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

Abstract

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...

Understanding Online Voluntary Self-Exclusion in Gambling: An Empirical Study Using Account-Based Behavioral Tracking Data

“…Although using payment data to build indicators for online problem gambling may appear to be a good option, using VSE as a proxy measure for problem gambling might not be. This is due to the fact that not all customers choose to use VSE because of a problem with their gambling [ 29 , 40 ]. For example, in the aforementioned study conducted by Haeusler, it was reported that 23.3% of customers that used VSE in January 2015 had no deposit payments at all in the year before.…”

“…VSE has been used as a proxy measure for problem gambling in a number of studies [ 16 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Although it is very convenient and used in several studies, using VSE as a proxy measure for problem gambling may not always be the best approach, especially when accounting for online VSE [ 40 ]. Although there are several studies that have used VSE as a proxy measure of online problem gambling, little published empirical research has been carried out on its effectiveness.…”

In-Play Sports Betting: a Scoping Study

“…When gambling behaviour of the bwin subscribers was compared to a group of control subscribers, indices of the intensity of gambling activity (e.g., total number of bets made, number of bets per betting day) for inplay sports bettors most differentiated those who had triggered the responsible gambling alert from the control group. A limitation of this particular study was that triggering an RG feature does not serve as a guaranteed indicator that the user has experienced a gambling-related problem (Gray et al 2012;Griffiths and Auer 2016;Nelson et al 2008). This supports previous research showing that those using responsible gambling tools such as limit-setting ) are more likely to engage in in-play betting than those who do not use such RG tools.…”

Multi-Venue Self-Exclusion for Gambling Disorders: A Retrospective Process Investigation

“…Consistent with previous research showing that few people seek professional help for gambling problems (see Gainsbury, Hing, & Suhonen, 2013;Suurvali, Cordingley, Hodgins, & Cunningham, 2009), the uptake of self-exclusion is low, with an estimated 9-17% of past-year problem gamblers being enrolled in programs (PC, 2010). The true percentage is likely significantly less, as the estimate does not account for lifetime problem gamblers nor does it account for individuals who enter self-exclusion for other reasons (Griffiths & Auer, 2016;PC, 2010). Studies have identified various xx factors that may prevent problem gamblers from self-excluding.…”