The intergenerational transmission of at-risk/problem gambling: The moderating role of parenting practices

Background and Objectives Although parenting practices are articulated as underlying mechanisms or protective factors in several theoretical models, their role in the intergenerational transmission of gambling problems has received limited research attention. This study therefore examined the degree to which parenting practices (positive parenting, parental involvement, and inconsistent discipline) moderated the intergenerational transmission of paternal and maternal problem gambling. Methods Students aged 12–18 years (N = 612) recruited from 17 Australian secondary schools completed a survey measuring parental problem gambling, problem gambling severity, and parenting practices. Results Participants endorsing paternal problem gambling (23.3%) were 4.3 times more likely to be classified as at-risk/problem gamblers than their peers (5.4%). Participants endorsing maternal problem gambling (6.9%) were no more likely than their peers (4.0%) to be classified as at-risk/problem gamblers. Paternal problem gambling was a significant predictor of offspring at-risk/problem gambling after controlling for maternal problem gambling and participant demographic characteristics. The relationship between maternal problem gambling and offspring at-risk/problem gambling was buffered by parental involvement. Discussion and Conclusions Paternal problem gambling may be important in the development of adolescent at-risk/problem gambling behaviours and higher levels of parental involvement buffers the influence of maternal problem gambling in the development of offspring gambling problems. Further research is therefore required to identify factors that attenuate the seemingly greater risk of transmission associated with paternal gambling problems. Scientific Significance Parental involvement is a potential candidate for prevention and intervention efforts designed to reduce the intergenerational transmission of gambling problems. (Am J Addict 2017;26:707–712)