Responsible Gambling

Question 1

The Norway Experiment: background

Answer 1

• In 1997, Norway had the 3rd highest density of EGMs (per capita) in the world. EGMs had no age restrictions and were available in supermarkets and gas stations
• By 2005, gambling accounted for 5% of disposable household income, and EGMs held 66% of the gambling market

Question 2

The Norway Experiment: experiment

Answer 2

• Natural Experiment
• In 2006:
• • Machines turned off at night (12am-6am)
• • Ban on banknote acceptors (had to be coins only)
• In 2007: All EGMs removed for 1.5 years
• In 2009: Introduced new EGMs that required personal ID card and imposed upper limits on daily and monthly passes

Question 3

The Norway Experiment: consequences

Answer 3

• Gambling helpline calls fell, esp. EGMs, by 62%
• Gambling treatment referrals fell by 57%
• Gambling revenue fell by ~31% (across all games)
• No indication of the development of an illegal EGM market, or of substitution of EGMs with other types of gambling
• Gambling revenue fell by about 1/3 -> impact on humanitarian and health organizations that received funding from gambling revenue

Question 4

Preventative Strategies

Answer 4

• Restrictions on who can gamble (ex. Age, non-residents, alcohol use in venues)
• Restrictions on gambling availability (ex. Only gambling in venues, having opening hours)
• Awareness campaigns about harms (advertising, “responsible gambling” info centres in venues, school education)
• Game features (ex. Pop-up messages, pre-commitment strategies, maximum spend limits – ex. Norway)

Question 5

Revenue of Gambling in BC and Canada

Answer 5

• Gambling in BC generates ~3.3 billion in revenue annually, profits 1.4 billion
• • Of the 1.4 billion, 5.6 million goes towards treatment
• Gambling in Canada generates 17 billion in revenue

Question 6

Review of responsible gambling strategies by Ladouceur et al

Answer 6

• Set rigid criteria:
• • Studies had to be real gamblers doing real gambling
• • Plus 1 of the following: a matched comparison group, longitudinal evaluation, using a validated screening scale
• In the whole field of evidence, only 29 studies met criteria -> field doesn’t have a ton of research yet

Question 7

risk assessment tools

Answer 7

• used to evaluate riskiness/potential for harm of (new) forms of gambling
• Ex. GamGARD: game scored on 10 structural characteristics
• German Assessment tool: also scored on 10 structural characteristics

Question 8

10 characteristics of German Assessment tool

Answer 8

• Event frequency (ex. How long between doing something and finding out if you’ve won… weekly lottery = slow, slot machines = fast)
• Cashout interval (ex. How long between finding out you’ve won and receiving cash)
• Jackpot size
• Multigame/stake opportunities (opportunity to apply multiple stakes or engage in multiple games simultaneously)
• Continuity of the game (extent to which game allows for continuous gambling)
• Prize-back ratio (probability of winning)
• Availability (ease of access to gambling)
• Variable stake size (extent to which gambler can determine stake size themselves)
• Light and sound effects
• Near miss

Question 9

Study: warning messages on slot machines

Answer 9

• Participants either played a slot machine with a static display warning (small sticker on side of machine) vs. Dynamic display warning (translucent message scrolling across the screen)
• Participants recall warning messages better with dynamic presentation

Question 10

warning messages: content vs. delivery

Answer 10

• Message Content:
• • Information
• • Self-appraisal
• • Invoking social norms
• • Graphic vs. Text
• Message delivery:
• • Static vs. Dynamic (ex. Scrolling message, requires being turned off, etc.)
• • Targeted/personalized (ex. By age or gambling involvement)

Question 11

School prevention programs

Answer 11

• all have similar objectives:
• • Awareness that gambling can be problematic
• • Recognizing warning signs
• • Risk literacy
• • Common myths
• examples:
• • Ages 6-9: “Do Not Bet on It” (South Australia)
• • Grades 3-8: “Wanna Bet” (Minnesota)
• • Ages 13-18: “Gambling: a Stacked Deck” (Alberta)

Question 12

study: effectiveness of educational program in students

Answer 12

• Undergrads taking various courses:
• • Statistics course where gambling was used for many examples
• • Statistics course where gambling wasn’t mentioned
• • History or sociology course
• At 6 month follow-up, gambling fallacies, gambling attitudes, and gambling/problem-gambling involvement were assessed
• • In gambling statistics group, gambling math skills were better, gambling fallacies were lower, but they were no less likely to gamble!

Question 13

gambling advertising: research

Answer 13

• Norwegian researchers asked gamblers to fill out questions about gambling advertising, conducted factor analysis
• Problem gamblers show stronger impact on gambling involvement
• Younger and male gamblers higher impact on involvement and knowledge

Question 14

The “Gamblification” of sports

Answer 14

• Victoria, Australia banned gambling ad billboards within 150m of schools
• MGM strikes sponsorship deal with NY Jets
• New South Wales, Australia banned TV advertising of “live odds” or “in play” betting (risks to problem gamblers chasing losses, exposing children to gambling)