RESUMO
Research indicates a role for both social support and belonging in addiction recovery, however little is known about the role of these constructs in the recovery from problem gambling, and whether they relate to the effectiveness of mutual aid groups such as Gamblers Anonymous. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the relationship between social support and belonging, and to assess the role of demographics (including group membership of GA), social support and/or belongingness in predicting gambling addiction recovery in terms of gambling urges and quality of life. Using a cross sectional design, participants identifying as having problem gambling (n = 60) completed an online questionnaire with two independent variables (Social Support and Belonging), two dependent variables (Gambling Urges and Quality of Life) to assess gambling addiction recovery and measures of GA membership. The results showed no significant association between gender, age, ethnicity, education or employment status and gambling urges or quality of life. Membership to GA, and length of membership were significantly associated with gambling recovery indicating that being a member of GA and longer membership was associated with lower gambling urges and higher quality of life. Further, the results showed a high but not perfect correlation between social support and belonging (r(58) = .81, p = < .01). A regression analysis showed that although there was a significant correlation between social support and belongingness, they played different roles in gambling addiction recovery. Social support alone predicted higher quality of life, but not a reduction in gambling urges; belonging (along with being a member of GA) predicted a reduction in gambling urges, but not an increase in quality of life. Social support and belonging have a differential impact on aspects of gambling addiction, and should be considered as different constructs. In particular, whilst the process underpinning reduced gambling urges is membership of GA and the sense of belonging it provides its members, social support per se is a better predictor of quality of life. These findings have implications for the development of treatment for problem gamblers in the future.
RESUMO
Whilst much research has explored the possible causes and consequences of gambling, Gamblers Anonymous (GA) - one of the most accessed forms of support for gamblers - has been largely overlooked and, to date, only a few studies have explored how members experience this programme. Core to GA is the social interaction between members. From March 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic forced GA to move their meetings online. The present qualitative study therefore explored how GA members experienced these online meetings in the absence of actual face to face interactions with others. Individual telephone or video call interviews (n = 21) were carried out with members of GA in the UK and analysed using Thematic Analysis. The results described three main themes: (1) 'practicalities of GA in lockdown', which highlighted the practical benefits of online meetings such as more opportunity to attend different meetings, which in turn expanded participants' perspectives and social networks; (2) 'the importance of relationships in GA', reflecting strong and enduring social networks that were created, maintained, and strengthened by feelings of solidarity; and (3) 'therapeutic elements of the meetings', such as psychological contract making which helped participants to stay abstinent. Transcending these themes was a tension between individual versus group identity with interviewees reporting a shift to focusing more on their own needs rather than those of the group. Overall, whilst still providing a lifeline during COVID-19 and offering some practical benefits, the online GA meetings were not able to completely replicate the value individuals gained from face to face meetings. This transition also resulted in disruptions both to group dynamics and to individual interactions within each group, ultimately resulting in participants behaving more individualistically and less collectively than in face-to-face meetings.