Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 685–700 | Cite as

Self-Exclusion as a Harm Minimization Strategy: Evidence for the Casino Sector from Selected European Countries

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Pathological gambling Self-exclusion Casino Longitudinal Program evaluation 

References

  1. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2007). Self-exclusion: A proposed gateway to treatment model. International Gambling Studies, 7, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins, P., & Kelly, J. (2002). Problem gambling and self-exclusion: A report to the South African Responsible Gambling Trust. Gaming Law Review, 6, 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 & Behavior, 12, 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. LaBrie, R. A., Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. A., Peller, A. J., Caro, G., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Missouri casino self-excluders: Distribution across time and space. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 231–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Giroux, I., Ferland, F., & Leblond, J. (2000). Analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion program. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 453–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., & Gosselin, P. (2007). Self-exclusion program: A longitudinal evaluation study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 85–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Meyer, G., & Hayer, T. (2007). Die Spielsperre des Glücksspielers – Eine Bestandsaufnahme [The exclusion of gamblers – The current situation]. Sucht, 53, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Meyer, G., Hayer, T., & Griffiths, M. (Eds.). (2009). Problem gambling in Europe: Challenges, prevention, and interventions. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. National Gambling Impact Study Commission. (1999). National Gambling Impact Study Commission: Final report. Washington, DC: National Gambling Impact Study Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, S. E., Kleschinsky, J. H., LaBrie, R. A., Kaplan, S., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). One decade of self exclusion: Missouri casino self-excluders four to ten years after enrollment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 129–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2006). Characteristics and gender differences among self-excluded casino problem gamblers: Missouri data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 81–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2008). Characteristics of problem gamblers 56 years of age or older: A statewide study of casino self-excluders. Psychology and Aging, 23, 577–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Neil, M., Whetton, S., Dolman, B., Herbert, M., Giannopoulos, V., O’Neil, D., et al. (2003). Report AEvaluation of self-exclusion programs and harm minimisation measures and Report BSummary of Australian States and Territories: Self-exclusion programs and harm minimisation policies/strategies. Adelaide.Google Scholar
  19. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Report no. 50. Canberra.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Slutske, W. S. (2006). Natural recovery and treatment-seeking in pathological gambling: Results of two US national surveys. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 297–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Stinchfield, R., Govoni, R., & Frisch, G. R. (2005). DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling: Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy. The American Journal on Addictions, 14, 73–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suurvali, H., Cordingley, J., Hodgins, D. C., & Cunningham, J. (2009). Barriers to seeking help for gambling problems: A review of the literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 407–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Townshend, P. (2007). Self-exclusion in a public health environment: An effective treatment option in New Zealand. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5, 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tremblay, N., Boutin, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2008). Improved self-exclusion program: Preliminary results. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 505–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xuan, Z., & Shaffer, H. (2009). How do gamblers end gambling: Longitudinal analysis of internet gambling behaviors prior to account closure due to gambling-related problems. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 239–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Psychology and Cognition ResearchUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations