Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 1715–1734 | Cite as

Understanding Positive Play: An Exploration of Playing Experiences and Responsible Gambling Practices

  • Richard T. A. WoodEmail author
  • Mark D. Griffiths
Original Paper


This study is one of the first to explore in detail the behaviors, attitudes and motivations of players that show no signs of at-risk or problem gambling behavior (so-called ‘positive players’). Via an online survey, 1484 positive players were compared with 209 problem players identified using the Lie/Bet screen. The study identified two distinct groups of positive players defined according to their motivations to play and their engagement with responsible gambling (RG) practices. Those positive players that played most frequently employed the most personal RG strategies. Reasons that positive players gave for gambling were focused on leisure (e.g., playing for fun, being entertained, and/or winning a prize). By contrast, problem gamblers were much more focused upon modifying mood states (e.g., excitement, relaxation, depression and playing when bored or upset). The present study also suggests that online gambling is not, by default, inherently riskier than gambling in more traditional ways, as online gambling was the most popular media by which positive players gambled. Furthermore, most positive players reported that it was easier to stick to their limits when playing the National Lottery online compared to traditional retail purchasing of tickets. Problem players were significantly more likely than positive players to gamble with family and friends, suggesting that, contrary to a popular RG message, social play may not be inherently safer than gambling alone. It is proposed that players (generally) may identify more with the term ‘positive play’ than the term ‘RG’ which is frequently interpreted as being aimed at people with gambling problems, rather than all players.


Responsible gambling Positive play Problem gambling Harm minimization Gambling prevention strategies 



This project was funded by a research grant from Camelot the operators of the UK National Lottery. Beyond agreeing with the initial project proposal, the funders had no say in the analysis or report writing and agreed to allow publication at the Author’s sole discretion.


  1. Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of online gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 647–660.Google Scholar
  2. Auer, M., Malishnig, D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Is ‘pop-up’ messaging in online slot machine gambling effective? An empirical research note. Journal of Gambling Issues (in press).Google 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., Nower, L., & Shaffer, H. (2005). Informed choice and gambling: Principles for consumer protection. Report prepared for the Australian Gaming Council, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Blasczczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blasczczynski, A. P., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Götestam, K. G., Johansson, A., Wenzel, H. G., & Simonsen, I. (2004). Validation of the Lie/Bet screen for pathological gambling on two normal population data sets. Psychological Reports, 95, 1009–1013.PubMedGoogle 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., & Parke, J. (2009). Social responsibility tools in online gambling: A survey of attitudes and behavior among internet gamblers. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 413–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs, D. F. (1986). A general theory of addictions: A new theoretical model. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd. (2006). Analysis of gambler precommittment behaviour. Report to the National Gambling Research Program Working party on behalf of the Australian Ministerial Council on Gambling, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Monaghan, S., & Blasczczynski, 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
  16. Monaghan, S., & Blasczczynski, A. (2010a). Electronic gaming machine warning messages: Information versus self-evaluation. Journal of Psychology, 144, 83–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Monaghan, S., & Blasczczynski, 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, 67–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nisbet, S. (2005). Responsible gambling features of card-based technologies. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3, 54–63.Google Scholar
  19. Parke, J., Rigbye, J., Parke, A., Wood, R. T. A., Sjenitzer, J., & Vaughan Williams, L. (2007). The global online gambling report: An exploratory investigation into the attitudes and behaviours of internet casino and poker players. Commissioned by eCOGRA (e-Commerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance).Google Scholar
  20. Ricketts, T., & Macaskill, A. (2004). Differentiating normal and problem gambling: A grounded theory approach. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Coughlan, M., Enersen, K., & Blasczczynski, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Turner, N. E., Wiebe, J., Falkowski-Ham, J., Kelly, J., & Skinner, W. (2005). Public awareness of responsible gambling and gambling behaviours in Ontario. International Gambling Studies, 5, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., et al. (2011). British gambling prevalence survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  24. 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, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Wohl, M. J. A., Santesso, D. L., & Harrigan, K. (2013). Reducing erroneous cognition and the frequency of exceeding limits among slots players: A short (3-minute) educational animation facilitates responsible gambling. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 11, 409–423.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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, 21.
  31. Wood, R. T. A., Shorter, G. W., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Rating the suitability of responsible gambling features for specific game types: A resource for optimizing responsible gambling strategy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 94–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood, R. T. A., & Wood, S. (2009). An evaluation of two UK online support forums designed to help people with gambling issues, Journal of Gambling Issues, 23.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GamRes LtdRigaudCanada
  2. 2.International Gaming Research UnitNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations