Advertisement

The Relationship Between Self-Limitation and Gambling Behavior Among German Gambling Arcade Visitors

  • Tanja StrohäkerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Slot machine gambling enjoys great popularity in Germany. In 2016, electronic gambling machines in arcades and pubs had a market share of 51.7% in the regulated gambling market with a gross gambling revenue of EUR 5600 million. To decrease the risks of this type of gambling, pre-commitment tools are a frequently used harm-minimization strategy. Germany has not established any formalized self-limitation program for electronic gambling machines yet. Nevertheless, many gamblers use self-initiated limits as a voluntary control strategy. This paper uses a sample of 503 German arcade gamblers to analyze the differences in gambling behavior between gamblers who self-impose limits and those who do not. The results are promising. Unappreciated demeanor, like visiting multiple arcades in a row, occurs less frequently in the group with restricted expenses and time spent in arcades. Additionally, examined gambling parameters like the average expenditure per visit, the average length of stay per visit, and the average monthly expenditure for gambling in general are significantly lower for self-limiters. As it is suspected that these findings might be systematically driven by self-efficacy traits, also a regression model is used. This approach allows to control for self-efficacy and the aforementioned results still consistently hold. Likely, the outcomes for gamblers could be further improved by using an externally binding formalized pre-commitment system. Hence, the results of the present paper could serve as a starting point to rekindle the discussion about the possible features and advantages of such a system for arcades in Germany.

Keywords

Arcade gambling Gambler protection Electronic gambling machines Self-limitation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

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.

References

  1. Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(4), 647–660.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9332-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auer, M., Littler, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Legal aspects of responsible gaming pre-commitment and personal feedback initiatives. Gaming Law Review & Economics, 19(6), 444–456.  https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2015.1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, T. (2012). Regulierung durch Spielhallengesetze. Stuttgart: Vortrag auf dem Workshop “Spielhallen und Regulierung” der Universität Hohenheim. Retrieved April 27, 2018 from https://gluecksspiel.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/gluecksspiel/Workshop/Vortrag_Becker.pdf.
  4. Bernhard, B. J., Lucas, A., Jang, D., & Kim, J. (2006). Responsible Gaming Device Research Report.Google Scholar
  5. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Moodie, C. (2008). The Sydney Laval universities gambling screen: Preliminary data. Addiction Research & Theory, 16(4), 401–411.  https://doi.org/10.1080/16066350701699031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., Parke, A., Parke, J., & Rigbye, J. (2014). Facilitating player control in gambling. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, 8(3), 36–51.Google Scholar
  7. Bundesministerium für Finanzen. (2014). Zweiter Bericht an den Nationalrat über eine betreiberunabhängige Spielerkarte. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/III/III_00132/fname_380246.pdf.
  8. Delfabbro, P. (2012). Evaluation of the Maxetag Budget [Limit] Setting Feature. Report prepared for the Responsible Gambling Working Party.Google Scholar
  9. Focal Research. (2007). Assessment of the behavioral impact of responsible gaming device (RGD) features: Analysis of nova scotia player-card dataWINDSOR TRIAL. Retrieved March 9, 2018 from https://www.focalresearch.com/publications/assessment-behavioral-impact-responsible-gaming-device-rgd-features-analysis-nova-0.
  10. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-013-9362-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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(4), 413–421.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haefeli, J., Lischer, S., & Schwarz, J. (2011). Early detection items and responsible gambling features for online gambling. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 273–288.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2011.604643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haß, W., & Lang, P. (2016). Glücksspielverhalten und Glücksspielsucht in Deutschland: Ergebnisse des Surveys 2015 und Trends. Köln: Forschungsbericht der BZgA. Retrieved December 13, 2016 from https://www.bzga.de/forschung/studien-untersuchungen/studien/gluecksspiel/.
  14. Hessian Ministry of the Interior and for Sport. (2018). Jahresreport 2016 der Glücksspielaufsichtsbehörden der Länder - Der deutsche Glücksspielmarkt 2016 - Eine ökonomische Darstellung. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  15. Hoffmann, B. H. (2012). The Norwegian storyWith a happy ending? Talk prepared for: Discovery 2012, Responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar
  16. Institut für Therapieforschung (IFT). (2010). Abschlussbericht Untersuchung zur Evaluierung der Fünften Novelle der Spielverordnung vom 17.12.2005. München. Retrieved August 17, 2017 from http://195.43.53.114/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/I/ift-bericht-spielverordnung,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf.
  17. Johnson, E. E., Hammer, R. M., Nora, R. M., Tan, B., Eisenstein, N., & Engelhart, C. I. (1997). The Lie/Bet Questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers. Psychological Reports, 80(1), 83–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, H. S., Wohl, M. J. A., Stewart, M. J., Sztainert, T., & Gainsbury, S. M. (2014). Limit your time, gamble responsibly: Setting a time limit (via pop-up message) on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device. International Gambling Studies, 14(2), 266–278.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2014.910244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2012.658078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ladouceur, R., & Sevigny, S. (2009). Electronic gambling machines: influence of a clock, a cash display, and a precommitment on gambling time. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23(23), 31–41.  https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2009.23.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., & Gosselin, P. (2007). Self-exclusion program: A longitudinal evaluation study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(1), 85–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-006-9032-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lalande, D. R., & Ladouceur, R. (2011). Can cybernetics inspire gambling research? A limit-based conceptualization of self-control. International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 237–252.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2011.598540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Livingstone, C., Rintoul, A., & Francis, L. (2014). What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues? Evidence Base, 2014(2), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.21307/eb-2014-002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd. (2006). Analysis of gambler precommitment behaviour. Report prepared for Gambling Research Australia. Retrieved March 8, 2018 from http://jogoexcessivo.jogoremoto.pt/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Analysis-of-Gambler-Pre-commitment-Behaviour-2006-PDF.pdf.
  25. Meyer, G., & Hayer, T. (2007). Die Spielsperre des Glücksspielers - Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Sucht, 53(3), 160–168.  https://doi.org/10.1463/2007.03.06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, G., & Hayer, T. (2010). Die Effektivität der Spielersperre als Maßnahme des Spielerschutzes: eine empirische Untersuchung von gesperrten Spielern. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, S. M., Thomas, A. C., Kyrios, M., & Bates, G. (2012). the self-regulation of gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28(3), 405–420.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-9265-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. A., Peller, A. J., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Real limits in the virtual world: Self-limiting behavior of internet gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(4), 463–477.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-008-9106-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Gambling motivations, money-limiting strategies, and precommitment preferences of problem versus non-problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(3), 361–372.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-009-9170-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Connor, J., & Dickerson, M. (2003). Impaired control over gambling in gaming machine and off-course gamblers. Addiction, 98(1), 53–60.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00232.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Neil, M., & Delfabbro, P. (2014). Making EGM-based voluntary pre-commitment work: Insights into the technological and practical factors influencing implementation and research. In Talk at the 10th European conference on gambling studies and policy issues.Google Scholar
  32. Polatschek, A., Wadden, L., & Gwynn, M. (2013). My- play : Nova Scotia’ s Experience with a Responsible Gambling System for VLT’s. In Paper presented at the National Association of Gambling Studies, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  33. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Report No. 50 (Vol. 1). Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  34. Quack, A. (2018). Evaluation von Spielerschutzmaßnahmen in der Praxis : Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Spielbankgästen. Hohenheim: Symposium Glücksspiel 2018. Retrieved April 23, 2018 from https://gluecksspiel.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/gluecksspiel/Symposium2018/AnkeQuackVortrag.pdf.
  35. Rintoul, A., & Thomas, A. (2017). Pre-commitment systems for electronic gambling machines preventing harm and improving consumer protection. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). Retrieved March 8, 2018 from http://apo.org.au/system/files/105516/apo-nid105516-425136.pdf.
  36. Schottler Consulting. (2006). Factors that influence gambler adherence to pre-commitment decisions. Report prepared for Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
  37. Thomas, A., Moore, S., Kyrios, M., Bates, G., Meredyth, D., & Jessop, G. (2010). Problem gambling vulnerability : The interaction between access, individual cognitions and group beliefs/preferences. Strategies. Melbourne: Office of Gaming and Racing, Victorian Government Department of Justice. Retrieved August 23, 2018 from https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/e80c3205-48f5-46e1-b6c5-4a9e608ae2b0/1/PDF%28113pages%29.pdf.
  38. Thomas, A., Rintoul, A., Deblaquiere, J., Armstrong, A., Thomas, A., Rintoul, A., & Christensen, D. (2016). Review of electronic gaming machine pre-commitment featuresLimit setting. Melbourne: Australian Insitute of Family Studies (AIFS). Retrieved March 8, 2018 from https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/sites/default/files/publication-documents/agrc-precommitment-transaction-history.
  39. Trümper, J., & Heimann, C. (2016). Angebotsstruktur der Spielhallen und Geldspielgeräte in Deutschland. Unna: Arbeitskreis gegen Spielsucht e.V.Google Scholar
  40. Turner, N. E., Wiebe, J., Falkowski-Ham, A., Kelly, J., Turner, N. E., Wiebe, J., et al. (2007). Public awareness of responsible gambling and gambling behaviours in Ontario. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 95–112.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14459790500098044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams, R. J. (2010). Pre-commitment as a strategy for minimizing gambling-related harm. Edmonton: Alberta Gaming Research Institute. Retrieved April 18, 2018 from https://www.uleth.ca/dspace/handle/10133/1287.
  42. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-009-9141-0.
  43. Wohl, M. J. A., Gainsbury, S., Stewart, M. J., & Sztainert, T. (2013). Facilitating responsible gambling: The relative effectiveness of education-based animation and monetary limit setting pop-up messages among electronic gaming machine players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(4), 703–717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9340-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). Social responsibility in online gambling: Voluntary limit setting. World Online Gambling Law Report, 9(11), 10–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gambling Research CenterUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations