Internet Self-Exclusion: Characteristics of Self-Excluded Gamblers and Preliminary Evidence for Its Effectiveness

Article

Abstract

Preliminary scientific evidence indicates that online gamblers are more likely to be problem gamblers and thus point to the need for effective protection measures. This study focuses on an online self-exclusion program and seeks to comprehensively examine the benefits of this measure. It was intended to collect detailed information on the characteristics of self-excluded internet gamblers and to examine the benefits of online self-exclusion over time. The baseline sample consisted of a total of N = 259 internet gamblers who self-excluded from the online gambling platform win2day.at. Descriptive analyses indicate that a significant percentage of respondents had gambled excessively on the internet. Follow-up surveys 1, 6, and 12 month(s) after the initiation of self-exclusion with a small sub-sample (n = 20) suggest that the temporary restriction of access to one single online gambling site can indeed have favorable psycho-social effects. The article concludes with a discussion of how self-exclusion practices on the internet can be improved.

Keywords

Problem gambling Self-exclusion Internet Evaluation Longitudinal 

References

  1. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2007). Self-exclusion: a proposed gateway to treatment model. Int Gambl Stud, 7, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braverman, J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). How do gamblers start gambling: Identifying behavioural markers for high-risk internet gambling. Eur J Publ Health.Google Scholar
  3. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol, 59, 93–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The use of online methodologies in data collection for gambling and gaming addictions. Int J Ment Health Addict, 8, 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, J. (2002). The social impact of internet gambling. Soc Sci Comput Rev, 20, 312–320.Google Scholar
  6. 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. Cyberpsychol Behav, 12, 413–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths, M., Wardle, H., Orford, J., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2010). Internet gambling, health, smoking and alcohol use: Findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. Int J Ment Health Addict.Google Scholar
  8. Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2010) The effectiveness of self-exclusion as a harm minimization strategy: evidence for the casino sector. J Gambl Stud.Google Scholar
  9. Hayer, T., Bachmann, M., & Meyer, G. (2005). Pathologisches Spielverhalten bei Glücksspielen im Internet [Pathological internet gambling]. Wiener Zeitschrift für Suchtforschung, 28(1-2), 29–41.Google Scholar
  10. International Gaming Research Unit & Betting Research Unit (2007). eCOGRA 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). Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, E. E., Hamer, R., Nora, R. M., Tan, B., Eisenstein, N., & Engelhart, C. (1997). The Lie/Bet questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers. Psychol Rep, 80, 83–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jonsson J. (2008). Responsible gaming and gambling problems among 3,000 Swedish internet poker players. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Gambling Studies and Policy Issues, Nova Gorica (Slovenia).Google Scholar
  13. LaBrie, R. A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., Schumann, A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Assessing the playing field: a prospective longitudinal study of internet sports gambling behavior. J Gambl Stud, 23, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Giroux, I., Ferland, F., & Leblond, J. (2000). Analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion program. J Gambl Stud, 16, 453–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., & Gosselin, P. (2007). Self-exclusion program: a longitudinal evaluation study. J Gambl Stud, 23, 85–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LaPlante, D. A., Kleschinsky, J. H., LaBrie, R. A., Nelson, S. E., & Shaffer, H. J. (2009). Sitting at the virtual poker table: a prospective epidemiological study of actual internet poker gambling behavior. Comput Hum Behav, 25, 711–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyer, G., & Hayer, T. (2010). Die Effektivität der Spielsperre als Maßnahme des Spielerschutzes—Eine empirische Untersuchung von gesperrten Spielern [The effectiveness of exclusion programs —An empirical study of banned gamblers]. Frankfurt/M.: Lang.Google Scholar
  18. Nelson, S. E., Kleschinsky, J. H., LaBrie, R. A., Kaplan, S., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). One decade of self exclusion: Missouri casino self-excluders four to 10 years after enrollment. J Gambl Stud, 26, 129–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nowatzki, N. R., & Williams, R. J. (2002). Casino self-exclusion programmes: a review of the issues. Int Gambl Stud, 2, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Remmers, P. (2006). The social outlook of remote and e-gambling: Are we serious? Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Gambling & Risk Taking. Nevada: Lake Tahoe.Google Scholar
  21. Risbeck, M., & Romild, U. (2010). SWELOGS—A population study on gambling and health 2008/09. Paper presented at the “2010 International Gambling ConferenceGambling in the 21st century: The implications of technology for policy, practice and research”. Auckland (New Zealand).Google Scholar
  22. Shaffer, H. J., Peller, A. J., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & LaBrie, R. A. (2010). Toward a paradigm shift in internet gambling research: from opinion and self-report to actual behavior. Addiction Res Theor, 18, 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singleton, Q. R. (2008). Framework of controlling the socio-economic costs of compulsive gambling. Gaming Law Rev, 12, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steinberg, M. A. (2008) Ongoing evaluation of a self-exclusion program. Paper presented at the 22nd National Conference on Problem Gambling, Long Beach, California (USA).Google Scholar
  25. Townshend, P. (2007). Self-exclusion in a public health environment: an effective treatment option in New Zealand. Int J Ment Health Addict, 5, 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tremblay, N., Boutin, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2008). Improved self-exclusion program: preliminary results. J Gambl Stud, 24, 505–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2007). Problem gambling on the internet: implications for internet policy in North America. New Media Soc, 9, 520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2009). Internet gambling: prevalence, patterns, problems, and policy options. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre. Guelph, Ontario (Canada).Google Scholar
  29. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, J. (2007). Acquisition, development, and maintenance of online poker playing in a student sample. Cyberpsychol Behav, 10, 354–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wootton, R., & d’Hondt, R. (2005). G4 & PokerRoom.com: A case study in responsible e-gaming. Paper presented at the 6th European Conference on Gambling Studies and Policy Issues “Work in Progress”, Malmö (Sweden).Google Scholar
  31. Xuan, Z., & Shaffer, H. (2009). How do gamblers end gambling: longitudinal analysis of internet gambling behaviors prior to account closure due to gambling-related problems. J Gambl Stud, 25, 239–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations