment-media/publicatio
ns/global-gaming-outlook.jhtml
9. Lycka M. Online gambling: towards a transnational regulation. Gaming
Law Rev Econ. 2011;15(4):179–95.

Google Scholar 

10.Gambling Commission. Gambling participation: activities and mode of

access. Gambling Commission. 2014 Apr. Available from: 2014.
Aprhttp://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/Survey%20data
%20on%20gambling%20participation%20year%20to%20March
%202014.pdf
11. Commission P. Gambling. Government of Australia: Productivity
Commission; 2010.

Google Scholar 

12.Gainsbury S, Russell A, Hing N, Wood R, Lubman D, Blaszczynski A.

The prevalence and determinants of problem gambling in Australia:
assessing the impact of interactive gambling and new technologies.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(3):769–79. Using a nationally
representative telephone survey, this paper compared
problem gambling among Internet and non-Internet gamblers
to reveal variables related to each. The findings demonstrate
that Internet problem gamblers experience harms also
related to land-based gambling and that gambling problems
are related to overall involvement and intensity rather than
the mode of access used.

PubMed Google Scholar 

13.Wardle H, Sproston K, Orford J, Erens B, Griffiths M, Constantine R,

Pigott S. British gambling prevalence survey 2007. Nat Cen; 2007
Available from: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/britsh
%20gambling%20prevalence%20survey%202007%20-%20sept
%202007.pdf.
14.Gainsbury S, Wood R, Russell A, Hing N, Blaszczynski A. A digital
revolution: comparison of demographic profiles, attitudes and gambling
behavior of Internet and non-Internet gamblers. Comput Hum Behav.
2012;28(4):1388–98.

Google Scholar 
15. McCormack A, Griffiths MD. Motivating and inhibiting factors in online
gambling behaviour: a grounded theory study. Int J Ment Health Addict.
2012;10(1):39–53.

Google Scholar 

16.Wood RT, Williams RJ, Lawton PK. Why do Internet gamblers prefer
online versus land-based venues? Some preliminary findings and
implications. J Gambl Issues. 2007;20:235–52.

Google Scholar 

17. Cotte J, Latour KA. Blackjack in the kitchen: understanding online

versus casino gambling. J Consum Res. 2009;35(5):742–58.

Google Scholar 

18.Gainsbury S, Parke J, Suhonen N. Attitudes towards Internet gambling:

perceptions of responsible gambling, consumer protection, and
regulation of gambling sites. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29:235–45.

Google Scholar 

19.Gainsbury SM, Russell A, Hing N, Wood R, Blaszczynski A. The impact

of Internet gambling on gambling problems: a comparison of moderate-
risk and problem Internet and non-Internet gamblers. Psychol Addict
Behav. 2013;27:1092–101. Based on a large online survey,
moderate-risk and problem gamblers were compared based
on their use of Internet gambling. The results demonstrate
that Internet gamblers who experience gambling-related
harms appear to represent a somewhat different group from
non-Internet problem and moderate-risk gamblers—Internet
gamblers were younger, engaged in a greater number of
gambling activities, and were more likely to bet on sports.

PubMed Google Scholar 

20. Griffiths MD, Parke J. The social impact of internet gambling. Soc
Sci Comput Rev. 2002;20(3):312–20.
 Google Scholar 

21.National Gambling Impact Study Commission. National Gambling

Impact Study Commission-Final Report; 1999. Available
from http://www.ncfpc.org/specialngisc.html.
22. Watson S, Liddell Jr P, Moore RS, Eshee Jr WD. The legalization
of Internet gambling: a consumer protection perspective. J Public Policy
Markk. 2004;23(2):209–13.

Google Scholar 

23. Wood RT, Williams RJ. Problem gambling on the Internet:

implications for Internet gambling policy in North America. New Media
Soc. 2007;9(3):520–42. This paper was based on one of the first
comprehensive studies of Internet gambling in a Canadian
and international sample. The article provided substantial
new insight into how Internet and land-based gamblers differ.

Google Scholar 

24. Adams GR, Sullivan AM, Horton KD, Menna R, Guilmette AM. A
study of differences in Canadian university students' gambling and
proximity to a casino. J Gambl Issues. 2007;19:9–18.

Google Scholar 

25. LaPlante DA, Shaffer HJ. Understanding the influence of

gambling opportunities: expanding exposure models to include
adaptation. Am J Orthopsychiat. 2007;77(4):616–23.

PubMed Google Scholar 

26. Reith G. Beyond addiction or compulsion: the continuing role of

environment in the case of pathological gambling. Addiction.
2012;107:1736–7.

PubMed Google Scholar 
27.Sévigny S, Ladouceur R, Jacques C, Cantinotti M. Links between casino
proximity and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2008;22(2):295–301.

PubMed Google Scholar 

28. 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 of concentration of electronic gaming
machines. Int Gambl Stud. 2009;9:225–44.

Google Scholar 

29. Welte JW, Wieczorek WF, Barnes GM, Tidwell MC, Hoffman JH.
The relationship of ecological and geographic factors to gambling
behavior and pathology. J Gambl Stud. 2004;20(4):405–23.

PubMed Google Scholar 

30. Griffiths MD, Wardle H, Orford J, Sproston K, Erens B.

Sociodemographic correlates of internet gambling: findings from the
2007 British gambling prevalence survey. Cyberpsychol Behav.
2009;12:199–202.

PubMed Google Scholar 

31.Hing N, Cherney L, Gainsbury S, Lubman D, Wood R, Blaszczynski A.

Maintaining and losing control during Internet gambling: a qualitative
study of gamblers’ experiences. New Med Soc. 2014. Online first 27-01-
14 DOI: 10.1177/1461444814521140

Google Scholar 

32. McCormack A, Griffiths MD. A scoping study of the structural and

situational characteristics of Internet gambling. Int J Cyber Behav
Psychol Learm. 2013;3(1):29–49.

Google Scholar 
33. Valentine G, Hughes K. Shared space, distant lives?
Understanding family and intimacy at home through the lens of internet
gambling. T I Brit Geogr. 2012;37(2):242–55.

Google Scholar 

34. Wood RT, Williams RJ, Parke J. The relationship between

Internet gambling and problem gambling. In: Williams RJ, Wood RT,
Parke J, editors. Routledge Handbook on Internet Gambling. Oxon, UK;
2012. 200-212.
35. Gainsbury S, Russell A, Wood R, Hing N, Blaszczynski A. How
risky is Internet gambling? A comparison of subgroups of Internet
gamblers based on problem gambling status. New Media Soc. 2014.
doi:10.1177/1461444813518185. Based on an online survey,
problem and non-problem Internet gamblers were compared.
Problem gamblers were shown to represent a distinct cohort
of gamblers, demonstrating the heterogeneity of Internet
gamblers. Problem gambling respondents were younger, less
educated, had higher household debt, lost more money and
gambled on a greater number of activities, and were more
likely to use drugs while gambling as compared to non-
problem and at-risk gamblers. For problem gamblers,
Internet gambling poses unique problems related to
electronic payment and constant availability leading to
disrupted sleeping and eating patterns.

Google Scholar 

36. Hing N, Gainsbury S, Blaszczynski A, Wood R, Lubman D, Russell

A. Interactive gambling. Report commissioned by Gambling Research
Australia. Centre for Gambling Education & Research, Southern Cross
University; 2014. Available
from: http://www.gamblingresearch.org.au/home/interactive+gamblin
g+pdf
37.Siemens JC, Kopp SW. The influence of online gambling environments
on self-control. Journal Public Policy Mark. 2011;30:279–93.