Rating the Suitability of Responsible Gambling Features for Specific Game Types: A Resource for Optimizing Responsible Gambling Strategy

  • Richard T. A. Wood
  • Gillian W. Shorter
  • Mark D. GriffithsEmail author


To date, empirical research relating to responsible gambling features has been sparse. A Delphi-based study rated the perceived effectiveness of 45 responsible gambling (RG) features in relation to 20 distinct gambling type games. Participants were 61 raters from seven countries and included responsible gambling experts (n = 22), treatment providers (n = 19) and recovered problem gamblers (n = 20). The most highly recommended RG features could be divided into three groups: 1) Player initiated tools focused on aiding player behavior; 2) RG features related to informed-player choice; 3) RG features focused on gaming company actions. Overall, player control over personal limits were favoured more than gaming company controlled limits, although mandatory use of such features was often recommended. The study found that recommended RG features varied considerably between game types, according to their structural characteristics. Also, online games had the possibility to provide many more RG features than traditional (offline games). The findings draw together knowledge about the effectiveness of RG features for specific game types. This should aid objective, cost-effective, evidence based decisions on which RG features to include in an RG strategy, according to a specific portfolio of games. The findings of this study will available via a web-based tool, known as the Responsible Gambling Knowledge Centre (RGKC).


Responsible gambling Structural characteristics Problem gambling 



The authors would like to thank the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation that funded this piece of research.


  1. Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds.). (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bernhard, B. J. (2007). The voices of vices: Sociological perspectives on pathological gambling. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(1), 8–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhard, B.J., Lucas, A.F., Jang, D. (2006). Responsible gaming device research report. University of Nevada, Las Vegas International Gaming Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Blasczczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaszczynski, A. P., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., Shaffer, H. (2005). Informed choice and gambling: Principles for consumer protection. Report prepared for the Australian Gaming Council, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The gaming industry’s role in the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. Casino and Gaming International, 6(1), 87–90.Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths, M. D., & Wood, R. T. A. (2008). Responsible gaming and best practice: How can academics help? Casino and Gaming International, 4(1), 107–112.Google Scholar
  10. Griffiths, M. D., & Wood, R. T. A. (2009). Centralized gaming models and social responsibility. Casino and Gaming International, 5(2), 65–69.Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths, M. D., Wood, R. T. A., & Parke, J. (2009). Social responsibility tools in online gambling: A survey of attitudes and behavior among internet gamblers. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 413–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helmer, O. (1977). Problems in futures research: Delphi and causal cross-impact analysis. Futures, 9, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsu, C.C. &. Sandford, B.A. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense Of Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 10, Available online:
  14. Jacobs, D. F. (1986). A general theory of addictions: A new theoretical model. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McBride, A. J., Pates, R., Ramadan, R., & McGowan, C. (2003). Delphi survey of experts’ opinions on strategies used by community pharmacists to reduce over-the-counter drug misuse. Addiction, 98, 487–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd. (2006). Analysis of gambler precommittment behavior. Report to the National Gambling Research Program Working party on behalf of the Australian Ministerial Council on Gambling, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, G., Fiebig, M., Häfeli, J., & Mörsen, C. (2011). Development of an assessment tool to evaluate the risk potential of different gambling types. International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Monaghan, S. (2008). Review of pop-up messages on electronic gaming machines as a proposed responsible gambling strategy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monaghan, S. (2009). Responsible gambling strategies for Internet gambling: The theoretical and empirical base of using pop-up messages to encourage self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2007). Recall of electronic gaming machine signs: A static versus a dynamic mode of presentation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010a). Electronic gaming machine warning messages: Information versus self-evaluation. Journal of Psychology, 144, 83–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010b). Impact of mode of display and message content of responsible gambling signs for electronic gaming machines on regular gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(1), 67–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nisbet, S. (2005). Responsible gambling features of card-based technologies. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3(2), 54–63.Google Scholar
  24. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and Management, 42, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins, & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 211–243). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Reith, G. (2009). Reflections on responsibility. Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Coughlan, M., Enersen, K., & Blaszczynski, A. (2005). Structural changes to electronic gaming machines as effective harm minimization strategies for Non-problem and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 503–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smeaton, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004). Internet gambling and social responsibility: An exploratory study. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 49–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2007). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Report prepared for the Ontario problem gambling research centre. Ontario: Guelph.Google Scholar
  30. Wohl, M., & Pellizzari, P. (2011). Player tools, do they work? New research and implications for operators. Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation Responsible Gambling Conference, Halifax, NS. Retrieved from
  31. Wohl, M. J. A., Lyon, M., Donnelly, C. L., Young, M. M., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2008). Episodic cessation of gambling: A numerically aided phenomenological assessment of why gamblers stop playing in a given session. International Gambling Studies, 8, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wohl, M. J. A., Christie, K., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Animation-based education as a gambling prevention tool: Correcting erroneous cognitions and reducing the frequency of exceeding limits among slot players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 469–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wood, R.T.A. & Bernhard, B.J. (2010). Found in translation. Paper presented at the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation Responsible Gambling Conference, Halifax.Google Scholar
  34. Wood, R.T.A & Da Silva, L. (2013). Understanding positive play: An exploration of non-problematic playing experiences and practices, presented at the New Horizons in Responsible Gambling Conference, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  35. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an escape-based coping strategy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory Research and Practice, 80, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood, R.T.A., & Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Why Swedish people play online poker and factors that can increase or decrease trust in poker websites: A qualitative investigation, Journal of Gambling Issues, Issues, 21. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard T. A. Wood
    • 1
  • Gillian W. Shorter
    • 2
  • Mark D. Griffiths
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.GamRes Limited, Chemin PrucheraieRigaudCanada
  2. 2.Bamford Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing and MRC All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of UlsterLondonderryUK
  3. 3.International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations