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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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!
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
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)