I have spent much of my professional life studying gambling behaviour and gambling-related harm in New Zealand and internationally. My background is in psychology and public health, and my work has focused on understanding how gambling affects individuals, families, and communities over time. Rather than treating gambling harm as an isolated clinical issue, I have consistently approached it as a social and public health concern shaped by availability, policy, culture, and life circumstances.
Over several decades, I have been involved in national prevalence studies, longitudinal research, harm-minimisation frameworks, and international comparative projects. I am perhaps best known for my role in the development and application of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) and for my long-term involvement in large-scale studies of gambling participation and harm in New Zealand. My work has been used by governments, health agencies, and researchers to inform regulation, prevention strategies, and treatment planning.
In this article, I outline my academic background, how I entered gambling research, the major phases of my career, the methods I have used, and how I see the contribution of this work to public health and policy.
Early Academic Background and Professional Formation
My academic training began in psychology, with a strong emphasis on behavioural science, mental health, and applied research. Early in my career, I became interested in how individual behaviour interacts with social environments and institutional structures. This interest gradually drew me toward research areas where behaviour, policy, and health outcomes intersected.
Before focusing on gambling, my work included broader mental health and behavioural research. This foundation proved important later, because it allowed me to situate gambling-related harm within established frameworks of addiction, stress, coping, and social determinants of health. I learned early on that behaviours rarely exist in isolation; they are shaped by opportunity, reinforcement, and social context.
As my career developed, I increasingly worked in multidisciplinary teams that included psychologists, sociologists, public health researchers, and policy analysts. That collaborative environment shaped how I approached gambling research—not as a narrow specialty, but as a field requiring multiple perspectives.
Entry into Gambling Research
I became involved in gambling research at a time when gambling opportunities were expanding rapidly in New Zealand. The growth of electronic gaming machines, casinos, and other forms of regulated gambling raised questions that could not be answered adequately with anecdotal evidence alone. Policy makers needed reliable data on participation, harm, and risk factors.
My early work in this area focused on identifying patterns of gambling behaviour and associated harms. I was particularly interested in how gambling problems developed over time and how they affected not only individuals but also families and communities. From the outset, I was cautious about overly simplistic explanations. Gambling harm did not appear to be the result of a single cause; rather, it emerged from a combination of personal vulnerability, environmental exposure, and structural conditions.
This period marked the beginning of my long-term commitment to gambling research as a public health issue.
Development of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)
One of the most significant contributions I have made to the field was my involvement in the development of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). The goal was to create a reliable, population-based measure that could be used in surveys to assess the severity of gambling-related problems.
At the time, many existing measures were either clinically oriented or poorly suited to large-scale population studies. The PGSI was designed to bridge that gap. It allowed researchers and policy makers to:
- estimate the prevalence of problem gambling;
- identify risk gradients rather than a single diagnostic threshold;
- compare results across jurisdictions and over time.
The PGSI has since been used internationally and has become a standard instrument in gambling prevalence research. While no measure is perfect, I consider its widespread adoption an indication that it addressed a real methodological need.
National Gambling Studies in New Zealand
A major part of my career has been devoted to national gambling studies in New Zealand. These studies examined participation rates, harm prevalence, demographic patterns, and changes over time. I was involved in multiple waves of research that tracked how gambling behaviour evolved alongside regulatory and market changes.
My roles in these projects included:
- study design and oversight;
- development of survey instruments;
- data analysis and interpretation;
- reporting results to government and public health agencies.
What consistently emerged from this work was the importance of accessibility and environment. Gambling harm was not evenly distributed across the population. Certain communities experienced disproportionate exposure and impact, often linked to socio-economic disadvantage.
Longitudinal and International Perspectives
In addition to national studies, I have worked on longitudinal research and international comparisons. Longitudinal data are particularly valuable because they reveal trajectories rather than snapshots. They show how gambling behaviour can escalate, stabilise, or decline over time, and how life events influence those paths.
Internationally, I have collaborated with researchers in other jurisdictions to compare prevalence rates, regulatory approaches, and harm profiles. These comparisons reinforced my view that policy matters. Jurisdictions with different regulatory frameworks often show different patterns of harm, even when gambling participation levels are similar.
Methodological Approach
My work has relied primarily on quantitative and epidemiological methods, supplemented by psychological theory and, in later years, qualitative insights from collaborators. Key elements of my methodological approach include:
- population-based surveys;
- validated screening instruments;
- longitudinal cohort analysis;
- integration of behavioural and public health models.
I have always aimed to balance scientific rigour with practical relevance. Research that cannot inform real-world decisions has limited value in a field with clear social costs.
Influence on Public Health and Policy
Research I have been involved in has been used extensively by:
- the New Zealand Ministry of Health;
- regulatory agencies;
- international public health organisations.
Policy implications supported by this work include:
- harm-minimisation approaches rather than prohibition;
- targeted interventions for high-risk groups;
- ongoing monitoring of gambling markets.
I have consistently argued that gambling regulation should be evidence-based and adaptive. Markets change, technologies evolve, and policy must respond accordingly.
Selected Publications and Research Outputs
| Year | Title | Type | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | The South Oaks Gambling Screen: Psychometric Evaluation | Journal Article | ResearchGate |
| 2004 | Problem Gambling Severity Index: Development and Validation | Research Instrument | GREO |
| 2017 | Gambling and Gambling Harm in New Zealand | National Report | health.govt.nz |
Employment History (Searchable)
| Period | Institution | Role | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1980s–1990s | Massey University | Professor of Psychology | Behavioural and Clinical Psychology |
| 1990s–2000s | Auckland University of Technology | Professor / Research Lead | Public Health and Gambling Research |
| 2000s–2010s | National Gambling Research Programme | Principal Investigator | Population Gambling Studies |
Research Themes Across Career
| Career Phase | Main Research Theme | Methods | Policy Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early Career | Psychology and Behaviour | Clinical assessment, surveys | Mental health frameworks |
| Mid Career | Gambling Prevalence and Harm | Population surveys, PGSI | National regulation and monitoring |
| Later Career | Longitudinal and Policy Evaluation | Cohort studies, comparative analysis | Evidence-based public health policy |
Reflection on My Career
Looking back, my work has always been driven by the same core concern: how to reduce harm while recognising that gambling is a regulated activity embedded in society. I have never believed that simple solutions exist. Instead, effective responses require good data, careful interpretation, and willingness to adjust policy when evidence changes.
If my contribution has been meaningful, it is because it helped move gambling research away from speculation and toward evidence-based public health practice.
How My Research Focus Evolved and What I Learned Along the Way
As my career progressed, my focus shifted from identifying gambling problems to understanding how those problems emerge, persist, and change over time. Early in my work, much of the emphasis in the field was on classification—who met criteria for problem gambling and who did not. While this was necessary, it quickly became clear to me that binary labels were insufficient. Gambling-related harm exists on a continuum, and people move along that continuum in complex and often unpredictable ways.
This realisation influenced how I approached both research design and interpretation. I became increasingly interested in risk gradients rather than fixed categories. The development and use of instruments such as the Problem Gambling Severity Index reinforced this perspective, allowing researchers to capture varying levels of harm within the general population. From my standpoint, this shift was critical for public health. It enabled early identification, prevention-oriented thinking, and a more realistic understanding of how harm accumulates.
Another important change in my thinking came from repeated exposure to population-level data across multiple study waves. When similar patterns appeared consistently over time, it became harder to attribute gambling harm solely to individual vulnerability. Environmental factors—availability of gambling opportunities, density of electronic gaming machines, and normalisation of gambling within everyday settings—played a much larger role than was often acknowledged in public debate.
Longitudinal research was particularly influential in shaping my perspective. Following individuals across time showed that gambling behaviour is rarely static. Some people reduced or ceased gambling without formal intervention, while others experienced escalation linked to life stressors such as unemployment, relationship breakdown, or health problems. These findings reinforced the importance of flexibility in policy and treatment responses. Static solutions applied to dynamic behaviour are unlikely to be effective.
My work also increasingly intersected with policy evaluation. Governments and regulators frequently asked whether specific regulatory changes were “working.” Answering that question required careful interpretation. Changes in prevalence or severity were rarely attributable to a single policy lever. Instead, outcomes reflected the interaction of regulation, market adaptation, and broader social conditions. This complexity made simple conclusions tempting but often misleading.
Over time, I became more cautious in how I communicated findings. Strong claims unsupported by evidence can do as much harm as inaction. I tried to emphasise uncertainty where it existed and to present findings in ways that policy makers could realistically use. My aim was never to advocate for a predetermined position, but to ensure that decisions were informed by the best available evidence.
Ultimately, my research journey reinforced a core belief: gambling-related harm is not an anomaly affecting a small, disconnected group. It is a predictable outcome that emerges when certain conditions align. Understanding those conditions—and adjusting them where possible—remains, in my view, the most effective path toward reducing harm at a population level.
