As part of the relocation of ICE from London to Barcelona, Clarion Gaming together with Fira Barcelona agreed an annual investment fund to build a legacy which goes beyond the significant economic impact of staging the world’s biggest gambling technology show in the city. The ICE Research Institute (IRI) provides grants to scientific and academic institutions to fund research on prevention and sustainability providing a robust scientific base to inform decision making. Academic researcher Dr. David Pere Martínez Oró Director of Episteme Social provides an overview of his IRI funded study ‘Social Representations and Stigma Surrounding Gambling in Contemporary Spain (2011–2024)’.

Can you start by explaining a little bit more about the research?

Its central theme is to understand how gambling is portrayed, discussed and classified in the public sphere, particularly through the media, and how these narratives shape stigma, public perception and policy. The research maps four dominant representations, moral, economic, recreational and biomedical and analyses how they influence attitudes toward gambling and toward those who participate in it.

Why is the Stigma associated with gambling important – how does it impact behaviours?

Stigma is not merely a reputational issue; it has behavioural consequences. When gambling is framed as a moral failure, a social threat or an inevitable addiction, individuals who gamble are more likely to feel shame, hide their behaviour and avoid support services. Stigma increases isolation, silence and guilt, conditions that can exacerbate problematic play. At the same time, stigma reduces the legitimacy of gambling as a leisure activity and fuels polarised public debate, closing the door to evidence-based policy and collaborative prevention.

Can Stigma drive excessive or harmful gambling?

Yes. Paradoxically, stigma can intensify harmful behaviour. When individuals fear judgment, they tend to gamble alone, in secrecy, and with fewer social support networks. This privacy reinforces loss of control and delays help-seeking. By treating gambling as a deviant behaviour rather than a regulated leisure practice, stigma pushes vulnerable players to the margins, where risks are greater and protective factors weaker.

What is the sample size?

The study analysed 726 press articles from national and regional newspapers in Spain, published between 2011 and 2024, covering the period shaped by the Ley 13/2011, the digital expansion of private gambling and the regulatory shift on advertising.

Is there any evidence to suggest that stigma is more associated with women than men?

The discourse analysed is not primarily gendered: stigma in the Spanish public sphere targets the practice itself and the symbolic figure of “the player” rather than specifically women or men. However, the underlying moral narrative—risk, irresponsibility, loss of control—does impact women differently in cultural terms: women players are more easily judged as “bad mothers” or “inadequate caregivers,” whereas men are framed as “reckless” or “weak.” Although the media do not stigmatise women more quantitatively, the social cost of stigma can be higher for them because it clashes with traditional gender expectations.

Is stigma more associated with online as opposed to land-based gambling based on the fact that it is a private/solitary activity?

Yes. The findings show that stigma is particularly attached to online gambling, often linked to secrecy, youth risk and loss of control. Land-based gambling, especially in social environments, is more visible, shared and culturally normalised. Online play, being private and solitary, becomes more easily framed as “addictive,” “hidden” or “unhealthy,” reinforcing its moral and biomedical stigma.

In the research do you collate the evidence to prove a hypothesis or do you start with blank sheet of paper?

The project did not start from a closed hypothesis. It used a qualitative, exploratory approach, allowing meaning to emerge from the data rather than forcing predetermined conclusions. The research asks: How is gambling represented? Who defines it? With what social effects? This grounded design strengthens the credibility of the findings and avoids ideological bias.

How important is it to have secured the backing from the ICE Research Institute – would you have been able to conduct the project without the support?

The support of the ICE Research Institute has been crucial. It guarantees independence, legitimacy, access and impact. While the project could have been conducted academically on a smaller scale, ICE’s backing enables broader dissemination, stronger methodological resources and higher industry engagement. It also sends a clear message: the sector is willing to confront difficult questions and invest in knowledge, not just reputation.

How will you use the findings?

The results will inform policy recommendations, industry standards and communication strategies to move from a narrow model of “responsible gambling” toward a more effective framework of shared responsibility—one that distributes obligations among regulators, industry, media, communities and players, reducing harm without producing stigma.

If society is more accepting of gambling would that remove stigma?

Not by itself. A more tolerant society would reduce some moral pressure, but stigma would persist if public discourse continues to moralise risk and individualise harm. Cultural change requires coherent regulation, public education and non-sensationalist media narratives. Without that, tolerance simply shifts the surface of the problem, while stigma remains embedded in cultural meanings and institutional practices.