A randomised control trial to evaluate messages that promote limit setting and the impact of limits on online gambling behaviour

Abstract

Background & Aim: Deposit limits may be an effective strategy for minimising the harm associated with online gambling. However, voluntary uptake of these tools is low. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different messages to increase use of deposit limits by customers of online gambling sites and to examine the effects of limit setting on gambling behaviour. Design: A pre-registered, naturalistic randomised control trial was conducted wherein customers were sent varied messages by online gambling operators. Setting: Four online Australian sports and racing wagering websites. Participants: 31,989 wagering customers (reduced to 26,516 after screening for eligibility) who had placed bets on at least five days during the last 30. Interventions: Messages were sent via email or in-account notification and were designed to either: [1] be informative, describing the availability and purpose of the tool, [2] highlight the benefits other people receive from using the tool (social messages), or [3] promote the benefit individuals could receive from using the tool (personal messages). Comparators: A control group of customers who did not receive messages was monitored for comparison. Measurements: We collected customer account data for 90-days pre- and post-messages. Findings: 161 (0.71%) customers set a deposit limit within five days of messages being sent. Those sent messages via in-account notification were more likely to set limits than those sent messages via email. Differences in message content had little effect on deposit limit uptake. Customers who set limits showed significantly greater decreases in average daily wager amount, the SD of average daily wager, net loss, and betting intensity compared to a randomly selected subsample of non-limit-setters. Conclusions: Customer messages are inexpensive and can lead to small but impactful increases in the uptake of deposit limits on gambling sites. Setting deposit limits was associated with decreased gambling intensity, expenditure, and losses and may therefore be an effective harm-reduction strategy.

Patterns and correlates of consumer protection tool use by Australian online gambling customers.

“…The development of strategies for effectively communicating the potential benefits of timeouts is particularly warranted given the very low uptake rates and dearth of research on the promotion of tools other than limits. We found that an opt-out limit scheme substantially increased deposit limit use which, in conjunction with the finding of responsible gambling messaging studies (e.g., Heirene & Gainsbury, 2020), suggests strategies that reduce the effort required for customers to access and utilize CPTs may be useful for encouraging their use. We identified a key limitation of the deposit limit tool currently offered on Australian sites (i.e., the ability to easily increase limits multiple times or remove them altogether) which supports the introduction of greater friction and delays to increase limits and messaging to assist customers to determine, set, and adhere to appropriate limits.…”

“…However, before deciding which CPTs should be implemented via an opt-out system or encouraged via messaging it is important that future studies evaluate the harm-reducing qualities of new and existing CPTs on online sites as quality trials are scant (cf. Heirene & Gainsbury, 2020).…”

“…The success of the opt-out scheme observed here is also consistent with messaging studies that have aimed to increase CPT uptake. These studies have found that reducing friction or effort required to access tools from messages is more strongly related to uptake than variations in message content (BIT, 2018; Heirene & Gainsbury, 2020; Kim et al, 2014). However, before deciding which CPTs should be implemented via an opt-out system or encouraged via messaging it is important that future studies evaluate the harm-reducing qualities of new and existing CPTs on online sites as quality trials are scant (cf.…”

“…For example, individuals who voluntarily set deposit limits have been found to reduce the number of days on which they place bets, their frequency of betting, the overall amount they wager (Nelson et al, 2008), and the time they spend gambling (Auer et al, 2018). Heirene and Gainsbury (2020) found that online wagering customers in Australia who set a deposit limit in response to a message prompting them to set a limit reduced their gambling expenditure, intensity, and losses to a significantly greater extent than a control group; although, this finding was only observed among those with low-to-mid levels of these variables pre-limit. Luquiens et al (2019) found online poker players who voluntarily use short-duration self-exclusions (timeouts) and self-exclusions significantly reduce their gambling time and expenditure post-exclusion, although this reduction was not observed among those most heavily involved.…”

“…We aimed to (a) characterize the use of CPTs by online wagering customers in terms of the number of individuals who use them, (b) investigate patterns of use (e.g., typical limit values selected, changes to deposit limits), (c) explore differences in CPT use across multiple sites, and (d) identify demographic (e.g., age and gender) and wagering-related (e.g., average daily stake, betting frequency) characteristics associated with the use of different CPTs. Using data from Australian sites presents several unique opportunities: very few studies have accessed online gambling account data in Australia (Gainsbury et al, 2012; Gainsbury & Russell, 2015; Heirene & Gainsbury, 2020). Further, concerns regarding high rates of problem gambling among individuals engaged in online gambling have recently led to the development of an Australian-wide customer protection framework (Department of Social Services, 2018).…”