Researchers found that gambling in any capacity - pathological, problem, or so-called casual gambling - related to significantly increased risk of violence, including domestic abuse.
Researchers from the University of Lincoln and Imperial College London in the UK surveyed 3,025 men about whether they had ever engaged in violent behaviour, including if they had ever been in a physical fight, assaulted or deliberately hit anyone, if they had used a weapon, and whether the violence was perpetrated when they were drunk or on drugs.
The men surveyed - who came from a range of socio-economic backgrounds across the UK and varied in age - were also asked about whether they gambled.
Eighty per cent of participants admitted to taking part in some sort of gambling activity during their lifetime.
The researchers found a statistically significant link between gambling and violent behaviour, which became starker the more severe the gambling habit.
Just over half of pathological gamblers, 45 per cent of problem gamblers, and 28 per cent of 'casual gamblers' reported some form of physical fight in the past five years.
Additionally, gambling was associated with an increased likelihood of weapons being used in acts of violence, with more than a quarter in the pathological category, 18 per cent of problem gamblers, and seven per cent of non-problem gamblers reporting weapon usage.
Just over 15 per cent of non-problem gamblers also admitted to having had a fight while intoxicated, which rose to more than a quarter in problem gamblers and almost a third in pathological gamblers.
The study also found that pathological and problem gamblers are more likely to have hit a child, with almost 10 per cent of pathological gamblers and just over six per cent of problem gamblers admitting to such behaviour.
The results remained statistically significant even after adjusting the data to account for related characteristics such as mental illness or impulsive behaviour.
However, it was not clear whether gambling and the propensity towards violence have a common cause, or whether one increases risk of the other.
The research was published in the journal Addiction.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
