Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 1375–1396 | Cite as

Predictors of Gamblers Beliefs About Responsible Gambling Measures

  • Jonny EngebøEmail author
  • Torbjørn Torsheim
  • Rune Aune Mentzoni
  • Helge Molde
  • Ståle Pallesen
Original Paper

Abstract

Responsible gambling (RG) measures are methods aimed at reducing and preventing negative consequences associated with gambling. Some RG measures are set by authorities or gambling operators while others are available as features for gamblers to use themselves (e.g. budget tools where personal monetary limits are set prior to gambling). The present study is based on a general gambler population and investigates how RG measures with some specific RG features are assessed by the gamblers. The data was collected in 2013 and 2015. The samples were drawn from the Norwegian Population Registry. In total 9129 gamblers participated. Gamblers were asked to state to which degree they agreed that ten specific RG measures help or would help them controlling their gambling. Overall, between 35 and 42% neither agreed nor disagreed, but among those with an opinion, most agreed. A multiple regression analysis identified eleven variables as significant predictors of positive beliefs about RG measures: female gender, young age, playing random games only, being a moderate risk or problem gambler, reporting high impact from gambling advertisements as well as the personality traits agreeableness, openness and neuroticism. Playing low risk games only, reporting a high amount of spending on gambling and the personality trait extraversion were inversely related to positive beliefs about RG measures. The total explained variance was however only 7.1%. Positive beliefs about RG measures can relate to needs for external based countermeasures to minimize or reduce problems. Negative views may reflect a wish to play without obstacles, take risks or to trust in self-control.

Keywords

Responsible gambling Gambling problems Pre-commitment Prevention Harm reduction Gambling 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. However, it should be noted that the first author (Jonny Engebø) works as a senior adviser with The Norwegian Gaming Authority where one of his major tasks is related to regulation and responsible gambling. He is also a PhD candidate with the University of Bergen. In addition, Engebø is a board member of GREF (Gaming Regulators European Forum and he is also co-chair of a GREF working group in responsible gambling. Further he is a member of the executive committee of EASG (The European Association for the Study of Gambling).

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Western Norway (2013/120).

References

  1. Alegria, A. A., Petry, N. M., Hasin, D. S., Liu, S.-M., Grant, B. F., & Blanco, C. (2009). Disordered gambling among racial and ethnic groups in the US: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. CNS Spectrums, 14(3), 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D., Gjertsen, S. R., Krossbakken, E., Kvam, S., & Pallesen, S. (2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(2), 90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auer, M., Littler, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Legal aspects of responsible gaming pre-commitment and personal feedback initiatives. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 6, 444–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auer, M., Reiestad, S. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). Global limit setting as a responsible gambling tool: What do players think? International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9892-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagby, R. M., Vachon, D. D., Bulmash, E. L., Toneatto, T., Quilty, L. C., & Costa, P. T. (2007). Pathological gambling and the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binde, P. (2008). Exploring the impact of gambling advertising: An interview study of problem gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(4), 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S. M., & Karlov, L. (2014). Blue Gum gaming machine: An evaluation of responsible gambling features. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(3), 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Volume 1Personality theories and models (Vol. 1, pp. 1–30). Retrieved March 15, 2018 from http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_personalitytheory1.
  10. Brunborg, G. S., Hanss, D., Mentzoni, R. A., Molde, H., & Pallesen, S. (2016). Problem gambling and the five-factor model of personality: A large population-based study. Addiction, 111(8), 1428–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Florence: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Cross, J. E., Saunders, C. M., & Bartelli, D. (1998). The effectiveness of educational and needle exchange programs: A meta-analysis of HIV prevention strategies for injecting drug users. Quality & Quantity, 32(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., & Messerlian, C. (2007). The effects of Gambling Advertising Questionnaire (EGAQ). Montreal: McGill University.Google Scholar
  15. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The canadian problem gambling index. Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  18. Gainsbury, S. M. (2012). Internet gambling: Current research findings and implications. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gainsbury, S. M., Parke, J., & Suhonen, N. (2013). Consumer attitudes towards Internet gambling: Perceptions of responsible gambling policies, consumer protection, and regulation of online gambling sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gamgard. (2018). Welcome to Gamgard. Retrieved March 15, 2018 from www.gamgard.com.
  21. Gamres. (2018). Gamgard Version 3.0 has launched! Retrieved March 15, 2018 from http://gamres.org/gamgard-version-3-0-launched-2/.
  22. Haefeli, J., Lischer, S., & Schwarz, J. (2011). Early detection items and responsible gambling features for online gambling. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanss, D., Mentzoni, R. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Pallesen, S. (2015). The impact of gambling advertising: Problem gamblers report stronger impacts on involvement, knowledge, and awareness than recreational gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 48–63.Google Scholar
  25. Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2011). Self-exclusion as a harm minimization strategy: Evidence for the casino sector from selected European countries. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(4), 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hing, N., Cherney, L., Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S. M., & Lubman, D. I. (2014). Do advertising and promotions for online gambling increase gambling consumption? An exploratory study. International Gambling Studies, 14(3), 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirsh, J. (2010). Decision-making and self-regulation from a social-personality neuroscience perspective. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Johansson, A., Grant, J. E., Kim, S. W., Odlaug, B. L., & Götestam, K. G. (2009). Risk factors for problematic gambling: A critical literature review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ladouceur, R., Blaszczynski, A., & Lalande, D. R. (2012). Pre-commitment in gambling: A review of the empirical evidence. International Gambling Studies, 12(2), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ladouceur, R., & Sévigny, S. (2009). Electronic gambling machines: Influence of a clock, a cash display, and a precommitment on gambling time. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ladouceur, R., Shaffer, P., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2017). Responsible gambling: A synthesis of the empirical evidence. Addiction Research and Theory, 25(3), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacLaren, V. V., Best, L. A., Dixon, M. J., & Harrigan, K. A. (2011). Problem gambling and the five factor model in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mentzoni, R. A. (2013). Structural characteristics in gambling. Doctoral thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Retrieved March 15, 2018 from Bergen http://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/6542.
  34. Meyer, G., Fiebig, M., Häfeli, J., & Mörsen, C. (2011). Development of an assessment tool to evaluate the risk potential of different gambling types. International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Impact of mode of display and message content of responsible gambling signs for electronic gaming machines on regular gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (6th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Parke, J., Parke, A., Rigbye, J., Suhonen, N., & Williams, L. V. (2012). The eCOGRA global online gambler report. In R. J. Williams, R. T. Wood, & J. Parke (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of internet gambling (pp. 140–160). Oxford: Routdledge.Google Scholar
  38. Rolison, J. J., Hanoch, Y., Wood, S., & Liu, P.-J. (2014). Risk-taking differences across the adult life span: A question of age and domain. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 69(6), 870–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review: DR, 28(1), 78–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., Stevens, R. M. G., Williams, L. A., & Arthur, J. N. (2017). The definition, dimensionalization, and assessment of gambling participation. Report prepared for the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research. February 1, 2017.Google Scholar
  41. Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence, and identified best practices. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. October 1, 2012.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, R. J., & Wood, R. T. (2004). The proportion of gaming revenue derived from problem gamblers: Examining the issues in a Canadian context. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Understanding positive play: An exploration of playing experiences and responsible gambling practices. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(4), 1715–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood, R. T. A., Wohl, M. J. A., Tabri, N., & Philander, K. (2017). Measuring responsible gambling amongst players: Development of the Positive Play Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, article 227.Google Scholar
  45. Yani-de-Soriano, M., Javed, U., & Yousafzai, S. (2012). Can an industry be socially responsible if its products harm consumers? The case of online gambling. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychosocial ScienceUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.The Norwegian Gaming AuthorityFørdeNorway
  3. 3.Norwegian Competence Centre for Gambling and Gaming ResearchUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  4. 4.Department of Clinical PsychologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations