Psychometrics, risk profiles, and policy attitudes toward gambling in Kazakhstan

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18488/35.v12i4.4557

Keywords:

Gambling prevalence, Harm reduction policy, Kazakhstan, Latent class analysis, Measurement invariance, Problem gambling severity index, Psychometrics, Public attitudes.

Abstract

Commercial gambling is expanding in Kazakhstan amid digitalization and regulatory change, yet population-based estimates of participation and harm remain limited. This study provides a national baseline to inform product-specific harm-reduction policy. A cross-sectional, dual-language (Kazakh/Russian) survey of adults aged 18–60 (N = 1,015) was conducted in April–May 2025 using stratified quotas and post-stratification weights (sex, age, region) to generate population estimates. Measures included past-year gambling participation and intensity, the nine-item Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI; 12-month frame), and attitudes toward regulation and self-exclusion. Weighted proportions are reported for the full sample and, where relevant, past-year gamblers. An estimated 46.7% of adults (95% CI 43.6–49.8) gambled in the previous 12 months; 18.5% (95% CI 16.3–21.0) reported weekly or more frequent play. Among past-year gamblers (n = 474), 44.7% gambled weekly or more, 8.9% reported expenditure exceeding 50% of income, and 3.6% reported spending approximately all income on gambling. PGSI items indicating harm were frequently endorsed (e.g., chasing losses 82.5%; spending more than could be afforded 74.7%). Among non-gamblers, 68% viewed gambling “extremely negatively”; most favored strict regulation, with roughly three-quarters supporting a complete ban and about two-thirds endorsing mandatory youth risk education. Gambling in Kazakhstan is widespread, with substantial self-reported harm and strong public support for restrictive controls.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-01

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Psychometrics, risk profiles, and policy attitudes toward gambling in Kazakhstan . (2025). Journal of Social Economics Research, 12(4), 274-285. https://doi.org/10.18488/35.v12i4.4557