Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rating the Suitability of Responsible Gambling Features for Specific Game Types: A Resource for Optimizing Responsible Gambling Strategy

  • Published:
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To date, empirical research relating to responsible gambling features has been sparse. A Delphi-based study rated the perceived effectiveness of 45 responsible gambling (RG) features in relation to 20 distinct gambling type games. Participants were 61 raters from seven countries and included responsible gambling experts (n = 22), treatment providers (n = 19) and recovered problem gamblers (n = 20). The most highly recommended RG features could be divided into three groups: 1) Player initiated tools focused on aiding player behavior; 2) RG features related to informed-player choice; 3) RG features focused on gaming company actions. Overall, player control over personal limits were favoured more than gaming company controlled limits, although mandatory use of such features was often recommended. The study found that recommended RG features varied considerably between game types, according to their structural characteristics. Also, online games had the possibility to provide many more RG features than traditional (offline games). The findings draw together knowledge about the effectiveness of RG features for specific game types. This should aid objective, cost-effective, evidence based decisions on which RG features to include in an RG strategy, according to a specific portfolio of games. The findings of this study will available via a web-based tool, known as the Responsible Gambling Knowledge Centre (RGKC).

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

  • Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds.). (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, B. J. (2007). The voices of vices: Sociological perspectives on pathological gambling. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(1), 8–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, B.J., Lucas, A.F., Jang, D. (2006). Responsible gaming device research report. University of Nevada, Las Vegas International Gaming Institute.

  • Blasczczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A. P., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., Shaffer, H. (2005). Informed choice and gambling: Principles for consumer protection. Report prepared for the Australian Gaming Council, Australia.

  • Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The gaming industry’s role in the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. Casino and Gaming International, 6(1), 87–90.

    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 

  • Griffiths, M. D., & Wood, R. T. A. (2009). Centralized gaming models and social responsibility. Casino and Gaming International, 5(2), 65–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Behavior, 12, 413–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helmer, O. (1977). Problems in futures research: Delphi and causal cross-impact analysis. Futures, 9, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.C. &. Sandford, B.A. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense Of Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 10, Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10

  • Jacobs, D. F. (1986). A general theory of addictions: A new theoretical model. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, A. J., Pates, R., Ramadan, R., & McGowan, C. (2003). Delphi survey of experts’ opinions on strategies used by community pharmacists to reduce over-the-counter drug misuse. Addiction, 98, 487–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd. (2006). Analysis of gambler precommittment behavior. Report to the National Gambling Research Program Working party on behalf of the Australian Ministerial Council on Gambling, Brisbane.

  • 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. (2008). Review of pop-up messages on electronic gaming machines as a proposed responsible gambling strategy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 214–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, S. (2009). Responsible gambling strategies for Internet gambling: The theoretical and empirical base of using pop-up messages to encourage self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 202–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2007). Recall of electronic gaming machine signs: A static versus a dynamic mode of presentation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010a). Electronic gaming machine warning messages: Information versus self-evaluation. Journal of Psychology, 144, 83–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010b). 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, S. (2005). Responsible gambling features of card-based technologies. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3(2), 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and Management, 42, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins, & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 211–243). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reith, G. (2009). Reflections on responsibility. Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Coughlan, M., Enersen, K., & Blaszczynski, A. (2005). Structural changes to electronic gaming machines as effective harm minimization strategies for Non-problem and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 503–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smeaton, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004). Internet gambling and social responsibility: An exploratory study. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 49–57.

    Article  PubMed  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. Ontario: Guelph.

    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., Lyon, M., Donnelly, C. L., Young, M. M., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2008). Episodic cessation of gambling: A numerically aided phenomenological assessment of why gamblers stop playing in a given session. International Gambling Studies, 8, 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohl, M. J. A., Christie, K., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Animation-based education as a gambling prevention tool: Correcting erroneous cognitions and reducing the frequency of exceeding limits among slot players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 469–486.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  • Wood, R.T.A & Da Silva, L. (2013). Understanding positive play: An exploration of non-problematic playing experiences and practices, presented at the New Horizons in Responsible Gambling Conference, Vancouver.

  • Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an escape-based coping strategy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory Research and Practice, 80, 107–125.

    Article  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, Issues, 21. Available at http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue21/pdfs/06wood.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation that funded this piece of research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GamRes Limited, Chemin Prucheraie, Quebec, Rigaud, J0P 1P0, Canada

    Richard T. A. Wood

  2. Bamford Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing and MRC All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Ulster, Northland Road, Londonderry, BT48 7JL, UK

    Gillian W. Shorter

  3. International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU, UK

    Mark D. Griffiths

Authors
  1. Richard T. A. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gillian W. Shorter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark D. Griffiths
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark D. Griffiths.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Game Taxonomy

(Game types that have been considered in the study)

Online games

  1. 1.

    Online slot machine style games

  2. 2.

    Online probability games (e.g., themed games of chance such as online scratch-cards, symbol matching games)

  3. 3.

    Online purchases of offline lottery tickets (e.g., weekly lotto games)

  4. 4.

    Online sports betting (not including proposition bets such as spread betting)

  5. 5.

    Online bingo games (single player)

  6. 6.

    Online bingo games (multi-player)

  7. 7.

    Online daily lottery draws (i.e. tickets purchased online)

  8. 8.

    Online multi-draw keno (e.g., every 4–5 min)

  9. 9.

    Online casino card games (e.g., blackjack, baccarat etc.) Not online poker, with the exception of Caribbean Stud Poker which is played against the house similar to other casino card games

  10. 10.

    Online casino table games–not including card games (e.g., roulette, craps etc.)

  11. 11.

    Online proposition bets (e.g., betting on the outcome of a specific event such as how many goals will be scored, who will win an Oscar, will it snow on Christmas day). Note: This includes spread-betting

  12. 12.

    Online poker (tournament games) (e.g., players purchase chips at the start and then play until they are knocked out of the tournament). Note: Assume that buying further chips is not allowed

  13. 13.

    Online poker (cash games) (e.g., players bet with cash until they run out of money or quit) Note: This could also include a tournament where players are permitted to buy more chips to avoid being knocked out.

Traditional (offline) games

  1. 14.

    Electronic Game Machines (EGMs) such as slot machines and video lottery games (VLTs) in a bar, casino or gaming centre

  2. 15.

    Sports betting at a betting shop, racetrack or casino

  3. 16.

    Lottery ticket purchases (e.g., weekly lotto games)

  4. 17.

    Scratch-ticket or pull-tab games

  5. 18.

    Bingo games at a Bingo hall, Casino or Gaming Centre

  6. 19.

    Multi-draw Keno (e.g., a 5 min Lotto draw type game) at a bar, Casino or Gaming Centre.

  7. 20.

    Casino card games and casino table games

Appendix 2: Responsible Gambling Feature Taxonomy

(RG features that are considered in the study. Also to be used in conjunction with Table 2)

  1. 1.

    Delayed membership schemes (e.g., have to wait 24 h before able to play)

  2. 2.

    Limiting hours of availability (e.g., close at midnight)

  3. 3.

    Player initiated permanent self-exclusion

  4. 4.

    Player initiated temporary self-exclusion (e.g. taking a break for a week)

  5. 5.

    Player initiated panic button (e.g. denies access to site for 48 h)

  6. 6.

    Player defined spend limits (voluntary use)

  7. 7.

    Player defined spend limits (mandatory to use)

  8. 8.

    Gaming company defined spend limits (mandatory use)

  9. 9.

    Player defined maximum bet limits (voluntary use)

  10. 10.

    Player defined maximum bet limits (mandatory use)

  11. 11.

    Gaming company defined bet limits (mandatory use)

  12. 12.

    Player defined maximum loss limits (voluntary use)

  13. 13.

    Player defined maximum loss limits (mandatory use)

  14. 14.

    Gaming company defined maximum loss limits (mandatory use)

  15. 15.

    Player defined maximum time limits (voluntary use)

  16. 16.

    Player defined maximum time limits (mandatory use)

  17. 17.

    Gaming company defined maximum time limits (mandatory use)

  18. 18.

    Mandatory game breaks after a pre-determined time has elapsed (e.g., player is sent back to accounts page)

  19. 19.

    Voluntary player-set game breaks after a pre-determined time has elapsed (e.g., player is sent back to accounts page)

  20. 20.

    Mandatory time warnings (e.g., pop-up stating time elapsed)

  21. 21.

    Voluntary player-set time warnings (e.g., pop-up stating time elapsed)

  22. 22.

    Use of non-gambling feature such as short video or musical interlude

  23. 23.

    Visible displays or pop-ups on gaming machines/online gaming that indicate time spent playing

  24. 24.

    Visible displays or pop-ups on gaming machines/online gaming that indicate amount won and lost

  25. 25.

    Providing player account and behavioral information (e.g. length and frequency of sessions)

  26. 26.

    Providing a voluntary diagnostic self-test to help players better understand their gambling behavior (online gambling)

  27. 27.

    Offering voluntary continuous player behavioral feedback and warning of changes in behavior

  28. 28.

    Mandatory continuous player behavioral feedback and warning of changes in behavior

  29. 29.

    Purchase payments by non-credit related means (e.g. cash, debit-card, pre-paid account etc.)

  30. 30.

    Payment through account and pre-committed amount (e.g., player sets limit before gambling)

  31. 31.

    Large winnings not paid in any method that can be instantly re-gambled

  32. 32.

    Purchase payments and winnings expressed as actual monetary value only (not credits or tokens)

  33. 33.

    Clear and accessible information displaying the prize-back percentage (return to player)

  34. 34.

    Clear and accessible information about the prize structure (number and size of prizes)

  35. 35.

    ID must be shown to gain entry to gaming area

  36. 36.

    A player card is required in order to play (e.g., provides account information, allows limits to be set etc.)

  37. 37.

    A voluntary player card can be used by those who want it (e.g., provides account information, allows limits to be set etc.)

  38. 38.

    No access to ATM in gaming establishment

  39. 39.

    No access to ATM in the immediate vicinity of the gaming area

  40. 40.

    Removing note acceptors from machines completely

  41. 41.

    Only accepting small denomination notes in machines

  42. 42.

    Leaflets providing information about problem gambling support services (e.g. helpline numbers)

  43. 43.

    Stickers on the machines providing information about problem gambling support services (e.g. helpline numbers)

  44. 44.

    Posters providing information about problem gambling support services (e.g. helpline numbers)

  45. 45.

    Staff trained to spot and offer support for people with gambling problems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wood, R.T.A., Shorter, G.W. & Griffiths, M.D. Rating the Suitability of Responsible Gambling Features for Specific Game Types: A Resource for Optimizing Responsible Gambling Strategy. Int J Ment Health Addiction 12, 94–112 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-013-9473-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-013-9473-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation