Abstract
There is growing evidence that gambling advertising disproportionately affects those experiencing more severe gambling harm. Such association has been studied by recruiting gamblers using online panels, by analysing registered users' data from gambling websites, and through surveys and focus group interviews. However, it is thought that these methods tend to overestimate gambling severity. The present study employed a sample of gamblers with a verified gambling disorder diagnosis (N = 210, 7.1% females, M(age) = 39.4 years) recruited for a period of under two years at a large public hospital. It examined the relationship between self-reported impact of gambling advertising, gambling preference (strategic versus non-strategic) and gambling modality (online versus in-person). The results indicated that higher perceived impact of gambling advertising predicted higher gambling severity, which supports previous findings obtained from non-clinical settings. However, contrary to what was expected, strategic gambling and online gambling were not associated with higher perceived impact of gambling advertising, even though these groups are believed to be exposed to more gambling marketing and advertising from gambling operators. The study aligns well with available scientific evidence proposing further restrictions on gambling advertising regulation due to their disproportionate impact on those already experiencing gambling harm.