The American Journal on Addictions, 16:325–330, 2007
Copyright # American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
ISSN: 1055-0496 print / 1521-0391 online
DOI: 10.1080/10550490701525673
Internet Gambling Is Common in College Students
and Associated with Poor Mental Health
Nancy M. Petry, PhD, Jeremiah Weinstock, PhD
University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut
This study evaluated prevalence of Internet gambling
and its association with pathological gambling and mental
health status in college students. The South Oaks Gambling
Screen and General Health Questionnaire were adminis-
tered to 1356 undergraduates, and 23% reported ever
gambling on the Internet, with 6.3% reporting Internet
gambling weekly. Almost two-thirds (61.6%) of regular
Internet gamblers were pathological gamblers, compared
with 23.9% of infrequent Internet gamblers and 5.0% of
non-Internet gamblers. Internet gambling frequency was
significantly associated with poor mental health, after con-
trolling for demographics and pathological gambling. These
data call for prevention and treatment efforts of Internet
gambling in students. (Am J Addict 2007;16:325–330)
Pathological gambling is characterized by continued gam-
bling in spite of negative consequences. Prevalence rates
of pathological gambling range from 0.4 to 1.9% in gen-
eral population studies.1–3 Among college students, rates
of pathological gambling may be even higher, with
Shaffer, Hall and Vander Bilt4 reporting 3–6% of
students suffering from pathological gambling. Recent
studies report rates of pathological gambling to be as high
as 3% to 9% in college students,5–8 although some studies
find rates of pathological gambling in students to be
consistent with general population rates.9
Gambling appears to have risen with legalization and
availability of betting opportunities,4 and today’s youth
has grown up exposed to a variety of gambling options.
One type of gambling that is now widely accessible is
Internet gambling, with more than 2,500 gambling Web
sites online.10 As college students regularly use the Inter-
net for schoolwork and recreation, Internet gambling
may be high in this group. Little data exist about rates
of Internet gambling in young adults, the largest users
of the Internet.
Received May 21, 2007; accepted June 1, 2007.
Address correspondence to Dr. Petry, University of Connec-
ticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT,
06030-3944. E-mail: petry@psychiatry.uchc.edu.
A growing literature indicates that pathological
gambling, regardless of preferred form of gambling, is
associated with financial difficulties, emotional distress,
and psychiatric problems.1,11–13 In a survey of more than
43,000 respondents, pathological gambling was associated
with increased odds of every psychiatric disorder assessed,
even after controlling for demographics that may be
linked to those disorders.2 Mental health status and
well-being may also be impacted by pathological gam-
bling in college students. Furthermore, Internet gambling,
a sedentary and isolating activity, may place one at risk
for mental health problems. However, an association
between Internet gambling participation and mental
health status has rarely been evaluated using standardized
questionnaires.
To our knowledge, this study is the first to report upon
rates of Internet gambling in a large sample of college stu-
dents. Goals were to compare Internet and non-Internet
gamblers in terms of prevalence rates of pathological
gambling and indices of global mental health status.
One hypothesis was that Internet gambling would be
fairly common among students, and Internet gamblers,
especially those with frequent Internet wagering, would
have high rates of pathological gambling. A second hypo-
thesis was that Internet gambling would be associated
with poor mental health.
METHOD
Participants
Participants (N ¼ 1,356) were students recruited in
classroom settings, near the cafeterias, and during general
screenings at three university campuses between March
2005 and May 2006. University Institution Review Boards
approved the study.
Procedures
A research assistant (RA) asked individuals walking by
or before a class started (with instructor permission) to
complete a three-page questionnaire. Although systematic
325

data on study refusal rates were not collected, RAs
reported few refusals (<20%). Comparisons of survey
response data revealed than <1% of demographic data
had all similar responses (eg, age, gender, year, ethnicity),
and the bulk of the data were collected on nine screening
days (and in different classrooms). Thus, duplicative sub-
jects are unlikely to be included in the database.
Measures
The questionnaire included items about basic demo-
graphics and lifetime participation in several forms of
gambling, including Internet gambling. The South Oaks
Gambling Screen (SOGS) was included, with scores ran-
ging from 0–20 and scores >5 indicative of lifetime prob-
able pathological gambling.14 Using a cutoff of 5, the hit
rate is 0.98, sensitivity is 0.95, specificity is 0.996, false
positive rate is 0.004, and false negative rate is 0.05.15,16
Test-retest reliability is 0.71.14 Cronbach’s alpha internal
consistency in this sample was 0.85. Additional questions
asked about recent gambling frequency and expenditures
and desire for gambling treatment.
The General Health Questionnaire was included in the
screening instrument. This 12-item scale assesses global
physical and mental health, with items asking how one
has been feeling in the past few weeks according to a
four-point scale.17 By summing responses (and inversing
scores for reverse coded items), normally distributed total
scores of 0–36 are obtained, with higher scores reflecting
poorer health. Internal consistency in this sample was 0.89.
Data Analysis
The item inquiring about lifetime Internet gambling
participation was rated on a five-point Likert scale: never,
1–10 times, more than 10 times but less than weekly,
weekly or more than once a week but never daily, or
daily. Participants were classified into never Internet gam-
blers, infrequent Internet gamblers (‘‘1–10 times’’ and
‘‘more than 10 times but never weekly’’), and frequent
Internet gamblers (combining the last two categories).
Differences among groups with respect to demographics
were assessed using chi-square tests for categorical data,
ANOVA for continuous normalized data, and Kruskal-
Wallis tests for data that could not be normalized.
General linear models (GLM) evaluated group differ-
ences on GHQ scores, with Internet gambling status
(never, infrequent, frequent) as an independent variable.
Analyses controlled for age, gender, recruitment site,
ethnicity (Caucasian versus other), and pathological
gambling status, with age entered as a continuous variable
and all others as fixed. Two-way interactions (Internet
gambling status by site, by gender, by pathological gam-
bling status, and by ethnicity) were included to determine
if relationships varied by Internet gambling status within
groups. Thus, analyses examined the effects of Internet
gambling frequency on mental health, after controlling
326 Internet Gambling
15210391, 2007, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/10550490701525673 by Indian Institution Of Mgmt - Indore, Wiley Online Library on [19/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
for variables putatively related to mental health, including
pathological gambling itself.
To further isolate the effects of Internet gambling fre-
quency, analyses were repeated with lifetime frequencies
of other types of wagering entered in the analyses: one
that occurred at similar rates as Internet gambling (dice
betting) and one that is fairly common (lottery). In addi-
tion, overall frequency of past two-month gambling
(including all forms) was entered into the analyses to
ascertain if general gambling frequency was associated
with mental health status. Data were analyzed using
SPSS, and two-tailed alphas <.05 were considered statis-
tically significant.
RESULTS
Overall, 1043 (76.9%) of students had never wagered
on the Internet; 141 (10.4%) tried Internet gambling 1
to 10 times in their lives, 86 (6.3%) gambled on the
Internet >10 times but never as often as weekly, 52
(3.8%) reported weekly or more frequent yet less than
daily Internet gambling, and 34 (2.5%) stated they
gambled on the Internet everyday. Participants endorsing
the second or third categories were combined into one
group (infrequent Internet gamblers, n ¼ 227), and those
endorsing the last two categories into a frequent Internet
gambling group (n ¼ 86).
The three groups differed in terms of some demo-
graphics (see Table 1). Internet gamblers were more likely
to be male, Caucasian, and from one campus than non-
Internet gamblers. They also had lower grade point
averages and higher incomes than non-Internet gamblers.
Internet gamblers were also more likely to endorse
lifetime gambling problems, as noted by higher SOGS
scores and greater proportions scoring in the probable
pathological gambling range. Large proportions of Inter-
net gamblers, especially frequent Internet gamblers,
wagered more than $100 in the past two months in
contrast to fewer non-Internet gamblers. Frequency of
gambling overall also differed, such that frequent Internet
gamblers wagered more often than other groups in the past
two months when all types of gambling were considered.
In the univariate analyses, age, gender, and pathologi-
cal gambling status were all significantly associated with
GHQ scores, F(1,1257) ¼ 6.30, 11.05, and 10.56, respec-
tively, p < .02. Women had higher GHQ scores than
men, indicating worse functioning (means and 95% con-
fidence intervals (CI) of 13.7 (12.5–15.2) and 11.8 (10.9–
12.6), respectively), and older age was also associated
with higher scores. Probable pathological gamblers had
significantly higher GHQ scores than non-pathological
gamblers, with mean scores of 13.7 (12.6–14.8) and 12.0
(10.9–13.0), respectively. Neither ethnicity ( p > .33) nor
campus recruitment site ( p > .98) was significantly asso-
ciated with GHQ scores.
September-October 2007
 15210391, 2007, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/10550490701525673 by Indian Institution Of Mgmt - Indore, Wiley Online Library on [19/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TABLE 1. Demographic characteristics of never, infrequent, and regular internet gamblers

Gamble on Gamble on
Never gambled Internet but Internet at least Statistic
on Internet <weekly weekly (df) p
N 1,043 227 86
Recruitment site, %(n) v2(2) ¼ 5.31 <.001
Campus A 77.9% (813) 69.2% (157) 38.4% (33)
Campus B 18.6% (194) 29.1% (66) 48.8% (42)
Campus C 3.5% (36) 1.8% (4) 12.8% (11)
Age 21.2
4.5 20.8
2.7 20.8
3.1 F(2,1352) ¼ 1.30 .27
Female, %(n) 66.3% (691) 38.3% (87) 11.6% (10) v2(2) ¼ 141.23 <.001
Ethnicity, %(n) v2(10) ¼ 29.39 <.001
Caucasian 65.4% (679) 64.8% (147) 77.9% (67)
African-American 16.7% (173) 15.9% (36) 7.0% (6)
Hispanic 8.3% (86) 8.4% (19) 2.3% (2)
Native American 0.1% (1) 0.9% (2) 2.3% (2)
Asian 3.5% (36) 4.0% (9) 8.1% (7)
Other 6.2% (64) 6.2% (14) 2.3% (2)
Years of education 13.9
1.5 14.1
1.3 14.0
1.4 F(2,1279) ¼ 1.64 .19
Grade point average v2(8) ¼ 17.77 <.05
3.5 to 4.0 23.6% (238) 15.0% (33) 24.7% (21)
3.0 to 3.4 37.0% (373) 40.9% (90) 30.6% (26)
2.5 to 2.9 29.2% (294) 36.8% (81) 34.1% (29)
2.0 to 2.4 8.7% (88) 4.5% (10) 9.4% (8)
Below 2.0 1.5% (15) 2.7% (6) 1.2% (1)
Single marital status, %(n) 91.5% (954) 92.5% (210) 93.0% (80) v2(2) ¼ 0.46 .79
Yearly personal income, %(n) v2(8) ¼ 23.93 <.01
Under $5,000 53.8% (548) 40.7% (90) 34.9% (30)
$5,000–10,000 28.2% (287) 33.9% (75) 40.7% (35)
$10,001–$25,000 14.0% (143) 20.8% (46) 18.6% (16)
$25,001–$50,000 3.0% (31) 3.2% (7) 3.5% (3)
More than $50,000 0.9% (9) 1.4% (3) 2.3% (2)
$ spent gambling past two months %(n) v2(8) ¼ 496.60 <.001
$0 51.0% (522) 16.0% (36) 1.2% (1)
$1–$10 23.9% (245) 19.1% (43) 0.0% (0)
$11–$49 12.8% (131) 27.1% (61) 13.1% (11)
$50–$100 7.2% (74) 20.9% (47) 13.1% (11)
$101–$500 3.9% (40) 12.4% (28) 48.8% (41)
More than $500 1.2% (12) 4.4% (10) 23.8% (20)
Times gambled in past two v2(8) ¼ 523.46 <.001
months in any form, %(n)
None 50.5% (519) 15.6% (35) 0.0% (0)
1–2 times 31.3% (322) 28.1% (63) 2.4% (2)
3–5 times 9.9% (10.2) 27.2% (61) 12.7% (10)
6–10 times 3.8% (39) 14.7% (33) 15.9% (13)
>10 times 4.5% (46) 14.3% (32) 69.5% (57)
SOGS score median (IQ range) 0.0 (1.0) 2.0 (4.0) 5.0 (5.0) v2(2) ¼ 323.70 <.001
Probable pathological gamblers %(n) 5.0% (52) 23.9% (54) 61.6% (53) v2(2) ¼ 282.50 <.001
General health questionnaire score 10.6
5.0 11.7
5.2 12.9
4.7 F(2,1277) ¼ 9.94 <.001
Note. Values represent means
standard deviations unless otherwise stated. Numbers may not add to group sample size due to missing responses.
IQ ¼ Interquartile range.

Petry and Weinstock September-October 2007 327


FIGURE 1. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) Scores for
Individuals who Reported Having Never Gambled on the Internet,
Individuals who Reported Internet Gambling Infrequently, and
Individuals who Reported Frequent (at Least Weekly) Internet
Gambling. Participants in Each Category are Further Subdivided
Based on Probable Pathological Gambling Status, Ascertained
via South Oaks Gambling Screen Scores. Values Represent
Adjusted Means and Standard Errors. Higher Scores Reflect
Poorer General Health.  p < .05 Infrequent Internet Gamblers
Differed Significantly from Non-Internet Gamblers,  p < .01 Fre-
quent Internet Gamblers Differed Significantly from Non-Internet
Gamblers
After controlling for demographics, site, and patholo-
gical gambling status, frequency of Internet gambling
emerged as a significant predictor of GHQ scores,
F(2,1257) ¼ 4.29, p ¼ 0.01, with post-hoc analyses reveal-
ing that all three groups differed (p < .05) from one
another. Figure 1 shows adjusted means and standard
errors for the groups based on level of Internet gambling
frequency; data are shown based on pathological gam-
bling status to demonstrate that GHQ scores worsened
with increasing Internet gambling frequency for those
both with and without pathological gambling. Collapsing
across pathological gambling status, never, infrequent,
and frequent Internet gamblers had adjusted means
(and 95% CIs) of 11.4 (10.5–12.2), 12.6 (10.8–14.4), and
14.5 (12.5–16.4). No interaction terms were statistically
significant.
When frequencies of other forms of gambling were
substituted in the equation in place of Internet gambling,
no significant associations of other forms of gambling
frequency and GHQ scores were noted. For example,
dice and Internet wagering occurred at somewhat similar
frequencies; 951 (70.3%) of students reported never
betting on dice, 371 (27.4%) noted some experience,
and 31 (2.3%) indicated at least weekly dice betting. In
the analyses, gender, age, and pathological gambling
status were again associated with GHQ scores (p < .05),
but frequency of dice betting was not, F(1,1254) ¼ 1.85,
n.s. Frequency of lottery gambling (with never, occa-
sional, and frequent lottery buying occurring in 461
(34.0%), 808 (59.6%), and 86 (6.3%) of the sample) was
similarly unrelated to GHQ scores, F(1,1254) ¼ 0.31, n.s.
328 Internet Gambling
15210391, 2007, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/10550490701525673 by Indian Institution Of Mgmt - Indore, Wiley Online Library on [19/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Finally, when overall frequency of all types of gambling
was entered into the analyses, this gambling frequency
variable also did not emerge as significant, F(4,1237) ¼
0.098, n.s. Those who did not wager at all in the
past two months had GHQ means of 12.0 (95% CI ¼
8.5–15.6), and those who wagered 1–2 times had means
of 11.9 (95% CI ¼ 10.0–13.9). For the 3–5, 6–10, and
greater than 10 times categories, the respective means
and 95% CIs were 12.1 (10.0–14.3), 12.6 (10.4–14.8),
and 12.6 (11.1–13.9).
Students were also asked, ‘‘Are you interested in
learning about problem gambling and ways to reduce
gambling?’’ More than half the frequent Internet gam-
blers (61.2%) responded affirmatively, versus 38.4% of
infrequent and 19.2% of never Internet gamblers,
v2(4) ¼ 08.4, p < .001.
DISCUSSION
In this sample of more than 1,300 college students,
11.8% were lifetime probable pathological gamblers,
and almost 25% admitted to having wagered on the Inter-
net at least once in their lives. This rate of Internet gam-
bling is substantially higher than that noted in samples of
adults, of whom usually 0.4% to 8% report having ever
placed a bet on the Internet.1,18–21 Not surprisingly,
educated, computer literate young adults who have grown
up with computers and who have access to the Internet
as part of their college experience gamble more on the
Internet than adults drawn from the general population,
of whom one-third or more may not have access to a
computer or to the Internet at home.
The present study, similarly to others,19,20 found that
Internet gambling is closely related to pathological gam-
bling behaviors. About a third of college students who
had ever gambled on the Internet were classified as prob-
able pathological gamblers. These data suggest that either
Internet gambling leads to problem gambling behaviors,
or individuals who gamble problematically are prone to
gamble on the Internet. The cross-sectional study design
prevents an examination of the directionality of these
relationships. This rate of pathological gambling with
Internet gambling participation, however, is very similar
to that reported in general populations, suggesting that
Internet gambling is as risk-laden in college students as
it is adults. The important caveat is that conservative esti-
mates indicate that college students are four times more
likely than adults to place a bet via the Internet. Hence,
pathological gambling may be up to four times more
common in college students than among adults,4–6
although this finding is not universal.7–9
Certain demographic characteristics were associated
with Internet gambling. Younger age and male gender
were related to increased rates of Internet gambling.
These same demographic characteristics are also related
September-October 2007

to pathological gambling in general community samples,
as well as other college student samples.8,13,22 Internet
gambling was also more common on one college campus,
suggesting that regional or cultural differences across
campus settings may impact rates of Internet gambling.
One such factor is potentially the percentage of students
living on campus versus off campus or at home. The cam-
pus with the highest rates of Internet gambling was also
the campus with the greatest percentage of students living
on campus (72%). In contrast, the school with the lowest
rate had only about 20% of students residing on campus.
Regardless of differences across campuses, no interaction
terms (eg, campus by pathological gambling status, cam-
pus by Internet gambling group) were significant, suggest-
ing that the main effects were robust, regardless of
recruitment site, enhancing the generalizability of these
findings.
Pathological gambling status itself was also associated
with poor mental health in this college student sample,
even after controlling for campus and demographic char-
acteristics that are known to impact mental health ratings
such as age and gender. The GHQ is a reliable and valid
indicator of global health status, although its focus is
more on emotional than physical health.17 Other short
physical health surveys were considered but decided
against because of their seeming lack of relevance to
young adults (eg, the Short Form 12 asks questions about
the ability to do housework and climb flights of stairs,
which seem inappropriate for college students). Physical
and mental health is also impacted by pathological
gambling status,1,23–25 as well as other factors, such as
frequency of exercising, which was not assessed in this
study.
Even after controlling for pathological gambling status
and basic demographics that may impact mental health,
Internet gambling was a statistically significant predictor
of poor mental health, with greater Internet gambling fre-
quency associated with the worst mental health ratings.
This study replicates data linking poor mental and physi-
cal health to Internet gambling in general adult popula-
tions,19,20 and extends these findings to college students.
Other studies of college students have found excessive
Internet use (for reasons other than gambling, such as
school work, instant messaging, and ‘‘Web-surfing’’) is
related to increased depression and loneliness,26,27 but
the present study did not explicitly evaluate Internet
usage for non-gambling purposes. Nevertheless, the pre-
sent data point to the need for further study to elucidate
specific types of mental and possibly physical problems
associated with Internet use in general, and Internet
gambling in particular.
A number of limitations of this study are noted. The
study was conducted at only a few university settings in
the United States, and recruitment utilized a convenience
strategy rather than one of random selection. Response
biases may have also impacted these findings, although
Petry and Weinstock
15210391, 2007, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/10550490701525673 by Indian Institution Of Mgmt - Indore, Wiley Online Library on [19/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
rates of study refusal were relatively low. Most of the stu-
dents were recruited from a single state with large casinos,
although some students from other states also partici-
pated. Rates of pathological gambling may be lower
among college students in areas of the country in which
fewer legalized gambling opportunities exist, or among
individuals in the general population. However, Internet
gambling is available to all college students with Internet
access.
Because it is brief and can be self-administered, the
SOGS was used to classify students as probable patholo-
gical gamblers. Nevertheless, this instrument may over-
estimate rates of pathological gambling relative to
DSM-based instruments,3,4 hence the recommendation
of the term ‘‘probable pathological gambler.’’14 Although
rates of pathological gambling may have been lower with
other instruments, the SOGS has substantial data avail-
able on its psychometric properties, and it is reliable
and valid in assessing pathological gambling, including
in young adults.12–16 One additional issue that remains
to be determined is the temporal relationship between
gambling problems, Internet gambling, and mental health
difficulties.
In sum, this study demonstrates that Internet gambling
is common among college students and is associated with
distress, even among non-regular Internet gamblers. More
substantial Internet gambling frequency has an additive
effect on poor mental health; associations between other
forms of gambling frequency and health status were not
apparent. Future studies are needed to replicate these
findings in other samples of college students and to extend
an evaluation of the specific mental and physical problems
associated with Internet gambling. These data suggest that
Internet gambling is an especially troublesome activity,
and prevention, early intervention, and treatment efforts
may need to be targeted toward college students who
wager on the Internet. Individuals with gambling pro-
blems are unlikely to present for mental health or gam-
bling treatment,12 and almost no college campuses have
services specifically for problem gambling. More than half
of the frequent Internet gamblers expressed at least some
desire to learn about problem gambling and ways to
decrease their gambling. The development and evaluation
of prevention and intervention strategies may be useful
for reducing harm associated with Internet gambling in
college students.
REFERENCES
1. Gerstein DR, Volberg RA, Toce MT, et al. Gambling Impact and
Behavior Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Com-
mission. Chicago, Ill.: National Opinion Research Center; 1999.
2. Petry NM, Stinson FS, Grant BF. Comorbidity of DSM-IV patho-
logical gambling and psychiatric disorders: results from the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Clin
Psychiatry. 2005;66:564–574.
September-October 2007 329

3. Welte J, Barnes G, Wieczorek W, Tidwell MC, Parker J. Alcohol
and gambling pathology among U.S. adults: prevalence, demo-
graphic patterns, and comorbidity. J Stud Alcohol. 2001;6:706–712.
4. Shaffer HJ, Hall MN, Vander Bilt J. Estimating the prevalence of
disordered gambling in the United States and Canada: a research
synthesis. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1369–1376.
5. Neighbors C, Lostutter TW, Larimer ME, Takushi RY. Measuring
gambling outcomes among college students. J Gambl Stud.
2002;18:339–360.
6. Oster SL, Knapp TJ. Underage and pathological gambling by
college students: emerging problem on campus? Psychology and
Education. 2001;38:15–19.
7. Slutske WS, Jackson KM, Sher KJ. The natural history of problem
gambling age 18 to 29. J Abnorm Psychol. 2003;112:263–274.
8. Winters KC, Bengston P, Dorr D, Stinchfield R. Prevalence and risk
factors among college students. Psychol Addict Behav. 1998;12:127–135.
9. LaBrie RA, Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, Wechsler H. Correlates of
college student gambling in the United States. J Am Coll Health.
2003;52:53–62.
10. Stewart D. Tenth Annual White Paper Series: An Analysis of Internet
Gambling and Its Policy Implications. Washington, DC: American
Gaming Society; 2006.
11. Cunningham-Williams RM, Cottler LB, Compton WM, Spitznagel
EL. Taking chances: problem gamblers and mental health disorders:
results from the St. Louis epidemiologic Catchment Area study. Am
J Public Health. 1998;87:1093–1096.
12. National Research Council. Pathological Gambling: A Critical
Review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
13. Petry NM. Pathological Gambling: Etiology, Comorbidity, and Treat-
ments. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press;
2004.
14. Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The South Oaks Gambling Screen: a new
instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am J
Psychiatry. 1987;144:1184–1188.
15. Stinchfield R. Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the
South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addict Behav. 2002;27:1–19.
330 Internet Gambling
15210391, 2007, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/10550490701525673 by Indian Institution Of Mgmt - Indore, Wiley Online Library on [19/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16. Stinchfield R. Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of a
measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling.
Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:180–182.
17. Goldberg D. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Windsor,
UK: NFER-NELSON; 1992.
18. British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
British Columbia Problem Gambling Prevalence Survey: Final
Report; 2003. Retrieved on August 20, 2006, from http://www.
bcresponsiblegambling.ca
19. Ladd GT, Petry NM. Disordered gambling among university-based
medical and dental patients: a focus on Internet gambling. Psychol
Addict Behav. 2002;16:76–79.
20. Petry NM. Internet gambling: an emerging concern in family prac-
tice. Fam Pract. 2006;23:421–426.
21. Volberg RA. Gambling and Problem Gambling in Arizona: Report to
the Arizona Lottery. Northampton, Mass.: Gemini Research Ltd;
2003.
22. Engwall D, Hunter R, Steinberg M. Gambling and other risk
behaviors on university campuses. J Am Coll Health. 2004;52:
245–255.
23. Morasco BJ, Pietrzak RH, Blanco C, Grant BF, Hasin D, Petry NM.
Health problems and medical utilization associated with gambling
disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alco-
hol and Related Conditions. Psychosom Med. 2006;68:976–984.
24. Pasternak AV, Fleming MF. Prevalence of gambling disorders in a
primary care setting. Archives of Family Medicine. 1999;8:515–520.
25. Pietrzak R, Molina C, Ladd GT, Kerins G, Petry NM. Health and
psychological correlates of problem gambling in the elderly. Am J
Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;13:510–519.
26. Kraut R, Patterson M, Landmark V, Kiesler S, Mukophadhyay T,
Scherlis W. Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social
involvement and psychological well being? Am Psychol. 1998;53:
1017–1031.
27. Morgan C, Cotton SR. The relationship between Internet activities
and depressive symptoms in a sample of college freshman. Cyberpsy-
chol Behav. 2003;6:133–142.
September-October 2007