Predictors of Gamblers Beliefs About Responsible Gambling Measures
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.
KeywordsResponsible gambling Gambling problems Pre-commitment Prevention Harm reduction Gambling
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).
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).
- Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Volume 1—Personality theories and models (Vol. 1, pp. 1–30). Retrieved March 15, 2018 from http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_personalitytheory1.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Florence: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., & Messerlian, C. (2007). The effects of Gambling Advertising Questionnaire (EGAQ). Montreal: McGill University.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The canadian problem gambling index. Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Gamgard. (2018). Welcome to Gamgard. Retrieved March 15, 2018 from www.gamgard.com.
- Gamres. (2018). Gamgard Version 3.0 has launched! Retrieved March 15, 2018 from http://gamres.org/gamgard-version-3-0-launched-2/.
- 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
- Hirsh, J. (2010). Decision-making and self-regulation from a social-personality neuroscience perspective. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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