Gamblers’ Perceptions of Stakeholder Responsibility for Minimizing Gambling Harm

Gray, Heather M.; LaPlante, Debi A.; Abarbanel, Brett; Bernhard, Bo J.

doi:10.1007/s11469-019-0056-4

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, the shared responsibility viewpoint was not typical among our samples (Gray et al, 2019, 2021). Additionally, we observed that participants who screened positive on the Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS; Gebauer et al, 2010), a three-item screen derived from the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) Pathological Gambling criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), (1) held relatively diffuse beliefs about who is responsible for minimizing gambling harm, and (2) more strongly believed that casinos should shoulder some responsibility for helping patrons manage their gambling behavior, compared with those who screened negative (Gray et al, 2019; i.e., Year 1 study). Among all participants, these two attitudes about responsibility for minimizing gambling harm predicted participants’ BBGS status over and above well-established risk factors for gambling-related harm, including gambling literacy and responsible gambling behavior.…”

Section: Responsible Gambling Initiativesmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…The data we collected between January 20 and March 7, 2020 comprise our Year 3 sample. The procedure and measures were nearly identical during Years 1 and 2, and additional detail can be found in Gray et al (2019) and Gray et al (2021), respectively 4 . (We used Year 1 and Year 2 data only for testing Hypothesis 1d and Research Question 2.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In Years 1–3, we administered the Positive Play Scale (PPS; Wood et al, 2017), designed to measure responsible gambling behavior and beliefs and modified as described by Gray et al (2019). The present study includes data from two PPS two subscales: the PPS/behavior subscale time (seven items, such as, “I considered the amount of before I was willing to spend I gambled,” Year 3 Cronbach’s α = .822, 95% CI: 0.799, 0.838; ω = 0.822, 95% CI: 0.806, 0.840) and the PPS/casino responsibility subscale (four items, such as “It’s the casino’s responsibility to help customers be aware of how much money they spend gambling,” Year 3 Cronbach’s α = .856, 95% CI: 0.844, 0.866; ω = 0.858, 95% CI: 0.843, 0.868).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Who holds a shared responsibility view of minimizing gambling harm? Results from a multiwave survey of casino gamblers.

Gray¹,

Louderback²,

LaPlante³

et al. 2022

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Academics, gambling regulators, and the gambling industry increasingly espouse a shared responsibility view of preventing gambling harm, considering individual gamblers and external stakeholders (e.g., gambling industry employees, government regulators, and public health workers) to be jointly responsible for this task. This study is the third in a series exploring gamblers' beliefs about responsibility for preventing gambling harm. Method: A sample of 4,336 subscribers to MGM Resorts International (MGM)'s loyalty card program as of January 2020 completed a web-based survey. Results: We observed that 58.1% of participants only held individual gamblers responsible for helping prevent gambling harm. However, two factors increased the likelihood of holding a shared responsibility viewpoint and assigning responsibility to casinos for reducing gambling harm: (a) scoring positive on the Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS) or an Expanded Problem Gambling Screen (EPGS) and (b) being aware of GameSense, an onsite responsible gambling education program. Those who screened positive on the BBGS or EPGS also were more likely than their counterparts to deny personal responsibility for minimizing gambling harm to individual gamblers; that is, they were more likely to hold a purely external responsibility viewpoint. A meta-analytic year-over-year comparison revealed that compared to being aware of GameSense, screening positive for problem gambling was more strongly associated with assigning responsibility to casinos for minimizing gambling harm. Conclusions: We discuss these findings in the context of self-determination theory and suggest implications for health promotion and best practices for message design in responsible gambling programs.Public Health Significance Statement (a) A sample of casino gamblers tended to hold only individual gamblers responsible for minimizing gambling harm, unless they were experiencing some level of gambling harm-in which case, they were more likely to assign responsibility to external groups, such as casino employees. (b) This study suggests that exposure to a responsible gambling program is linked with holding a broader view of who is responsible for minimizing gambling harm.

show abstract

Section: Responsible Gambling Initiativesmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who holds a shared responsibility view of minimizing gambling harm? Results from a multiwave survey of casino gamblers.

Gray¹,

Louderback²,

LaPlante³

et al. 2022

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although these two methods can be very helpful to customers facing problem gambling, it is only the customers that recognize his or her problems and decide to ask for help. When gamblers usually attribute responsibility to themselves, not casinos [95], the passive casino companies' strategy to focus on these methods is shifting their responsibility to customers. Moreover, these companies tend to not provide enough self-assessment information (43%), which helps to determine whether a customer needs external assistance or not.…”

Section: Csr Webmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in the Casino Industry: A Content Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to provide preliminary exploration of how corporate social responsibility issues are currently reported and communicated by US major casino companies. Empirical evidence is drawn from standalone CSR reports and websites of the 30 largest casino companies in the US, which is explored through content analysis methodology. This paper finds that there are substantial variations in the reporting and communication of CSR issues by casino companies. While casino companies mainly rely on websites to communicate CSR issues, 23% of the sample companies use standalone CSR reports. Whereas websites tend to provide relatively limited information about CSR activities, standalone CSR reports have a tendency to cover comprehensive CSR themes in a detailed manner. In addition, the content analysis based on website reveals that while most casino companies tend to be passive about responsible gaming, some are trying to behave more actively and responsibly about this issue.

show abstract

“…Employee responses came from all MGM North America properties; thus, the study is still limited in scope to North America and may not be generalizable to companies operating in other jurisdictions. MGM further includes a diverse portfolio of properties and jurisdictions, and RG opinions may differ across these (as explored in Gray et al, 2019).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between employee department and responsible gambling program perceptions: extension and follow-up study

Abarbanel

Kraus

Qing

et al. 2020

JHTI

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study investigates how employees perceive responsible gambling (RG) programs, which are part of a corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework for minimizing negative impacts associated with problematic gambling. Casino employees have different levels of interaction with gamblers, which could affect employees' opinions about RG.Design/methodology/approachSurveys at two time periods – baseline (N = 2,192) and one-year follow-up (N = 852) to a new RG program – asked employees at MGM Resorts International (MGM) about their (1) perceptions of program effectiveness, (2) gambling behaviors and beliefs and (3) perceived level of employer support. Two one-way MANCOVAs, with years employed in the gambling industry as the covariate, extended results from a prior study. An additional two-way MANCOVA examined contact-level and year-over-year differences.FindingsEmployees who have high contact with gamblers, such as those in security or casino dealer positions, viewed RG programs as less effective than employees who have low contact with gamblers, such as those in culinary or corporate positions.Practical implicationsEmployees are vital to harm reduction CSR strategies and MGM should work toward a program with varied RG training content and delivery, depending on the likelihood of employee interaction with active gamblers.Originality/valueRG programs are key CSR initiatives for hospitality organizations with gambling licenses. Employees play an interactive role in delivering these programs, so their perceptions and understanding help assess program value. This is the first study to examine employee perceptions of a newly-implemented RG program with baseline and follow-up data.

show abstract

Gamblers’ Perceptions of Stakeholder Responsibility for Minimizing Gambling Harm

Cited by 12 publications

References 37 publications

Who holds a shared responsibility view of minimizing gambling harm? Results from a multiwave survey of casino gamblers.

Who holds a shared responsibility view of minimizing gambling harm? Results from a multiwave survey of casino gamblers.

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in the Casino Industry: A Content Analysis

Association between employee department and responsible gambling program perceptions: extension and follow-up study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About