Self-Exclusion as a Harm Minimization Strategy: Evidence for the Casino Sector from Selected European Countries
As the international gambling market continues to expand, determining effective approaches to prevent gambling-related problems becomes increasingly important. Despite a lack of in-depth research into its benefits, self-exclusion is one such measure already in use around the world in various sectors of the gambling industry. The present study is the first of its kind to examine the effectiveness of self-exclusion schemes in the casino sector in selected European countries. A written survey yielded a sample of N = 152 (self)-excluded gamblers. In addition to this cross-section analysis, a small sub-group (n = 31) was monitored over time by means of follow-up surveys carried out 1, 6, and 12 month(s) after the exclusion agreement came into force. The results reveal that the self-excluded individuals are typically under a great deal of strain and show a relatively pronounced willingness to change. However, this largely reaches its peak at the time the decision to self-exclude is made. From a longitudinal perspective, various parameters indicate a clear improvement in psychosocial functioning; a favorable effect that also starts directly after the exclusion agreement was signed. Finally, considering theoretical and empirical findings, possibilities for optimizing (self-)exclusion schemes will be discussed.
KeywordsPathological gambling Self-exclusion Casino Longitudinal Program evaluation
We would like to thank first and foremost those gamblers who took the time to answer our questions in writing or in person in what must often have been a difficult phase in their lives. We would also like to thank the staff at the participating casinos in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, who faced the challenging task of handing out a questionnaire on self-exclusion to the survey participants. Finally, we would like extend our thanks to Casinos Austria AG, Casinos Austria International Holding GmbH, Österreichische Lotterien Ges.m.b.H, and Österreichische Sportwetten Ges.m.b.H, who jointly commissioned this research project. The authors retained full independence in the selection of the research aims, planning and realization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, and publication of the results.
- Häfeli, J. (2009). Switzerland. In G. Meyer, T. Hayer, & M. Griffiths (Eds.), Problem gambling in Europe: Challenges, prevention, and interventions (pp. 317–326). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2010). Internet self-exclusion: Characteristics of self-excluded gamblers and preliminary evidence for its effectiveness. International Journal of Addiction and Mental Health.Google Scholar
- Jackson, A. C., & Thomas, S. A. (2005). Clients’ perspectives of, and experiences with, selected Australian problem gambling services. Journal of Gambling Issues, 14.Google Scholar
- Künzi, K., Fritschi, T., Oesch, T., Gehrig, M., & Julien, N. (2009). Soziale Kosten des Glücksspiels in Casinos: Studie zur Erfassung der durch die Schweizer Casinos verursachten Kosten [Social costs of casino gambling: Study to determine the social costs of Swiss casinos]. Bern.Google Scholar
- Meyer, G., & Hayer, T. (2010). Die Effektivität der Spielsperre als Maßnahme des Spielerschutzes – Eine empirische Untersuchung von gesperrten Spielern [The effectiveness of exclusion programs – An empirical study of banned gamblers]. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Meyer, G., Hayer, T., & Griffiths, M. (Eds.). (2009). Problem gambling in Europe: Challenges, prevention, and interventions. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- National Gambling Impact Study Commission. (1999). National Gambling Impact Study Commission: Final report. Washington, DC: National Gambling Impact Study Commission.Google Scholar
- O’Neil, M., Whetton, S., Dolman, B., Herbert, M., Giannopoulos, V., O’Neil, D., et al. (2003). Report A—Evaluation of self-exclusion programs and harm minimisation measures and Report B—Summary of Australian States and Territories: Self-exclusion programs and harm minimisation policies/strategies. Adelaide.Google Scholar
- Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Report no. 50. Canberra.Google Scholar
- Responsible Gambling Council. (2008). From enforcement to assistance: Evolving best practices in self-exclusion. Toronto: A discussion paper by the Responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar
- Schrans, T., Schellinck, T., & Grace, J. (2004). 2004 NS VL self exclusion program process test: Final report. Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada): Focal Research.Google Scholar
- Steinberg, M. A. (2008). Ongoing evaluation of a self-exclusion program. Paper presented at the 22nd national conference on problem gambling, Long Beach, California (USA).Google Scholar