Preferred electronic gaming machine environments of recreational versus problem gamblers: An in-venue mixed methods study

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to examine the different EGM environmental preferences of recreational compared to problem gamblers in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 59 EGM gamblers recruited from EGM venues in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Interview data were organised using a thematic analysis into 42 major environmental features that gamblers identified as being of importance in choosing where and what to play. The frequency with which certain environmental characteristics were mentioned was analysed quantitatively, along with demographic information and PGSI status. Results showed that the most common reason for selecting the gambling platform was social, and in-venue gambling was largely but not exclusively preferred for this reason. The most frequently mentioned reason for selecting the provider was based on being close to home and enjoying the service at the venue. Finally, games were frequently selected based on features such as free spins, minimum bet sizes, graphics and in-game sounds. The survey results identified that persons experiencing gambling problems more frequently mentioned the availability of a number of game choices and the perceived potential for winning as important aspects in choosing an EGM environment. This study provides some preliminary evidence on what features of the EGM environment are important to players, and most conducive to safer gambling environments. The findings from this study will inform policy initiatives for player protection through the development of safer EGM gambling environments.

Le bingo électronique apporte-t-il des changements dans les comportements de jeu des adeptes du bingo? / Is Electronic Bingo Changing the Gambling Behaviour of Bingo Players?

“…La limite financière des deux groupes de joueurs aux deux temps de mesure est largement inférieure à la limite du solde de crédits de 2 000 $ par programme permise pour les cartes électroniques de bingo et les mini-jeux. L'action d'apporter seulement le montant en argent correspondant à leur propre limite au site de jeu pourrait permettre aux joueurs de ne pas outrepasser celle-ci (Thorne et al, 2016). Le fait que la carte de crédit ne soit pas intégrée à la tablette électronique pourrait également être un facteur protecteur.…”

Sense of Coherence and Gambling: Exploring the Relationship Between Sense of Coherence, Gambling Behaviour and Gambling-Related Harm

“…A large body of research has examined why people gamble, factors that influence patterns of gambling behaviours, and factors that may contribute to gambling at problematic levels. From a population health perspective, engaging in gambling is a behavioural determinant of health, whilst any subsequent harms are health outcomes (Langham et al 2016). In examining gambling as a behavioural determinant of health, the literature has focussed on the reasons why people gamble (Binde 2012;Breen et al 2011;Lee et al 2009;Lloyd et al 2010), including motivations by specific player groups (Oei and Raylu 2010;Stewart et al 2008;Tarras et al 2000) and for specific gambling products Thomas et al 2009).…”

“…Consistent with these models, the influence of socio-ecological environments, such as social and familial environments, have been examined in relation to gambling (Chiu and Woo 2012;Porter et al 2004;Schreiber et al 2012;Wheeler et al 2006;Young et al 2013) and particularly for youth (Griffiths and Wood 2000;Rahman et al 2012). Broader socio-ecological influences such as gambling marketing (William et al 2013) as well as the situational features of both land based (Hing and Breen 2007;Noseworthy and Finlay 2009;Thorne et al 2016) and online gambling (Gainsbury et al 2013;Hing et al 2014;McMullan and Kervin 2012) have also been studied. The different perspectives have informed the development of theoretical models capturing the complex interaction of multiple upstream health determinants on both gambling behaviours and gambling outcomes (Abbott et al 2013;Blaszczynski and Nower 2002;Tirachaimongkol et al 2010).…”