Does where you live determine whether you’ll be a problem gambler or whether you’ll get physically abused?
I’ve posted before about where most people want to live, how to find a place to live where you’ll be happy, and whether the importance of attractiveness depends on where you live. Does living near a casino make you more likely to have a gambling problem?
Two studies investigated the relationship between casino proximity and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology. In Study 1, 8,842 participants were categorized into 1 of 4 driving distances from their home to the nearest casino in the province of Quebec: 0-100 km, 100.01-200 km, 200.01-300 km, or 300.01-981 km. In Study 2, 5,158 participants, who lived within a 100-km driving distance from the Montreal casino, were classified into 1 of 5 equidistant, 20-km driving distances. A survey company interviewed participants regarding their gambling habits. Results indicated a positive link between casino proximity and gambling participation (at the provincial and Montreal levels) and expenditure (at the provincial level only) but no link with the current prevalence rate of probable pathological gambling or of problem gambling. In a setting in which many types of gambling activities are available, casino proximity in itself does not appear to explain the rate of gambling-related problems. It is necessary to continue prospective research on exposure and adaptation theories as potential explanations for the development of pathological gambling.
Source: “Links between casino proximity and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology.” from Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
So living near a casino really isn’t a problem. On the other hand, ladies, you don’t want to live anywhere near bars or liquor stores:
Objectives: We examined the relation between alcohol outlet density (the number of alcohol outlets per capita by zip code) and male-to-female partner violence (MFPV) or female-to-male partner violence (FMPV). We also investigated whether binge drinking or the presence of alcohol-related problems altered the relationship between alcohol outlet density and MFPV or FMPV.Methods: We linked individual and couple sociodemographic and behavioral data from a 1995 national population-based sample of 1,597 couples to alcohol outlet data and 1990 US Census sociodemographic information. We used logistic regression for survey data to estimate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios between alcohol outlet density and MFPV or FMPV along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values. We used a design-based Wald test to derive a p-value for multiplicative interaction to assess the role of binge drinking and alcohol-related problems.Results: In adjusted analysis, an increase of one alcohol outlet per 10,000 persons was associated with a 1.03-fold increased risk of MFPV (p-value for linear trend = 0.01) and a 1.011-fold increased risk of FMPV (p-value for linear trend = 0.48). An increase of 10 alcohol outlets per 10,000 persons was associated with 34% and 12% increased risk of MFPV and FMPV respectively, though the CI for the association with FMPV was compatible with no increased risk. The relationship between alcohol outlet density and MFPV was stronger among couples reporting alcohol-related problems than those reporting no problems (p-value for multiplicative interaction = 0.01).Conclusions: We found that as alcohol outlet density increases so does the risk of MFPV and that this relationship may differ for couples who do and do not report alcohol-related problems. Given that MFPV accounts for the majority of injuries related to intimate partner violence, policy makers may wish to carefully consider the potential benefit of limiting alcohol outlet density to reduce MFPV and its adverse consequences.
Source: “Alcohol Availability and Intimate Partner Violence Among US Couples” from Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Join over 320,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.