Responsible Gambling Flashcards

1
Q

The Norway Experiment: background

A
  • In 1997, Norway had the 3rd highest density of EGMs (per capita) in the world. EGMs had no age restrictions and were available in supermarkets and gas stations
  • By 2005, gambling accounted for 5% of disposable household income, and EGMs held 66% of the gambling market
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The Norway Experiment: experiment

A
  • Natural Experiment
  • In 2006:
    • Machines turned off at night (12am-6am)
    • Ban on banknote acceptors (had to be coins only)
  • In 2007: All EGMs removed for 1.5 years
  • In 2009: Introduced new EGMs that required personal ID card and imposed upper limits on daily and monthly passes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

The Norway Experiment: consequences

A
  • Gambling helpline calls fell, esp. EGMs, by 62%
  • Gambling treatment referrals fell by 57%
  • Gambling revenue fell by ~31% (across all games)
  • No indication of the development of an illegal EGM market, or of substitution of EGMs with other types of gambling
  • Gambling revenue fell by about 1/3 -> impact on humanitarian and health organizations that received funding from gambling revenue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Preventative Strategies

A
  • Restrictions on who can gamble (ex. Age, non-residents, alcohol use in venues)
  • Restrictions on gambling availability (ex. Only gambling in venues, having opening hours)
  • Awareness campaigns about harms (advertising, “responsible gambling” info centres in venues, school education)
  • Game features (ex. Pop-up messages, pre-commitment strategies, maximum spend limits – ex. Norway)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Revenue of Gambling in BC and Canada

A
  • Gambling in BC generates ~3.3 billion in revenue annually, profits 1.4 billion
    • Of the 1.4 billion, 5.6 million goes towards treatment
  • Gambling in Canada generates 17 billion in revenue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Review of responsible gambling strategies by Ladouceur et al

A
  • Set rigid criteria:
    • Studies had to be real gamblers doing real gambling
    • Plus 1 of the following: a matched comparison group, longitudinal evaluation, using a validated screening scale
  • In the whole field of evidence, only 29 studies met criteria -> field doesn’t have a ton of research yet
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

risk assessment tools

A
  • used to evaluate riskiness/potential for harm of (new) forms of gambling
  • Ex. GamGARD: game scored on 10 structural characteristics
  • German Assessment tool: also scored on 10 structural characteristics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

10 characteristics of German Assessment tool

A
  • Event frequency (ex. How long between doing something and finding out if you’ve won… weekly lottery = slow, slot machines = fast)
  • Cashout interval (ex. How long between finding out you’ve won and receiving cash)
  • Jackpot size
  • Multigame/stake opportunities (opportunity to apply multiple stakes or engage in multiple games simultaneously)
  • Continuity of the game (extent to which game allows for continuous gambling)
  • Prize-back ratio (probability of winning)
  • Availability (ease of access to gambling)
  • Variable stake size (extent to which gambler can determine stake size themselves)
  • Light and sound effects
  • Near miss
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Study: warning messages on slot machines

A
  • Participants either played a slot machine with a static display warning (small sticker on side of machine) vs. Dynamic display warning (translucent message scrolling across the screen)
  • Participants recall warning messages better with dynamic presentation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

warning messages: content vs. delivery

A
  • Message Content:
    • Information
    • Self-appraisal
    • Invoking social norms
    • Graphic vs. Text
  • Message delivery:
    • Static vs. Dynamic (ex. Scrolling message, requires being turned off, etc.)
    • Targeted/personalized (ex. By age or gambling involvement)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

School prevention programs

A
  • all have similar objectives:
    • Awareness that gambling can be problematic
    • Recognizing warning signs
    • Risk literacy
    • Common myths
  • examples:
    • Ages 6-9: “Do Not Bet on It” (South Australia)
    • Grades 3-8: “Wanna Bet” (Minnesota)
    • Ages 13-18: “Gambling: a Stacked Deck” (Alberta)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

study: effectiveness of educational program in students

A
  • Undergrads taking various courses:
    • Statistics course where gambling was used for many examples
    • Statistics course where gambling wasn’t mentioned
    • History or sociology course
  • At 6 month follow-up, gambling fallacies, gambling attitudes, and gambling/problem-gambling involvement were assessed
    • In gambling statistics group, gambling math skills were better, gambling fallacies were lower, but they were no less likely to gamble!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

gambling advertising: research

A
  • Norwegian researchers asked gamblers to fill out questions about gambling advertising, conducted factor analysis
  • Problem gamblers show stronger impact on gambling involvement
  • Younger and male gamblers higher impact on involvement and knowledge
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The “Gamblification” of sports

A
  • Victoria, Australia banned gambling ad billboards within 150m of schools
  • MGM strikes sponsorship deal with NY Jets
  • New South Wales, Australia banned TV advertising of “live odds” or “in play” betting (risks to problem gamblers chasing losses, exposing children to gambling)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly