The significance of a reciprocal link between public opinion and policy making is widely acknowledged in literature. The aim of this study is to explore public opinion on gambling policy by identifying distinct latent classes of attitudes towards policy goals. The findings can provide insights into future gambling regulation and policy making. Data were derived from a 2023 population-based Finnish Gambling Study (n = 5977) representing the population aged 15-74-year-olds. A set of questions regarding gambling policy attitudes were measured. By using a latent class analysis (LCA) we identified classes of individuals with regard to their respond patterns towards gambling policy questions, considering age, gender, gambling frequency and problem gambling status. Logistic regression was then used to predict class membership by demographic background, gambling behavior, and attitude towards gambling. Harm prevention, crime reduction, and control of unauthorized operators were the most endorsed gambling policy goals. Women, non-gamblers, and those affected by others’ gambling more often supported harm reduction and marketing restrictions, while men and recent gamblers prioritized consumer protection, player choice, and competition. Latent class analysis identified three groups: Traditionalists (54.8%), Harm-reducers (32.5%), and Libertarians (12.7%). Compared to Traditionalists, Harm-reducers were more likely to be younger and non-gamblers, while Libertarians were typically male, offshore, with at-risk/problem gambling, and held more pro-gambling attitudes. Most respondents supported harm-reduction or even stricter gambling policies, while only a minority – mainly younger males, offshore gamblers, and those with at-risk or problem gambling behavior – favored liberalization and increased consumer choice. This reveals a clear mismatch between public preferences and current policy trends in Finland, which are moving toward more liberal gambling policy. Attitudes were closely tied to personal gambling behavior, with younger non-gamblers supporting gambling reduction and older gamblers without harms backing stronger regulation.
Lind et al. (Wed,) studied this question.