Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 601–615 | Cite as

Effectiveness of At-Risk Gamblers’ Temporary Self-Exclusion from Internet Gambling Sites

  • J. CaillonEmail author
  • M. Grall-Bronnec
  • B. Perrot
  • J. Leboucher
  • Y. Donnio
  • L. Romo
  • G. Challet-Bouju
Original Paper


To prevent risks associated with online gambling, many jurisdictions propose self-exclusion strategies as a part of a responsible gambling policy. To protect online gamblers, French law provides for a 7-day temporary non-reducible and voluntary self-exclusion measure that applies only to select websites. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this self-exclusion measure for at-risk online gamblers. It was an experimental randomized controlled trial targeted at risk prevention. The main outcomes were the money wagered and time spent gambling assessed 15 days (short-term) and 2 months (medium-term) after the implementation of the self-exclusion measure. The effectiveness of self-exclusion was also compared according to the gambling type (pure chance games, such as lottery or scratch tickets, skill and chance bank games such as sports betting or horserace betting, and skill and chance games such as poker). Sixty participants were randomly assigned to the experimental condition (n = 30; with the implementation of a self-exclusion measure) or control condition (n = 30). The randomization was stratified according to their favorite game [pure chance games (n = 20), skill and chance bank games (n = 20), and skill and chance social games (n = 20)]. The results revealed that self-exclusion had no short-term impact—but did have a medium-term impact—on gambling habits. After 2 months, the gambling-related cognitions (“illusion of control” and “the perceived inability to stop gambling”) and the subscale “desire” of the Gambling Craving Scale (GACS) have decreased. Participants’ opinions about the impact and effectiveness of self-exclusion were discussed. To conclude, it appeared that temporary self-exclusion is an interesting tool to protect online gamblers from excessive practices, but several modifications have to be made to improve its effectiveness and use.


Responsible gambling Internet Self-exclusion Addiction Gambling disorder 



This study was supported by both a Grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC 2012 12-020-0177) and a Grant from the National Institute of Prevention and Health Education (INPES 2012 053/12-DAS). This research was conducted at the initiative of and coordinated by the Addictology and Psychiatry Department of the University Hospital of Nantes, who is the sponsor of this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

JC, MGB, GCB and LR declare that the University Hospital of Nantes and The Paris Nanterre University have received funding from gambling industry (FDJ and PMU) in the form of a sponsorship—this funding has never had any influence on the present work. Scientific independence towards gambling industry operators is warranted.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrault, S., & Varescon, I. (2013). Impulsive sensation seeking and gambling practice among a sample of online poker players: Comparison between non pathological, problem and pathological gamblers. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 502–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjerg, O. (2010). Problem gambling in poker: Money, rationality and control in a skill-based social game. International Gambling Studies, 10(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaszczynski, A., Cowley, E., Anthony, C., & Hinsley, K. (2016). Breaks in play: Do they achieve intended aims? Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(2), 789–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2007). Self-exclusion: A proposed gateway to treatment model. International Gambling Studies, 7(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boutin, C. (2010). Le jeu: chance ou stratégie ? Choisir librement la place du jeu dans votre vie. Montréal.Google Scholar
  8. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bruneau, M., Grall-Bronnec, M., Venisse, J. L., Romo, L., Valleur, M., Magalon, D., et al. (2016). Gambling transitions among adult gamblers: A multi-state model using a Markovian approach applied to the JEU cohort. Addictive Behaviors, 57, 13–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Caillon, J., Grall-Bronnec, M., Hardouin, J. B., Venisse, J. L., & Challet-Bouju, G. (2015). Online gambling’s moderators: how effective? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 15, 519.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Costes, J. M., Eroukmanoff, V., Richard, J. B., & Tovar, M. L. (2015). Les jeux d’argent et de hasard en France en 2014. In Les notes de l’Observatoire Des Jeux Retrieved Avril, from Accessed 10 Sep 2017.
  12. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). L’indice canadien du jeu excessif: Rapport final. Ottawa: Centre canadien de lutte contre l’alcoolisme et les toxicomanies.Google Scholar
  13. Gainsbury, S. M. (2014). Review of self-exclusion from gambling venues as an intervention for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(2), 229–251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Grall-Bronnec, M., Bouju, G., Sébille-Rivain, V., Gorwood, P., Boutin, C., Vénisse, J. L., et al. (2012). A French adaptation of the Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): A useful tool for assessment of irrational thoughts among gamblers. Journal of Gambling Issues, 27, 1–21.Google Scholar
  15. Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Internet gambling: Preliminary results of the first U.K. prevalence study. Journal of Gambling Issues, 5, 1–9.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2016). A critical review of the harm-minimisation tools available for electronic gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(1), 187–221.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2011). Internet self-exclusion: Characteristics of self-excluded gamblers and preliminary evidence for its effectiveness. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9(3), 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotter, R., Kräplin, A., Pittig, A., & Bühringer, G. (2018). A systematic review of land-based self-exclusion programs: Demographics, gambling behavior, gambling problems, mental symptoms, and mental health. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., & Doucet, C. (2002). Understanding and treating the pathological gambler. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Relapse prevention: Theoretical rationale and overview of the model. In G. A. Marlatt & J. R. Gordon (Eds.), Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addicitive behaviors (1st edn., pp. 3–70). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. McCormick, A. V., Cohen, I. M., & Davies, G. (2018). Differential effects of formal and informal gambling on symptoms of problem gambling during voluntary self-exclusion. Journal of Gambling Studies. Scholar
  22. Nowatzki, N. R., & Williams, R. J. (2002). Casino self-exclusion programmes: A review of the issues 1. International Gambling Studies, 2(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oei, T. P. S., & Goh, Z. (2015). Interactions between risk and protective factors on problem gambling in Asia. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(2), 557–572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Neil, M., Whetton, S., Dolman, B., Herbert, M., Giannopolous, V., O’Neil, D., et al. (2003). Part A evaluation of self-exclusion programs in Victoria and Part B summary of self-exclusion programs in Australian states and territories. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
  25. Perrot, B., Hardouin, J.-B., Costes, J.-M., Caillon, J., Grall-Bronnec, M., & Challet-Bouju, G. L. (2017). Study protocol for a transversal study to develop a screening model for excessive gambling behaviours on a representative sample of users of French authorised gambling websites. British Medical Journal Open, 7(5), e014600.Google Scholar
  26. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2004). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): Development, confirmatory factor validation and psychometric properties. Addiction, 99(6), 757–769.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2009). Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns, problems, and policy options. Guelph: Final Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
  28. Young, M. M., & Wohl, M. J. (2009). The Gambling Craving Scale: Psychometric validation and behavioral outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(3), 512–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Addictology and Psychiatry DepartmentCHU NantesNantesFrance
  2. 2.INSERM, SPHERE U1246 «Biostatistics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Human Science Research»Nantes University, Tours UniversityNantesFrance
  3. 3.EA 4430 CLIPSYD «Clinical Psychology, Psychoanalysis and Development»Paris Nanterre UniversityNanterreFrance
  4. 4.IFAC – CHU de Nantes – Hôpital St JacquesNantes Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations