Personalized Behavioral Feedback for Online Gamblers: A Real World Empirical Study

Abstract

Responsible gambling tools (e.g., limit-setting tools, pop-up messages, and personalized feedback) have become increasingly popular as a way of facilitating players to gamble in a more responsible manner. However, relatively few studies have evaluated whether such tools actually work. The present study examined whether the use of three types of information (i.e., personalized feedback, normative feedback, and/or a recommendation) could enable players to gamble more responsibly as assessed using three measures of gambling behavior, i.e., theoretical loss (TL), amount of money wagered, and gross gaming revenue (GGR) (i.e., net win/loss). By manipulating the three forms of information, data from six different groups of players were analyzed. The participant sample drawn from the population were those that had played at least one game for money on the Norsk Tipping online platform (Instaspill) during April 2015. A total of 17,452 players were randomly selected from 69,631 players that fulfilled the selection criteria. Of these, 5,528 players participated in the experiment. Gambling activity among the control group (who received no personalized feedback, normative feedback or no recommendation) was also compared with the other five groups that received information of some kind (personalized feedback, normative feedback and/or a recommendation). Compared to the control group, all groups that received some kind of messaging significantly reduced their gambling behavior as assessed by TL, amount of money wagered, and GGR. The results support the hypothesis that personalized behavioral feedback can enable behavioral change in gambling but that normative feedback does not appear change behavior significantly more than personalized feedback.

Transformation of Sports Betting into a Rapid and Continuous Gambling Activity: a Grounded Theoretical Investigation of Problem Sports Betting in Online Settings

“…The current study not only supports these conclusions but has produced a theoretical mechanism that attempts to explain the behavioural process of rapid, continuous impulsive online sports betting, and it is evident from the current study that the features of live betting and cash out appear to be central in impulsive disordered gambling patterns in online sports betting, supporting previous conclusions (Lopez-Gonzalez et al 2017. Auer and Griffiths (2016) proposed that live betting was particularly reinforcing to problem gamblers who were drawn to the rapid betting cycles. In live betting, outcomes are determined in a much shorter time-frame, which in turn facilitates higher frequency and more impulsive betting behaviour (Auer and Griffiths 2016).…”

“…Auer and Griffiths (2016) proposed that live betting was particularly reinforcing to problem gamblers who were drawn to the rapid betting cycles. In live betting, outcomes are determined in a much shorter time-frame, which in turn facilitates higher frequency and more impulsive betting behaviour (Auer and Griffiths 2016). The current study supports this conclusion by demonstrating quite clearly, in this cohort of online problem sports bettors at least, that the use of live betting and the associated cash out feature are being used to enable high-frequency sports betting.…”

“…There is a large body of literature demonstrating the effectiveness of limit-setting in online gambling environments for problem gamblers Griffiths 2013, 2016), and although these studies are not specific to online sports betting, it is reasonable to assume that a similar effect would be observed. One of the arguments against the setting of self-imposed time or spending limits is the expectation that the customer would simply continue gambling on a different site once the limit had been reached; however, recent research has demonstrated that the vast majority of online gamblers do not migrate to other gambling sites once their limit has been reached (Auer and Griffiths 2016).…”

“…It is argued that problem gamblers will be more attracted to live betting than recreational gamblers because of the quicker betting cycle, i.e. betting outcomes being determined in a shorter time-frame and therefore providing more rapid reinforcement (Auer and Griffiths 2016;Lamont et al 2016).…”

Gambling behavior in alcohol-serving and non-alcohol-serving-venues: a study of electronic gaming machine players using account records

“…In addition, because behavioral tracking can be used to monitor individual gambling expenditure and losses, gamblers could be personally notified about their different gambling behavior across contexts. Recent evidence suggests that providing personalized feedback to gamblers helps them reduce the time and money spent gambling (Auer & Griffiths, 2015;2016b). Furthermore, individuals should be given the opportunity to set context specific losslimits.…”