Facilitating Responsible Gambling: The Relative Effectiveness of Education-Based Animation and Monetary Limit Setting Pop-up Messages Among Electronic Gaming Machine Players

Abstract

Although most gamblers set a monetary limit on their play, many exceed this limit—an antecedent of problematic gambling. Responsible gambling tools may assist players to gamble within their means. Historically, however, the impact of such tools has been assessed in isolation. In the current research, two responsible gambling tools that target adherence to a monetary limit were assessed among 72 electronic gaming machine (EGM) players. Participants watched an educational animation explaining how EGMs work (or a neutral video) and then played an EGM in a virtual reality environment. All participants were asked to set a monetary limit on their play, but only half were reminded when that limit was reached. Results showed that both the animation and pop-up limit reminder helped gamblers stay within their preset monetary limit; however, an interaction qualified these main effects. Among participants who did not experience the pop-up reminder, those who watched the animation stayed within their preset monetary limits more than those who did not watch the animation. For those who were reminded of their limit, however, there was no difference in limit adherence between those who watched the animation and those who did not watch the animation. From a responsible gambling perspective, the current study suggests that there is no additive effect of exposure to both responsible gambling tools. Therefore, for minimal disruption in play, a pop-up message reminding gamblers of their preset monetary limit might be preferred over the lengthier educational animation.

Optimal content for warning messages to enhance consumer decision making and reduce problem gambling

“…The reported impact of messages being read, or causing respondents to look at other players or machines, talk to other players, or take actions other than continued play suggests that they created at least a small break in play. Breaks in play, even short periods, are important to enable gamblers to be aware of the amount of time and money they have spent, check in with their surroundings and be able to more accurately assess their current situation and make an informed decision regarding their ongoing gambling (Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010b;Wohl, Gainsbury, Stewart, & Sztainert, 2013). Immediate behavioural changes as a result of seeing the messages were not readily apparent.…”

Global Limit Setting as a Responsible Gambling Tool: What Do Players Think?

“…Players should be introduced to responsible gaming from the very start of their gambling during registration on a specific site. Wohl et al (2013) showed that players who watched an educational animation more often stayed within their preset limits compared to players who did not watch the video.…”

On the Feasibility of In-Venue Observations of Electronic Gaming Machine Gamblers and Game Characteristics

“…Evidence supporting variations of pop-up messages as effective harm-minimization tools has developed since the design of the New Zealand intervention (e.g., Blaszczynski et al, 2014;Monaghan, 2008;Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010;Wohl et al, 2013), but regardless of their sophistication, these messages indicate a gambler who has been gambling for an extended time, and those who report typically seeing three or more pop-up messages in a gambling session are more likely to be problem gamblers . The pop-up messages provide an opportunity for vigilant venue staff to interact with patrons, and it would seem logical to suggest that pop-up messages would be more effective if supplemented consistently with staff intervention (e.g., Delfabbro et al, 2007;Department of Internal Affairs, 2013;Griffiths, 2009;Productivity Commission, 2010;Tse et al, 2005).…”

“…After 15 s, the gambler is given the option of continuing to gamble or cashing out. Although empirical evidence on the effectiveness of pop-up messages and the sophistication of the messages themselves has developed since their introduction (e.g., Blaszczynski, Gainsbury, & Karlov, 2014;Monaghan, 2008;Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010;Wohl, Gainsbury, Stewart, & Sztainert, 2013), the early uptake of this system in New Zealand means the intervention itself was informed by just two studies (Ladouceur & Sévigny, 2003;Shellink & Shrans, 2002). The frequency of occurrence of pop-up messages lent confidence that all occurrences regarding observed gamblers could be documented.…”