Early detection items and responsible gambling features for online gambling

Haefeli, Joerg; Lischer, Suzanne; Schwarz, Juerg

doi:10.1080/14459795.2011.604643

Cited by 67 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many have recognised the capacity of gambling websites to provide a suite of more sophisticated responsible gambling measures (Gainsbury, 2012;Haefeli et al, 2011). However, consistent with previous findings that most internet sites currently lack responsible gambling practices (Griffiths, 2012;Williams et al, 2012b;Wood et al, 2012), most study participants thought that gambling operators are not doing enough to protect internet gamblers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…Although researchers may speculate that certain features of internet gambling may facilitate expenditure, loss of control and propensity for problems, there is a persisting lack of confirmatory empirical evidence (Haefeli et al, 2011). Nevertheless, it is argued that responsible gambling measures designed to address the unique features of internet gambling are warranted (Haefeli et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, it is argued that responsible gambling measures designed to address the unique features of internet gambling are warranted (Haefeli et al, 2011). Widespread mandatory implementation of responsible gambling measures remains difficult to achieve given the proliferation and ease of access to unregulated internet gambling websites (Griffiths, 2012;Williams et al, 2012a;Wood et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Maintaining and losing control during internet gambling: A qualitative study of gamblers’ experiences

Hing¹,

Cherney²,

Gainsbury

et al. 2014

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an in-depth exploration of the psychosocial factors and processes related to maintaining and losing control during internet gambling. It explores features of internet gambling leading to loss of control, control strategies used by internet gamblers, and the perceived utility of online responsible gambling measures. Interviews with 25 moderate risk and problem internet gamblers yielded rich first-person accounts analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The most frequently identified aspects of internet gambling leading to impaired control were use of digital money, access to credit, lack of scrutiny and ready accessibility. Participants used a range of self-limiting strategies with variable success. Most considered that more comprehensive responsible

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Maintaining and losing control during internet gambling: A qualitative study of gamblers’ experiences

Hing¹,

Cherney²,

Gainsbury

et al. 2014

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These systems can be used to trigger warning signs for players or notify operators to check in with players in an attempt to minimise harms and prevent gamblers developing serious problems (Gainsbury, 2011;Haefeli et al, 2011). Chasing losses is one of the few observable markers of Internet problem or disordered gambling behaviour (Gainsbury, 2011).…”

Section: Limitations and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chasing losses in online poker and casino games: Characteristics and game play of Internet gamblers at risk of disordered gambling

Gainsbury

Suhonen

Saastamoinen

2014

Psychiatry Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For instance, players showed a marked decrease in the willingness to gamble online shortly after they self-excluded. Haefeli et al [3] tried to predict future self-exclusion by analyzing written player correspondence with a gaming company from 150 self-excluders (compared to 150 controls). They were able to correctly predict 76.6% of future self-exclusions based on written communications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Voluntary "Self-Exclusion" by Gamblers be used as a Proxy Measure for Problem Gambling?

Griffiths¹,

Auer²

2016

MOJAMT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-exclusion practices typically refer to the possibility for gamblers to voluntarily ban themselves from playing all (a selection of) games over a predetermined period. The period of exclusion can typically be chosen by the gambler although some operators have non-negotiable self-exclusion periods. Selfexclusion in both online sites and offline venues has become an important responsible gambling practice that is widely used by socially responsible operators. Auer, Littler and Griffiths. [1] briefly overviewed self-exclusion practices in both online and land-based environments. They argued that empirical research on the effectiveness of VSE in online gambling is rare. Hayer and Mayer [2] investigated a sample of 256 online gamblers who selfexcluded. who were then surveyed six & twelve months later. They found that VSE can have favourable psycho-social effects for the gambler. For instance, players showed a marked decrease in the willingness to gamble online shortly after they self-excluded. Haefeli et al. [3] tried to predict future self-exclusion by analyzing written player correspondence with a gaming company from 150 self-excluders (compared to 150 controls). They were able to correctly predict 76.6% of future self-exclusions based on written communications. Important indicators extracted from customer emails were increasing amount of interaction with customer services over a six-month period prior to self-exclusion, doubts about the results of games, and issues concerning account administration and financial transactions. Self-excluders were also different from controls with respect to the tonality of the email (i.e., they used threats and were more abusive in written communications). Based in previous empirical research, Gainsbury [4] claimed that VSE programs are under-utilized by problem gamblers. In general, it is known that individuals do not seek help for problem gambling until they reach serious crisis [5].Why do Players "Self-Exclude" and who are they?Reasons for players to self-exclude are manifold. In a study by Hayer and Meyer, [2] players frequently reported excluding as a preventive measure and annoyance with the operator as reasons for VSE. Furthermore, about one-fifth of self-excluders reported to be problem. gamblers (21.2%). Using the DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling [6], Lischer [7] reported that in a study of three Swiss Casinos, 29% of self-excluders were pathological gamblers, 33% were problem gamblers, and 38% were recreational gamblers. Given that many voluntary self-excluders do not exclude themselves for gambling-related problems, Lischer [7] concluded that self-exclusion is not a good indicator of gambling-related problems. In line with these results Dragecevic and colleagues [8] compared self-excluders with other online players and reported no differences in the (i) mean number of gambling hours per month or (ii) minutes per gambling session. Similar to Hayer and Meyer [2], who report self-exclusion to be rather spontaneous, Dragicevic and colleagues [8] reported that 2...

show abstract

Early detection items and responsible gambling features for online gambling

Cited by 67 publications

References 35 publications

Maintaining and losing control during internet gambling: A qualitative study of gamblers’ experiences

Maintaining and losing control during internet gambling: A qualitative study of gamblers’ experiences

Chasing losses in online poker and casino games: Characteristics and game play of Internet gamblers at risk of disordered gambling

Should Voluntary "Self-Exclusion" by Gamblers be used as a Proxy Measure for Problem Gambling?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About