Understanding Positive Play: An Exploration of Playing Experiences and Responsible Gambling Practices
- 632 Downloads
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.
KeywordsResponsible 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.
- 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
- 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
- Bernhard, B. J., Lucas, A. F., & Jang, D. (2006). Responsible gaming device research report. University of Nevada, Las Vegas International Gaming Institute.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Nisbet, S. (2005). Responsible gambling features of card-based technologies. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3, 54–63.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 http://www.responsiblegamblingns.ca/presentations/.
- 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
- 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
- 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. http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue21/pdfs/06wood.pdf.
- 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. http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue23/pdfs/01wood.pdf.