Introduction

Why Older Gamblers?

Currently, about 4 million Canadians (12%) are over age 65 and by 2010, seniors will account for 14% of all Canadians (Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission or AADAC, 2000; Government of Canada, 1993). Older adults are of interest to study because their social circumstances and lifestyle patterns affect a range of social and community services. Although 70% of seniors (adults 65+) are universally eligible for monthly social security, many are considered to be socially vulnerable, of marginal means, and high users of health care (Getzen, 1992). Moreover, older people involved in gaming activities may exacerbate age declines by sitting for long periods of time, smoking, eating fast foods, over-consuming alcoholic beverages and using gambling as their main source of leisure-time participation. Although older adults have more leisure time than younger adult groups (Novak, 1993), and 73% consider their health to be good to excellent (National Advisory Council on Aging, 2001), their use of time and lifestyle choices have been understudied in the gaming context (Mok & Hraba, 1991). By virtue of their longevity and experience, older adults provide life course dimensions and social perspectives on how they became who they are and do what they do.

Why Bingo?

In Alberta in 1998, about 17% of all-age Albertans reported playing bingo, largely organized by 64 bingo associations—a proportion equivalent to those who play on VLT’s (AADAC, 1998). In the past few years, 95 bingo halls have been linked across the province for Jackpots as big as $200,000 (AADAC, 1998). Bingo is a popular past time with seniors, but bingo has received little study for its contribution to health and well-being in later life. Although gambling is generally becoming more socially accepted (Shaffer, 1999), bingo has long held a social stigma that allows it to be criticized as a bad lifestyle choice for spending one’s time and money. Moreover, players are often devalued by non-playing members of society who may hold gender and ageist stereotypes about who plays and why (O’Brien Cousins & Witcher, 2004). Considered a harmless form of recreation by the actual participants, bingo is a large revenue source for communities and annually generates $330,000,000 in the province of Alberta alone (AADAC, 1998). Hosting bingos is essential to the workings of sport clubs and other community non-profit organizations. Without bingo, some charitable agencies would cease to exist, and many youth groups would have no ongoing source of support. So who are the bingo “regulars?” Are they really “little old ladies” of marginal means? How valid is the stereotype, and what factors explain a bingo way of life?

Only recently have elderly gamblers become a research focus (McNeilly & Burke, 2000). Problem gambling dominates the research at the present time, with casino and VLT’s under the most scrutiny. Yet problem gambling applies to less than 3% of seniors, and many bingo players do not even consider themselves gamblers (Lange, 2001). Since the benefits and risks of playing bingo have received little attention especially from a public health perspective (Korn, 2000; Korn & Shaffer, 1999), we simply know very little about the social circumstances and lifestyles of those playing bingo on a regular basis. Because the game is so popular, especially among older people, going out to play bingo must provide the participants with generally positive experiences that make it worthwhile. Considering its entertainment value, many older people say they play on a regular basis and invest a significant amount of money on bingo (O’Brien Cousins & Witcher, in preparation, 2006). New evidence suggests that seniors do value bingo as a safe place to go and meet other people; seniors consider bingo as an affordable way to entertain themselves for an afternoon or evening (O’Brien Cousins & Witcher, in preparation, 2006).

On the negative side, bingo halls are cast as smoky environments in which people sit for many hours, killing time and indulging in fast foods (O’Brien Cousins & Witcher, in preparation, 2006). Yet little is known about the general well-being and health circumstances of older bingo players, but by virtue of their gambling mentality, they may be less concerned about their health. The public health implication is that bingo serves no useful purpose and may well be causing harm. Moreover, bingo is a sedentary form of leisure that, if the dominant lifestyle of later life, may lead to more rapid physical declines, mounting health problems, and lower quality of life (Health Canada, 1999). With evidence accumulating that at every age, daily physical activity with 30–60 min of moderate participation is the ideal approach to promoting health and wellness (Health Canada, 1999), we wondered about the physical activity patterns of bingo players and the positive or negative relationships of bingo to other lifestyle behaviors. Because bingo is described by many as an “outing,” players hypothetically could be getting more physical activity by walking and generally being more mobile in the community (O’Brien Cousins & Witcher, in preparation, 2006). Thus the three objectives of this current study were to identify the social and health characteristics of elders who play bingo, to identify lifestyle patterns of a ‘bingo way of life’ among regular players (at least 4 h of bingo play per week or more), and to examine the findings in relation to social stigmas of bingo and stereotypes of who plays.

The Research Questions

  1. (1)

    Who plays bingo in late life (age 65+); how do bingo players differ in social and health characteristics from non-players?

  2. (2)

    What are the important lifestyle patterns of seniors who play bingo?

  3. (3)

    How accurate are the gambling stigmas and social stereotypes for the game of bingo?

Methods

Sample: With a power of 90% (two-tailed) and a critical effect size of .20, we estimated a sample size of 400 respondents would be required (Kraemer & Thiemann, 1987). A 30-min computer-assisted telephone survey (CATI system) was conducted using random quota sampling to obtain demographic and descriptive data on 400 men and women aged 65 or older of urban and rural locations. The survey was administered by 10 trained interviewers on the 18-station computer assisted telephone interviewing system (CATI). Interviewers made repeated call-backs up to ten times in order to reach the randomly selected household. Three sub-samples were used to build generalizability to Alberta: the City of Edmonton (N = 100) the City of Calgary (N = 100) and the remainder of the province (N = 200). The random data-set included 50 individuals of the 400 sampled who had played bingo in the past year, but it was apparent that the CATI sample was not reaching many hard-core and regular bingo players; those players were not often at home in the afternoons or evenings when many of the calls were made. Therefore, the initial random sample was used for descriptive purposes, with a second strategic sample of regular bingo players added to strengthen the dependent variable in preparation for regression analyses. To that end, 70 seniors were directly approached in bingo halls to fill out written surveys and of those, 44 provided a full-set of usable data for a total N of 444.

Survey: Part 1 of the population survey included ten demographic items from the 1998 AADAC Report on Adult Gambling in Alberta including gender, age, education, marital status, type of residence, rural or urban geographic area, income supplement status (federal supplements show low-income), self-rating of health, presence of physical limitations preventing exercise participation, and need for assistance in caring for oneself or one’s home. In Part 2, respondents were asked about their habits related to bingo play (dependent variable), and independent lifestyle patterns such as amount of leisure time, smoking, eating, drinking, and time spent on physical activity. The questions and coding details are summarized in the attached “Survey Questions”. “Money typically spent on a bingo session” was chosen as the criterion variable (DV) as it demonstrated normality in its distribution compared to other measures of bingo such as number of cards played, or number of sessions attended per month. The latter measures of bingo tended to cluster on 6, 9, or 12 cards played, or days of play on 4, 8, or 12 days a month, making them less suitable as continuous dependent variables.

Statistical Methods

Cross-tabulations (N = 400) were conducted, via Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (SPSS 10.0). This allowed for direct comparisons (means, standard deviations, and correlations matrices) of the 50 BPs with the 350 NPs with significance values reported for each variable. With the N = 444 database, dummy coding was used to prepare categorical variables for multiple regression, while continuous variables such as age, education, and money typically spent on bingo were standardized into z-scores. To answer the question, “Who plays (spends money on) bingo?” a multiple linear regression analysis was performed with the social and health contextual variables entered in backward stepwise regression to explain variance on money typically spent on weekly bingo (NP’s spent $.00). For the second question, “What are the lifestyle habits associated with money spent on bingo?” the lifestyle predictors were entered into to a second regression equation in the same way.

Descriptive Results on N = 400: Social Contextual Variables

Age (Fig. 1)

Bingo players were slightly older than non-bingo players with very few participants older than age 85. The mean age of BP’s was 74.8 years, while the mean age of NP’s was 73.8 years, F (1, 397) = 1.16, P = .282.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Age breakdown of bingo players and non-players

Full size image

Gender (Fig. 2)

Only 19% of the respondents (N = 50) had played bingo in the last 12 months of those who had ever played bingo (N = 266). Figure 1 shows that women players (N = 41) outnumbered male players (N = 9) at a proportion of 4:1 (F (1, 264) = 8.97, P < .01).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Gender breakdown of bingo players and non-players

Full size image

Education

A significant difference was found between the numbers of years of formal education obtained between those who indicated they play bingo, and those who indicated they did not, F (1, 397) = 9.29, P < .002. A greater proportion of BP’s (74%) had obtained up to 12 years of formal education (vs. 68% of NP’s), only a minority of bingo players (26%) exceeded 12 years of formal education, as compared to 35% of non-bingo players.

Marital Status

Bingo playing seniors were significantly more likely to be widowed (68% of bingo players vs. 12.8% of non-bingo players, F (1, 398) = 5.43, P = .02.

Geographic Location

Bingo players were more likely to be from rural communities, F (1, 398) = 4.94, P < .03; exactly 50% of the BP’s and only one-third of NP’s came from a rural setting (P < .05).

Housing (Fig. 3)

Housing can be an indicator of financial prosperity. A larger proportion of NP’s lived in houses (63%) compared to BP’s (58%); similarly, more NP’s lived in condominiums or town-houses (17%) compared to BP’s (8%). Thus, many bingo players were renters as compared to non-players (F (1, 398) = 3.64, P < .057).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Housing situation for bingo players and non-players

Full size image

Income

Income reporting is a sensitive question that can create a lot of missing data. Only 39 of 50 bingo players, and 157 of 216 non-bingo players chose to answer this particular question. BP’s reported significantly less income, versus NP’s (F (1, 289) = 17.66, P < .000), and all but one bingo player had annual income below $40,000. In contrast, 28% of non-bingo players reported a household income of greater than $40,000. Over half of the BP’s had incomes below $20,000 compared to one-quarter of the NP’s.

Supplemental Income (Fig. 4)

Supplemental income is a government indicator of marginal means and is often better reported than income (as was the case in this study). Data was available for 45 of 50 bingo players, and 202 of 216 non-bingo players with more bingo players receiving federal supplements to off-set marginal income, F (1, 372) = 16.36, P < .000. Twice as many BP’s received federal supplements, compared to NP’s (51% vs. 26%).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Federal supplement recipients amongst bingo players and non-players

Full size image

Physical Limitations (Fig. 5)

More bingo players reported physical health limitations that would prevent them from participating in physical activities compared to non-players, F (1, 385) = 3.64, P = .057. The three most prevalent physical limitations among the random population sample were: (1) bad hips, knees, or legs, (2) heart disease, and (3) arthritis. When respondents were asked if they had any health limitations that would prevent them from following a physical activity or exercise program, 50% of bingo players agreed versus only 36.5% of non-bingo players.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Physical health limitations amongst bingo players and non-players

Full size image

Self-rating of Health

The self-ratings of health for bingo players and non-players provided mixed scores (F (1, 393) = .970, P = .325). Fewer bingo players reported excellent, very good, or fair health, and tended to cluster on good health and poor health. Overall, the non-normal distribution of scores is hard to explain and may be an artifact, but clearly makes this variable non-linear and less suited to statistical analysis.

Functional Capacity for Care of Self and Home

Bingo players were not different from non-players in terms of their needs for assistance in caring for themselves or their home. About 5% of seniors in this study reported using a cane, walker or wheel-chair, and almost 60% had full function and needed no help at all with self-care of home help, F (1, 394) = .012, P = .91.

Descriptive Results: Lifestyle Variables

Within the 400 respondents of the random population sample, the goal was to understand gambling patterns of bingo players compared to the general population with respect to frequency of play, number of cards played, and money typically spent per session. In addition, bingo players and non-players were compared for other gambling activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity participation, eating habits and available leisure-time.

Bingo Background

Asked if they had ever played bingo, 266 seniors indicated that they had, while 133 indicated that they had not, totaling 399 adults aged 65+ (one no response). Of the 266 participants who had “ever played bingo,” only 50 indicated that they had played bingo in the past 12 months. Of those 50 bingo players, 32% had not at all played in the past month, about 19% were playing 2 or 3 times a month, 28% were playing once a week, and 20% were playing two or more times a week. One exceptional individual reported playing 20 times per month (5 times/week). When asked how much money they typically spent on one bingo session, most players reported between $20.00 and $40.00, with a mean of $20.96.

General Gambling Activities

A greater proportion of bingo players, compared to non-players, reported they spent money or time on general gambling activities in the past 12 months (92% vs. 78.2%, respectively), F (1, 264) = 5.02, P < .05. While the difference was significant, it is important to note that almost 80% of non-bingo players were participating in some form of gambling. Bingo players spent significantly more time on overall gambling activities, F (1, 200) = 6.92, P < .01. BP’s spent an average of 10.32 h/month gambling, while NB’s spent an average of only 3.11 h/month on overall gambling.

Leisure Time

Seniors in this study generally reported having ample leisure time each day, but slightly more bingo players reported having no free time, or hardly any free time, F (1, 395) = 2.35, P = .126.

Alcohol Consumption (Fig. 6)

Bingo players were significantly less likely to consume alcohol than non-players, F (1, 398) = 6.62, P < .01. The majority (80.0%) of bingo players consumed one drink per month or less compared to 55.6% of non-players. About 15% of NP’s and only one BP consumed four or more alcoholic beverages a week.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Alcohol consumption of bingo players and non-players

Full size image

Smoking

The smoking habits of bingo players and non-players were not very different. F (1, 397) = .156, P = .693. Indeed, a small proportion of BP’s said they used to smoke but are now non-smokers compared to NP’s who were more likely to have never smoked.

Eating Patterns

Slightly more bingo players said they ate whatever and whenever they wanted according to the responses on habitual eating patterns, F (1, 398) = 2.17, P = .142. About 45% of the whole sample said they pay some attention to what they eat, but 30% of non-players, and 25% of players said they are careful/very careful to choose more healthy foods to eat.

Exercise Stage (Fig. 7)

In the N = 400 sample, bingo players were far less physically active than non-players, F (1, 398) = 6.76, P < .01. Twice as many BP’s (23%) reported they fit the phrase, “I currently don’t exercise and don’t intend to,” compared to NP’s (13.1%). Over 56% of NP’s reported being at Stage 5 (“I exercise regularly”) compared to 46% of BP’s.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Current exercise involvement amongst bingo players and non-players

Full size image

Exercise Frequency

More BP’s (30%) than NP’s (17%) reported being sedentary in their leisure time and thus reported “0” (zero) exercise sessions per week, but many other bingo players reported they had exercise sessions on three days a week and seven days a week. Thus frequency of exercise did not differentiate bingo players from non-players, F (1, 396) = .810, P = .369.

Multiple Regression Results (N = 444): “Who Spends Money on Bingo?”

Pearson and Spearman correlations were run on the 15 IV’s and the dependent variable, “money spent on bingo” using the combined sample (N = 444, Table 1). AGE and urban/rural LOCATION did not reach significance, while self-rated HEALTH and SELFCARE approached significance. Multiple linear regressions were conducted to examine both social and lifestyle factors within the sample of 444 adults aged 65+. First, money spent on bingo was regressed on ten social factors; and second, money spent on bingo was regressed on five lifestyle variables. A third regression including all 15 variables plus two mobility variables was conducted.

Table 1 Spearman correlations (two-tailed) between social, lifestyle and bingo IV’s and money typically spent on bingo
Full size table

Social Model of Money Typically Spent on Bingo Among 444 Adults Aged 65+

To examine the main social factors (ten IV’s) of money typically spent on one bingo session (DV), a backward stepwise regression was conducted with the following 10 social variables (dummy coded or transformed to z-scores): age (0 = mean, 1 = S.D.), gender (1 = male, 0 = female), education (0 = mean, 1 = S.D.), marital status (1 = married/partnered, 0 = widowed/single), urban/rural location (0 = rural, 1 = urban), type of living accommodation (1 = house/condo, 0 = other), income supplement (1 = yes, 0 = no), number of health limitations (0 = one or more physical limitations, 1 = no limitations), self-rated health (1 = good/excellent, 0 = fair/poor), and self-care score (1 = no help needed , 0 = need help with self-care). Of these, five independent variables were significant factors and explained 16% of the variance in money typically spent on bingo (F = 16.3, P < .000). The five variables and their coefficients are seen in the following equation of standardized coefficients:

$$ {\hbox{DV}}\;{\hbox{ = }}\;{\hbox{Constant}}\;{\hbox{ + }}\;{\hbox{.237 Income supplement}}\; - \;{\hbox{.190 Gender}}\; - \;{\hbox{.120 Housing}}\; - \;{\hbox{.100 Health limitations}}\; - \;{\hbox{.091 Education}} $$

This equation identifies the key social situation of individuals who tend to spend money on bingo: women who receive the federal income supplement, live in rental accommodation, with one or more health limitations and have lower education. Table 1 summarizes the coefficients, t-values and probabilities.

Lifestyle Model of Money Typically Spent on Bingo Among 444 Adults Aged 65+

In a second regression, backward step-wise multiple linear regression was used to examine the lifestyle or behavioral factors. The IV’s were: amount of leisure time (0 = insufficient leisure time, 1 = ample), alcohol consumption (0 = any kind of drinker, 1 = non-drinker), smoking status (0 = any kind of smoker, 1 = non-smoker), current exercise level (0 = inactive or irregular exerciser, 1 = active weekly exerciser), and eating patterns (0 = not healthy or careless eater, 1 = healthy or careful eater).

Table 2 and the following equation show that only one lifestyle variable was a significant explanatory variable for money typically spent on bingo:

Table 2 Social model of money spent on bingo among adults aged 65± (simultaneous entry)
Full size table
$$ {\hbox{DV}}\;{\hbox{ = }}\;{\hbox{Constant}}\;{\hbox{ + }}\; - {\hbox{.207 Active (1}}\;{\hbox{ = }}\;{\hbox{regular exerciser; 0}}\;{\hbox{ = }}\;{\hbox{inactive or irregular exerciser}} $$

Whether in a forced entry model with all five IV’s or in backward stepwise regression, this single lifestyle variable was the only significant lifestyle factor able to explain 4 to 5% of the variance in the DV. A second variable showed some influence but was not significant; non-drinkers of alcoholic beverages were linked to the spending of money on bingo (Table 3).

Table 3 Lifestyle model of money typically spent on bingo among adults 65+ (simultaneous entry)
Full size table

Summary and Discussion

Csikszentmihalyi (1997, p. 17) has commented that, “what we do day in and out has a lot to do with what kind of life we have”. Many older people enjoy their later years by playing bingo on a regular basis and invest a good deal of their financial resources into this form of entertainment, but to date, little research has explored the kind of life they have. Instead, lifestyle stigmas about gambling and “little old lady” stereotypes about bingo players have prevailed. With a goal to increase social understanding about who plays bingo in later life and its implications for society, we asked, “What are the social characteristics and lifestyle habits of seniors who invest in bingo?’

Using descriptive data and then statistical regression calculations, this study does little to dispel social assumptions about “little old ladies” in the bingo halls. We found, that matching the predominant stereotype, elderly women of marginal means (receiving pension supplements) with health limitations and highly sedentary lifestyles comprise a significant group of bingo players. Differing from the stereotype of bingo players being smokers, this study found that the main lifestyle vice of players was inadequate levels or no physical activity at all.

Older adults have more discretionary time than any other age group (Novak, 1993), but lifestyles are more than who an individual is; lifestyles can also refer to personal choices and how older people spend their time in late life. For our purposes, “lifestyle” referred to habitual patterns of work and leisure, and choices that people made to structure their lives from day to day. In this study, we examined a number of variables related to lifestyle such as amount of leisure time, alcohol consumption, smoking behavior, eating patterns, and exercise involvement. Only physical INACTIVITY was a significant determinant of money spent on bingo.

In this study, bingo players distinguished themselves in terms of their inactive lifestyle, but not as smokers, drinkers, or poor eaters as the social stigma would have us believe. The reasons for finding four other lifestyle patterns with little or no explanatory power are related to the overlapping variance found between bingo players and non-players on smoking, eating, alcohol consumption, and available leisure-time. For example, bingo players were comprised of many smokers and non-smokers, as were the non-players. Therefore smoking was not able to stand up as a good explanatory variable of money typically spent on bingo. Given a strong correlation between money spent on bingo and time spent playing bingo (r = .679, P < .001, Table 1), avid bingo players would have utilized a good portion of their available leisure time on the game of bingo. Moreover, our results were clear that bingo players participated in other forms of gambling more than non-players, which would exacerbate their sedentary lifestyle further.

The dependent variable showed good variability with some players spending up to $50 a session on bingo while others played within their senior’s apartment complex and paid only a loonie ($1.00) for the evening. The social characteristics of bigger-spending bingo players point to the lower income and gendered side of bingo—women players who dominate the game because they can’t afford to play in the casinos. The money they spend may be considered as good value by them for the sheer amount of entertainment time obtained, although non-players tend to counter that view by saying that the game is so slow and tedious that “bingo is boring” (O’Brien Cousins & Witcher, in preparation, 2006). Tedious or not, weekly bingo players appear to be rationing themselves to approximately 20 h of bingo gambling a month, which could accumulate up to $200 dollars a month. More avid players, playing five sessions a week, accumulate that many bingo hours in a single week, and thus their expenses on bingo can be four times that amount unless they win a significant money pot along the way. At any level, bingo can become a “problem” if the losses go beyond what is appropriate for one’s income and regular expenses.

For several decades, bingo has been commonly described “as a little old ladies game,” an indication that most people view bingo players as conservative, not “big-time gamblers,” predominantly female and somewhat elderly (Kallick, Suits, Deilman, & Hybels, 1979). Other information on older adults playing bingo does tend to support the stereotype; players do tend to be mainly single and female (Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, 1999) but they may have mixed income levels and education (National Council of Welfare, 1996). Among the serious devotees of bingo (heavy, frequent, or weekly players), the stereotype of bingo players appears to be a valid one. They are a small group (possibly less than 10%) of predominantly female players over 65 years, many of whom were not high school graduates, became homemakers without pensions of their own, are widowed, and thus have incomes near the poverty line (National Council of Welfare, 1996).

Bingo has been, and apparently still is, an older women’s game. “Women gravitate toward bingo” in part because not all types of gambling have been equally accessible or culturally acceptable for women” (Hing & Breen, 2001, p. 50), and also because women tend to make smaller bets on games that last longer (Bruce & Johnson, 1994). A ‘feminisation’ of gambling venues has meant that more women feel welcome in the gaming environment, especially where games are low-skill and require only small bets (Trevorrow & Moore, 1999). Thus bingo may simply be offering something very basic—affordable recreation for a night out among a vulnerable social group. One has to wonder why society holds such negativity for an activity that does little harm for a minority group of older women who enjoy the game, most of whom are truly alone (often widowed) with no prospects of finding a partner in late life, who do not feel capable of exerting activities because they have some severe physical disabilities, and who have little disposable income from month to month. Older women and men with better resources (partnered, healthy, with higher income likely have a far wider array of choices of how to spend their time. So the question remaining is why does bingo get such a bad rap?

While bingo players did not socially distinguish themselves as smokers, drinkers or fast food eaters, what we did find was that avid bingo players fit the profile of a serious health problem called sedentary living. With a plethora of research pointing to a physically active lifestyle as the essential way to age well (Health Canada, 1999), it is a puzzle why 15% of U.S. seniors say they “spend a lot of time doing nothing” (Teague & MacNeil, 1992). Some would argue that bingo players are, at least, “doing something.” So does bingo contribute to high quality aging or are seniors simply gambling with their health? Qualitative research provides evidence that bingo players get a good deal of social and emotional benefit out of bingo (O’Brien Cousins, & Witcher, 2004) but for that, they apparently forfeit physically active lifestyles.

Sedentary living is a huge health trade-off and potential social l problem with a rather easy solution. Health Canada (1999) invites seniors to “add it up” since even 10 min of active living counts to maintaining health. New studies such as that by Wong, Wong, Pang, Azizah, and Dass (2003) show that low to moderate intensity walking imparts important cardiovascular health benefits if it is done on a regular basis. Indeed, every 1-min increase in walking per day correlated with an increase in peak oxygen consumption, that over time would delay or retard processes of physical disability (Wong et al., 2003). Simply by walking to and from bingo halls, or participating in more active living within the bingo halls at breaks or intermissions (stretching, walking, tai chi, calisthenics), the passive nature of bingo play could be counter-balanced. The bingo halls generally have ample aisle space to accommodate the refreshment carts, and thus are ready-made facilities for increasing the activity level of bingo players! But do bingo players want to be more active? Future research is needed to explore the utility of, and motivation for, active living interventions in the bingo hall setting.

At least one book (Arrigo, Lewis, & Mattimore, 1992) and one article (Lyall, 1993) call for getting “beyond bingo” to understand its contribution to the well-being of older adults. “The study of gambling behavior has ignored the possibility of health gains associated with gambling” (Korn & Shaffer, 1999, p. 325). Rosecrance (1988) observed considerable social interactions in the bingo environment and noted, “bingo players generally know each other by name and carry on lively conversations both before games and after closing” (p. 85), although other researchers have noted that gamblers can be surrounded by people without having to socialize (Hing & Breen, 2001). New data suggests that some bingo player literally use bingo halls as an escape and a way to cope with unwanted social attention from people who come to their apartment uninvited. “Bingo may offer fun and excitement for some players, and offers hopefulness for a winning moment, but more important, a vigilant game like bingo offers cognitive sharpening such as number recognition, concentration, eye to hand coordination, and systematic monitoring over many hours. These kind of benefits warrant more research and public acknowledgement because they are important ways in which bingo contributes to quality of life.

The Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Institute (2002) estimates that about 2/3 of Canadians are compromising their health and quality of life by spending too much time sitting. While Albertans perceive lack of time, poor health and lack of motivation as the three most imposing barriers to their physical recreation (Spence, Poon, & Mummery, 1997), such cognitive barriers do not seem to exist for participation in bingo. Bingo players manage to devote a number of hours on certain days every week; they play despite health concerns; they manage to get to bingo halls despite physical limitations, and they manage to find an affordable way to participate even though they have little disposable income. This is the kind of tenacity and drive that exercise promoters crave to understand. Why so much BINGO? Why not more physical activity?

Despite persistent public health messaging from the Heart and Stroke Foundation to “walk away from trouble” (Lifelines, 1995), bingo-playing seniors choose to spend their time in passive leisure pursuits such as reading, watching TV, visiting friends, and participating in passive card games or doing arts and crafts (Teague & MacNeil, 1992). Or DO they choose? The answer to that is partially revealed in our findings. Sitting for long periods may be considered by players as part of the discipline of a bingo way of life that is conceptually off-set by the social, psychological and mental benefits of play (O’Brien Cousins & Witcher, in preparation, 2006). Their sedentary living may have little to do with an individually destructive pattern of unhealthy behaviors and may have more to do with severely limited social opportunities with-held by gender, age, income and health. As one social worker noted, “where else does an older woman go for an evening out?”

Survey Questions

Criterion or dependent variable

“How much money do you typically spend on one bingo session?” Open-ended ratio score = $0.00 to any amount, transformed to z scores.

Independent variables, social

Age

Age was determined at the time of call by asking, “Could you please tell me the number of men/women aged 65 and older who live in your household?” Then, could you please tell me the year you were born? Birth year was subtracted from 2001 to get years of age, and then converted to z-scores.

Gender

Respondent’s sex coded, 1 = male, 0 = female

Education

“How many years of formal education have you obtained?” Years reported, recoded into z scores.

Marital

“What is your current martial status?” Recoded 1 = married/common-law partner; 0 = widowed/single/divorced

Whereliv

“Do you currently live... on a farm or ranch, on an acreage, in a town/village/hamlet, in a city? Recoded city and town = 1 (urban) or = 0 (rural).

House

“Which best describes the building you live in?” Recoded 1 = house/condo, 0 = other

Fedsupp

“Do you currently receive any Federal Supplements for pension assistance such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement or Widow’s Pension? Coded 1 = Yes, 0 = No.

Health

“In general, compared to others your age, would you say your health is, excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?” Recoded 1 = good, very good, or excellent health; 0 = fair or poor health

Limitations

“Do you have any health limitations that would prevent you from following a physical activity or exercise program?” Recoded 1 = No, 0 = Yes

Selfcare

“Please describe the statement that best describes your current functional capacity to look after yourself and your home.” (1) I use a walker, cane or wheelchair and I need help with some aspects of self-care, (2) I can do only a few, if any, duties around the home. I may get help with self-care activities too, (3) I can do almost all normal activities despite discomfort or limited mobility of one or more joints. I only get help with major chores such as painting, cleaning windows, or construction projects, (4) I am able to do all daily activities without any outside help. Recoded 1 = No help, 0 = needs any kind of help.

Independent variables, lifestyle

Alcohol

“In the past 12 months, how often on average did you have a drink containing alcohol? Never, once a month, 2–4 times per month, 2–3 times per week, 4 or more times per week? Recoded to 1 = drinker, 0 = abstainer.

Smoking

“Which statement best describes you? (1) I have never smoked (2) I used to smoke but I no longer smoke (3) I smoke less than 5 cigarettes or cigars per day (4) I smoke 5 or more cigarettes or cigars per day. Recoded to 1 = current smoker, 0 = current nonsmoker.

Eating

Which of the following best describes your eating patterns? (1) I eat whatever I want whenever I want (2) I pay some attention to having a balanced diet on most days (3) I am always very careful about monitoring my diet for health reasons, (4) Don’t know. Recoded to 1 = Not always careful about diet, 0 = always very careful about diet

Exercise

“Exercise is defined as active living such as stretching, lifting weights, doing heavy work, walking dancing, or other aerobic activity most days of the week for at least 20 min each time. Choose the statement that best represents your current exercise involvement: (1) I currently do not exercise and I do not intend to start exercising in the next 6 months; (2) I currently do not exercise but I am thinking about starting to exercise in the next 6 months; (3) I currently exercise some, but not regularly; (4) I currently exercise regularly but I have only begun to do so within the last 6 months; (5) I currently exercise regularly and I have been doing so for longer than 6 months.” Recoded to 1 = currently do not exercise or regularly; 0 = currently exercise regularly.

Leisure

“Which of the following statements best describes your current leisure status? (1) I have ample free time each day to do the things I want to do, (2) I have only a few hours of free time each day, (3) I have hardly any free time each day, (4) I have no free time at all on most days. Recoded 1 = ample free time, 0 = little or no free time.

Buddy

“Do you play bingo on your own or with other people?” (1) Alone, (2) With one other person, (3) With two or more other people?” Recoded 1 = with one or more people, 0 = alone.

Gambling

“In a typical month, approximately how many hours per month, on average, do you spend on all of the gambling activities that you participate in? Please include any travel time that you need to get to where the activities take place.” Converted to z scores.

Walkeff

“If you had no other transportation, how many blocks could you walk without becoming too tired?” Open-ended responses converted to z-scores.

Staireff

“If the elevator in a tall building was under repair, how many flights of stairs would you consider climbing to visit a good friend?” Open-ended responses converted to z-scores.