Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of Gamblers Beliefs About Responsible Gambling Measures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Gambling Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Responsible gambling (RG) measures are methods aimed at reducing and preventing negative consequences associated with gambling. Some RG measures are set by authorities or gambling operators while others are available as features for gamblers to use themselves (e.g. budget tools where personal monetary limits are set prior to gambling). The present study is based on a general gambler population and investigates how RG measures with some specific RG features are assessed by the gamblers. The data was collected in 2013 and 2015. The samples were drawn from the Norwegian Population Registry. In total 9129 gamblers participated. Gamblers were asked to state to which degree they agreed that ten specific RG measures help or would help them controlling their gambling. Overall, between 35 and 42% neither agreed nor disagreed, but among those with an opinion, most agreed. A multiple regression analysis identified eleven variables as significant predictors of positive beliefs about RG measures: female gender, young age, playing random games only, being a moderate risk or problem gambler, reporting high impact from gambling advertisements as well as the personality traits agreeableness, openness and neuroticism. Playing low risk games only, reporting a high amount of spending on gambling and the personality trait extraversion were inversely related to positive beliefs about RG measures. The total explained variance was however only 7.1%. Positive beliefs about RG measures can relate to needs for external based countermeasures to minimize or reduce problems. Negative views may reflect a wish to play without obstacles, take risks or to trust in self-control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alegria, A. A., Petry, N. M., Hasin, D. S., Liu, S.-M., Grant, B. F., & Blanco, C. (2009). Disordered gambling among racial and ethnic groups in the US: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. CNS Spectrums, 14(3), 132.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D., Gjertsen, S. R., Krossbakken, E., Kvam, S., & Pallesen, S. (2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(2), 90–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auer, M., Littler, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Legal aspects of responsible gaming pre-commitment and personal feedback initiatives. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 6, 444–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auer, M., Reiestad, S. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). Global limit setting as a responsible gambling tool: What do players think? International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9892-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagby, R. M., Vachon, D. D., Bulmash, E. L., Toneatto, T., Quilty, L. C., & Costa, P. T. (2007). Pathological gambling and the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 873–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binde, P. (2008). Exploring the impact of gambling advertising: An interview study of problem gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(4), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S. M., & Karlov, L. (2014). Blue Gum gaming machine: An evaluation of responsible gambling features. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(3), 697–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Volume 1—Personality theories and models (Vol. 1, pp. 1–30). Retrieved March 15, 2018 from http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_personalitytheory1.

  • Brunborg, G. S., Hanss, D., Mentzoni, R. A., Molde, H., & Pallesen, S. (2016). Problem gambling and the five-factor model of personality: A large population-based study. Addiction, 111(8), 1428–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Florence: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, J. E., Saunders, C. M., & Bartelli, D. (1998). The effectiveness of educational and needle exchange programs: A meta-analysis of HIV prevention strategies for injecting drug users. Quality & Quantity, 32(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derevensky, J. L., Gupta, R., & Messerlian, C. (2007). The effects of Gambling Advertising Questionnaire (EGAQ). Montreal: McGill University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The canadian problem gambling index. Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gainsbury, S. M. (2012). Internet gambling: Current research findings and implications. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gainsbury, S. M., Parke, J., & Suhonen, N. (2013). Consumer attitudes towards Internet gambling: Perceptions of responsible gambling policies, consumer protection, and regulation of online gambling sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamgard. (2018). Welcome to Gamgard. Retrieved March 15, 2018 from www.gamgard.com.

  • Gamres. (2018). Gamgard Version 3.0 has launched! Retrieved March 15, 2018 from http://gamres.org/gamgard-version-3-0-launched-2/.

  • Haefeli, J., Lischer, S., & Schwarz, J. (2011). Early detection items and responsible gambling features for online gambling. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanss, D., Mentzoni, R. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Pallesen, S. (2015). The impact of gambling advertising: Problem gamblers report stronger impacts on involvement, knowledge, and awareness than recreational gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 483–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 48–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2011). Self-exclusion as a harm minimization strategy: Evidence for the casino sector from selected European countries. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(4), 685–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Cherney, L., Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S. M., & Lubman, D. I. (2014). Do advertising and promotions for online gambling increase gambling consumption? An exploratory study. International Gambling Studies, 14(3), 394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, J. (2010). Decision-making and self-regulation from a social-personality neuroscience perspective. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

  • Johansson, A., Grant, J. E., Kim, S. W., Odlaug, B. L., & Götestam, K. G. (2009). Risk factors for problematic gambling: A critical literature review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(1), 67–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladouceur, R., Blaszczynski, A., & Lalande, D. R. (2012). Pre-commitment in gambling: A review of the empirical evidence. International Gambling Studies, 12(2), 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladouceur, R., & Sévigny, S. (2009). Electronic gambling machines: Influence of a clock, a cash display, and a precommitment on gambling time. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladouceur, R., Shaffer, P., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2017). Responsible gambling: A synthesis of the empirical evidence. Addiction Research and Theory, 25(3), 225–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLaren, V. V., Best, L. A., Dixon, M. J., & Harrigan, K. A. (2011). Problem gambling and the five factor model in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 335–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzoni, R. A. (2013). Structural characteristics in gambling. Doctoral thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Retrieved March 15, 2018 from Bergen http://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/6542.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (6th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parke, J., Parke, A., Rigbye, J., Suhonen, N., & Williams, L. V. (2012). The eCOGRA global online gambler report. In R. J. Williams, R. T. Wood, & J. Parke (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of internet gambling (pp. 140–160). Oxford: Routdledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolison, J. J., Hanoch, Y., Wood, S., & Liu, P.-J. (2014). Risk-taking differences across the adult life span: A question of age and domain. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 69(6), 870–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review: DR, 28(1), 78–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., Stevens, R. M. G., Williams, L. A., & Arthur, J. N. (2017). The definition, dimensionalization, and assessment of gambling participation. Report prepared for the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research. February 1, 2017.

  • Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence, and identified best practices. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. October 1, 2012.

  • Williams, R. J., & Wood, R. T. (2004). The proportion of gaming revenue derived from problem gamblers: Examining the issues in a Canadian context. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Understanding positive play: An exploration of playing experiences and responsible gambling practices. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(4), 1715–1734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. T. A., Wohl, M. J. A., Tabri, N., & Philander, K. (2017). Measuring responsible gambling amongst players: Development of the Positive Play Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, article 227.

  • Yani-de-Soriano, M., Javed, U., & Yousafzai, S. (2012). Can an industry be socially responsible if its products harm consumers? The case of online gambling. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 481–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Christiesgt 12, PO Box 7807, 5020, Bergen, Norway

    Jonny Engebø, Torbjørn Torsheim, Rune Aune Mentzoni & Ståle Pallesen

  2. The Norwegian Gaming Authority, Storehagen 1B, PO Box 800, Førde, 6805, Norway

    Jonny Engebø

  3. Norwegian Competence Centre for Gambling and Gaming Research, University of Bergen, Christiesgt 12, PO Box 7807, 5020, Bergen, Norway

    Torbjørn Torsheim, Rune Aune Mentzoni, Helge Molde & Ståle Pallesen

  4. Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgt 12, PO Box 7807, 5020, Bergen, Norway

    Helge Molde

Authors
  1. Jonny Engebø
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torbjørn Torsheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rune Aune Mentzoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helge Molde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ståle Pallesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonny Engebø.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. However, it should be noted that the first author (Jonny Engebø) works as a senior adviser with The Norwegian Gaming Authority where one of his major tasks is related to regulation and responsible gambling. He is also a PhD candidate with the University of Bergen. In addition, Engebø is a board member of GREF (Gaming Regulators European Forum and he is also co-chair of a GREF working group in responsible gambling. Further he is a member of the executive committee of EASG (The European Association for the Study of Gambling).

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. The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Western Norway (2013/120).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Engebø, J., Torsheim, T., Mentzoni, R.A. et al. Predictors of Gamblers Beliefs About Responsible Gambling Measures. J Gambl Stud 35, 1375–1396 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09835-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09835-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation