Individuals with a migratory background can offer valuable insight to improve the treatment and prevention of gambling harms

Abstract

Migration is a risk factor for gambling-related harms. Little research has been conducted on gambling and gambling harms among migrant groups in Finland, but there are indications that gambling participation is high among migrants also in this context. Russian speakers constitute the largest migrant group in Finland. This study focuses on the experiences and views of Russian speakers in Finland on the Finnish gambling system and its relationship to gambling harms. The study is based on the results of qualitative data collected on gambling experiences among Russian-speaking residents of Finland. The data consist of an online survey directed at individuals who gamble (N = 26) and interviews conducted among family members of those gambling (N = 3). Russian speakers in Finland view gambling as highly normalised in the Finnish society. This normalisation reinforced by availability, accessibility, and state involvement. Russian speakers also have perspective on how to better prevent and treat gambling harms in Finland. Involving migrants with experience of different gambling systems can provide critical insight on established practices in gambling systems.

Gambling causes significant harms in societies (Langham et al., 2015; Marionneau et al., 2023), but these harms affect population groups differently. Migrants are one population group that may be at particular risk for gambling-related harms. A migrant status in itself is not necessarily a risk factor for gambling harms, but it may function as a proxy for other underlying risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, acculturation stress, or availability of gambling (Okuda et al., 2016; Wardle et al., 2019).

Migration is often a life-changing process. Learning a new language and new customs as well as navigating through different services can be overwhelming. The acculturation process can cause important stress that individuals cope with by either adopting or rejecting the cultural norms of the new host society (Choy et al., 2021). This can also happen with regard to gambling. Attitudes towards gambling depend on cultural values and beliefs but also institutional settings (Raylu & Oei, 2004). The availability and accessibility of gambling in the new country may also differ greatly from that of the country of origin. Exposure to gambling, acculturation stress, and financial woes may trigger gambling (Okuda et al., 2016; Wardle et al., 2019). Gambling may also be more widely available in neighbourhoods with a high proportion of residents with a migrant background (Wardle et al., 2019). Previous research suggests that for some, gambling can also become a pastime in the new country, providing social interaction and sometimes a venue to meet other individuals with the same background or language (Crentsil & Jouhki, 2014; Luo, 2021; Wong & Tse, 2003).

While individuals with a migrant background generally gamble less than non-migrants, they experience elevated levels of gambling problems and harms (Wardle et al., 2019). Differences between communities with and without a migrant background may become more moderate over time. For example, evidence suggests that gambling involvement is higher in second- or third-generation migrants than among first-generation migrants (Wilson et al., 2015). Migrant groups are not homogenous. Review studies show that gambling participation and problematic gambling is particularly high among Eastern Asian groups and low among Hispanic groups (Okuda et al., 2016).

Finland counts approximately half a million individuals with a migratory background. The largest migrant groups consist of individuals with a Russian or Estonian background (Tilastokeskus, 2022). Yet, little is known about gambling among individuals with a migratory background in Finland. Some previous research has suggested that although there is an age limit on all gambling in Finland, underage boys with a migrant background play more with electronic gambling machines (EGMs) than those without a migrant background (Järvinen-Tassopoulos & Raitasalo, 2017; Wikström et al., 2017). EGMs are usually the first type of gambling that migrants in Finland engage in. Other popular forms include casino products and online gambling (Chaulagai, 2010; Crentsil & Jouhki, 2014; Järvinen-Tassopoulos & Kesänen, 2020; Wikström et al., 2017; Zeinab, 2019).

We recently collected qualitative data on gambling experiences among Russian-speaking residents of Finland. The Finnish Russian-speaking community consists of individuals from Russia but also other Central and Eastern European countries with Russian minorities (including Estonia, other Baltic countries, and the Ukraine). In addition, Finland counts an important number of Ingrian return migrants. Ingrians are of Finnish descent but have lived on the Russian side of the border. In comparison to other migrant groups in Finland, Russian speakers are less visible and culturally quite close to the Finnish population. They have also been better integrated into society than many other groups with a migrant background (Kemppainen et al., 2020, 2022). Russian speakers have a higher level of education than migrant groups in Finland on average and are usually able to find employment (Kemppainen et al., 2022). Russian speakers are therefore not representative of all migrant populations in Finland.

Despite the important size of this population, there has been little research into gambling and gambling harms among Russian speakers in Finland. Some emerging evidence does suggest that Russian speakers participate widely in gambling and experience problems and harms. However, only a small minority of Russian speakers seek help for gambling problems (Belchenko, 2021).

Our data collection focused on the experiences of Russian speakers regarding gambling, gambling harms and the Finnish gambling system. The current geopolitical climate was unfortunately unfavourable to our data collection, resulting in low participation in the online survey directed at those gambling (N = 26) and in the interviews conducted among family members of those gambling (N = 3). However, the open-ended answers to the survey questions and the available interview data did reveal interesting findings regarding how Russian speakers perceive the Finnish gambling environment and its relationship to harms.

In the present study, we raise observations on how Russian speakers in Finland experience gambling and the potential harms related to the gambling environment in Finland. From the perspective of Russian speakers with a migratory background, gambling is highly normalised in Finnish society. The normalisation process is reinforced by availability, accessibility and state involvement. In such an environment, gambling can also be seen as a way to integrate into a new society. These insights suggest that it is important to involve migrants who have experience of different gambling systems in establishing more effective prevention and treatment of gambling harms. Migrant groups can have unique insight into how support services and prevention efforts can be improved.

Accessibility translates to normalisation

The availability and visibility of gambling differ between Finland and contemporary Russia. Since 2006, gambling has been regulated in Russia in a series of reforms. These have included expelling EGM and casino-type gambling from cities to remote gambling areas (so-called gambling zones), creating a national lottery and creating licenses for the bookmaking industry (Marionneau, 2020; Marionneau & Järvinen-Tassopoulos, 2021).

Although there are no comparable data on the prevalence of gambling or problematic gambling in Finland and Russia, available indicators suggest that gambling is significantly more prevalent in Finland than in Russia. In 2019, almost 80% of Finnish people had gambled in the previous year (Salonen et al., 2020). In 2017, market research from Russia suggested that only 11% of Russians had gambled in the previous year (Reiting bukmekerov, 2017). Other estimates suggest that approximately 1.5% of Russians living in major cities have a gambling problem (Pehotskaya, 2017). This figure is lower than the most recent Finnish estimate, according to which 3% of the population had had a probable gambling problem in the past year (Salonen et al., 2020).

The availability and accessibility of gambling are likely to contribute to the different prevalence of gambling participation in Finland and Russia. In our survey, the Russian speakers residing in Finland had comparable gambling consumption to that reported in Finnish population studies. The Russian speakers in our survey reported gambling on varying Veikkaus products: 67% participated in the lottery while 30% gambled on non-casino EGMs. Of the respondents, 11% had gambled on offshore gambling sites (including Russian sites). While the sample is small, the observation was supported by qualitative accounts.

The Russian speakers living in Finland also criticised the wide availability, visibility and accessibility of gambling in the Finnish context. Many criticised the visibility of gambling in non-casino environments and particularly the effects of visibility of children: “[You should] ban EGMs near supermarkets and kiosks or place them in enclosed spaces so that children and young people cannot see adults playing those machines. The role model of ‘playing EGMs is the norm’ should not enter children's heads.” Similarly, one interviewee, a mother of two, highlighted that EGMs are “in every supermarket, in every shopping centre. They are colourful and attractive. I would not want my child to press their buttons one day.”

Many also compared the wide availability of non-casino gambling opportunities in Finland to the situation of restricted availability in Russia and noted that “there is no such accessibility in the Russian Federation”. The creation of gambling zones in Russia was considered positively as this was seen to limit the development of gambling problems for the majority. One interview participant described the difference between gambling in Finland and Russia in the following way:

For me, it was not strange because I visited Finland when I was little, and I saw that people play. I understood that it is like this here. But I only understood the scale of it when I moved here. Everybody from kids to elderly people play here. I understood that they put everything they have [in games]. I started feeling uncomfortable. Sometimes I think: “You are old, you don’t need anything. Don’t you want to travel instead, go somewhere?”

Another interviewee had experienced harms due to the gambling of a parent in Russia. The parental gambling had ended with the policy reform that removed EGMs from public spaces in Russia. They recounted how:

When I moved to Finland, or actually when I came to Finland for the first time, I saw these machines in the supermarket. I was shocked. How can this exist in Europe? How can these not be banned in a civilised country? I feel very sad that games are too easily available. They could be in a designated venue, but not next to cashiers. The cashier gives you coins, it is a really small step to feel compelled to gamble.

State monopoly increases the integrity of gambling

Finland has a national, state-owned monopoly on gambling. Alongside wide availability, state involvement in the provision of gambling may contribute to the trust that people place towards gambling provision. In post-Soviet Russia, the provision of gambling has been in private hands and criminal involvement has been prevalent (Abadinsky, 2012; Marionneau & Järvinen-Tassopoulos, 2021).

Results from the open-ended questions in our online survey suggest that state monopolies can increase the (perceived) integrity of gambling. We asked respondents to compare experiences of gambling in Russia and in Finland. Several highlighted that they had more confidence in the Veikkaus monopoly than in Russian providers. One participant noted that “In Russia, [gambling] is a problem, in Finland it is not. In Russia, there is crime, in Finland there is not. In Russia, the equipment may be unofficial, fraudulent. And most importantly, there are no breaks for gamblers.” Another participant noted that the monopoly system “does not leave space for crime to develop […] at least on such a scale as in the Russian Federation”.

Similarly, the interviewees described most gambling opportunities in Russia as “underground” while control policies over legal gambling are also lacking. For example, in Russia, casinos can be open 24 h a day. “Another difference is that Finnish casinos do not offer you free drinks, nothing is free. It was different in Russia.” While such integrity and trust in the system is positive, this can also contribute to normalising gambling.

Gambling can help integrate but it can also cause severe harms

Despite the perceived normality and acceptability of gambling within the Finnish context, some can experience serious harms due to their own gambling or due to the gambling of others. The consequences of problematic gambling are severe on all population groups, but those with a migratory background may experience harms more intensively due to lacking support networks and lack of information and treatment in their own language (Wardle et al., 2019).

In our survey data of Russian speakers in Finland, we asked what kind of negative or positive effects gambling had had on the lives of the respondent as well as their family. For some, gambling had some positive effects, including providing entertainment and “light harmless adrenaline”. One respondent described how gambling winnings had allowed them to “purchase luxury products”. Gambling was considered normal, and almost all participants gambled on something.

However, for others, gambling had had more severe consequences. A multiple-choice question asked participants about the harms they had experienced due to gambling. While the data are not statistically representative, almost half of the participants had experiences of excessive spending, guilt or shame. Approximately one-third of participants also reported gambling-related debt. Feelings of hopelessness, anxiety, and stress were also commonplace, and gambling had negatively affected relationships and home life. The open-ended questions similarly had respondents report negative feelings and bad mood due to gambling. For some, gambling had had even more severe consequences. One respondent described that gambling had “broken my family life” while another described how “my husband used to gamble and got into severe debt. This has an impact on our family and will continue to do so for many years.”

An outside view helps in implementing more effective prevention

Despite increased globalisation, gambling practices are often culturally bound. The popularity of different gambling products varies across cultural contexts, and national legislations and regulations have an impact on which gambling products become normalised, popular, or even available. A view from the “outside” can help in better understanding the taken-for-granted structures of gambling within a specific context. In Finland, for example, the gambling monopoly has for long enjoyed a widespread public acceptance. The monopoly has also been perceived as the best way to prevent gambling harms (Salonen & Hagfors, 2020), despite comparatively high levels of gambling-related problems at least before the pandemic years (Heiskanen et al., 2020).

The Russian speakers who participated in our survey were asked how they thought gambling harms should be addressed in the Finnish context. While the results are not statistically representative, they are revealing of the Finnish gambling field. In line with existing evidence of effective harm prevention (e.g., Fiskaali et al., 2023; Velasco et al., 2021), the most often mentioned means of preventing harms according to Russian speakers were public health-oriented measures that target the full population rather than just those who actively gamble. These include information on harms and reducing the visibility and availability of gambling and gambling marketing.

In the open-ended answers, survey participants further highlighted the importance of education and information. Many called out for the need to teach people about the slim odds of winning and the harmful consequences of excessive gambling. One participant suggested that we should “teach school kids about financial literacy and give practical examples on how you can lose money with gambling”. However, this type of information must be correctly and engagingly executed. An interview participant wondered why information on harms is not as attractive as advertisement: “Information must be good for people to react. Why is everything Veikkaus does so beautiful? Why can’t you make useful things beautiful as well?”

The same interviewee also suggested that experiences of those who have suffered and recovered from gambling harms should be conveyed to school children as an example. This type of school-based intervention is common in Russia: “You can explain to a child that this is bad. But everything that is forbidden is interesting. […]. I don’t know if you have this in Finland, but in Russia we have this practice where a person recounts a bad and a good example based on their life experience: How they recovered from a problem and how they achieved [this recovery]. They tell about their lives as an example, and this has a very strong impact on kids.”

Bans on the advertising and marketing of gambling were also supported in our datasets. One interviewee noted that they see Veikkaus advertisements everywhere: “In my opinion they are on every poster, every screen, every petrol station and in the streets, public spaces. They tempt everyone […]. If you want to prevent harm, don’t produce it!”

While an outright ban of gambling was not popular among respondents, many mentioned reducing access to EGMs or banning them completely: “Change the approach in terms of posters, signs and placement of EGMs. Remove them from shops and it will be even better.” Some respondents suggested that EGMs could be located in separate and “inconvenient parts of shop premises” while others suggested following the Russian model and moving EGMs away from cities altogether.

During the data collection, Veikkaus had implemented a mandatory identification and limit-setting measure for land-based EGMs. This was perceived positively, although some suggested that the weekly limit should only be a maximum of 50 euros (it is currently 500 euros). One respondent also suggested limits on “the percentage of winnings that can be replayed, so that if one wins a large sum, they cannot lose everything in the next round and then jump out of the window due to their grief”. Yet, when asked about the experiences of the participants on the recently implemented mandatory identification on most land-based gambling formats, such as EGMs, many mentioned that it requires too much effort, and that they are not interested in gambling on EGMs anymore as a result.

Help services can be improved with input from target audiences

We also asked the participants about their experiences with help services. Tellingly, almost none of the participants had sought help, despite having experienced harms. One interviewee explained that available help was not adapted to the needs of the Russian-speaking community. Not only was help not available in Russian, but it also did not suit Russian cultural norms:

We need more Russian speakers who can help. Each nation has their own temperament. For a Finnish speaker, it is easy to give some reading. A [Finn] will say: “yes, okay, I will do this”. But for a Russian… He will say: “What is this, I am not going to do this, this is rubbish, I don’t need this.” You need to understand national traits […]. People from the East react strongly to emotions, they are emotional.

This observation echoes previous evidence on the importance of involving groups with a migratory background in developing appropriate treatment and help services for gambling (Fogarty, 2017; Wardle et al., 2019). In Finland, a previous study with the Russian-speaking community also showed that Russian speakers are not well informed of the help and support opportunities for gambling in Finland but would be more likely to seek help if it were available in Russian or if more information were available in Russian (Belchenko, 2021).

Conclusion

Migrant groups have varying gambling practices. Migrants are not a homogenous group; individuals with a migratory background can have highly differing experiences with gambling in their new home country. Overall, migrants are a vulnerable population group who experience elevated levels of gambling harms. However, they can also be very knowledgeable about gambling, gambling harms, and gambling policy. They can provide a much-needed perspective on harm prevention and reduction in the gambling field. This is a resource that should also be further utilised in the future.

From the perspective of Russian speakers in Finland, the Finnish gambling field appears as highly normalised. This normalisation is the product of the wide visibility and availability of gambling, but also of state involvement and the (perceived) legitimacy and integrity of the activity. According to Russian speakers, the key measures to prevent harms within the Finnish context address this normalisation. Notably, our participants suggested removing or reducing the availability of non-casino EGMs and advertisements on gambling, and replacing these with information on gambling harms, the slim odds of winning, and financial literacy.

The evidence base on migrant gambling internationally as well as in Finland is slim. There is a need for more research on how individuals with different migratory backgrounds experience gambling in their new host societies. Migrants can be active participants in helping societies provide more adapted services for those afflicted by gambling harms, in providing insight into effective prevention, and in challenging established framings and biases in our understanding of gambling.