Responsible Gambling Strategies

  • Sally Gainsbury
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Behavioral Medicine book series (BRIEFSBEHAVIO, volume 1)


Internet gambling poses new challenges to regulators and industry operators in terms of player protection. However, it also offers opportunities through the use of technologically-sophisticated responsible gambling strategies. Internet gambling players can be tracked over time and procedures may be developed that identify potentially risky patterns of play and prompt customers to play within their limits. Online gambling sites may also provide effective time and money limit setting, targeted messaging and education and self-testing options. There is some evidence to indicate that such online tools would be effective at preventing problem gambling and reduce risks of harm. Efforts are also required to prevent harm relating to problem gambling at a wider public health level. For example, restrictions on advertising online gambling sites should be considered, particularly those that may influence youth or are from unregulated sites. This chapter outlines the various responsible gambling strategies that have been implemented on gambling sites and evidence to support the effectiveness of these including player messaging, feedback on gambling behavior, time and money limits, and self-exclusion.


Internet gambling Online gaming Responsible gambling Harm minimization Messaging Limits Feedback Self-exclusion Policy Customer protection 


  1. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., & Shaffer, H. (2005). Informed choice and gambling: Principles for consumer protection. Melbourne: Australian Gaming Council.Google Scholar
  3. Breen, H., Buultjens, J., & Hing, N. (2005). Evaluating implementation of a voluntary responsible gambling code in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3, 15–25.Google Scholar
  4. Broda, A., LaPlante, D., Nelson, A., LaBrie, R., Bosworth, L., & Shaffer, H. (2008). Virtual harm reduction efforts for internet gambling: Effects of deposit limits on actual internet sports gambling behaviour. Harm Reduction Journal, 5, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunningham, J. A., Sdao-Jarvie, K., Koski-Jännes, A., & Breslin, F. C. (2001). Motivating change at assessment for alcohol treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 301–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunningham, J. A., Hodgins, D. C., Toneatto, T., Rai, A., & Cordingley, J. (2009). Pilot study of personalized feedback intervention for problem gamblers. Behavior Therapy, 40, 219–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delfabbro, P. (2008). Australasian gambling review (3rd ed.). Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Dragicevic, S. (2011). Time for change: The industry’s approach to self-exclusion. World Online Gambling Law Report, 10(7), 6–8.Google Scholar
  9. Dragicevic, S., Tsogas, G., & Kudic, A. (2011). Analysis of casino online gambling data in relation to behavioural risk markers for high-risk gambling and player protection. International Gambling Studies, 11, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. eCOGRA. (2007). An exploratory investigation in the attitudes and behaviours of internet Casino and poker players. Nottingham: Institute for the study of gambling and commercial gaming: Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, S., Li, H., & Lee, J. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31, 83–95.Google Scholar
  12. Gainsbury, S. (2010). Response to the productivity commission inquiry into gambling: Online gaming and the interactive gambling act. Gambling Research, 22(2), 3–12.Google Scholar
  13. Gainsbury, S. (2011). Player account-based gambling: Potentials for behaviour-based research methodologies. International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gainsbury, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2011a). Online self-guided interventions for the treatment of problem gambling. International Gambling Studies, 11, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gainsbury, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2011b). Invited submission to the joint select committee on gambling reform inquiry into interactive gambling. Retrieved from
  16. 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, 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haefeli, J., Lischer, S., & Schwarx, J. (2011). Early detection items and responsible gambling features for online gambling. International Gambling Studies, 11, 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2011). Internet self-exclusion: Characteristics of self-excluded gamblers and preliminary evidence for its effectiveness. International Journal of Mental Health & Addictions, 9, 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hing, N. (2004). The efficacy of responsible gambling measures in NSW clubs: The gamblersperspective. Australian Gaming Council. Retrieved from
  20. Jawad, C., & Griffiths, S. (2008). A critical analysis of online gambling websites. 2008 EBEN-UK annual conference, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Jonsson, J. (2008) Responsible gaming and gambling problems among 3000 Swedish internet poker players. 7th European association for the study of gambling conference. Retrieved from
  22. McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd. (2005). Analysis of gambler precommitment behaviour. Melbourne: Victoria: Gambling Research Australia. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  23. Monaghan, S. (2008). Internet and wireless gambling: A current profile. Melbourne: Australian Gaming Council.Google Scholar
  24. Monaghan, S. (2009b). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010a). Impact of mode of display and message content of responsible gambling signs for electronic gaming machines on regular gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 67–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010b). Electronic gaming machine warning messages: Informative versus self-evaluation. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 144, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monaghan, S., & Wood, R. T. A. (2010). Internet-based interventions for youth dealing with gambling problems. International Journal of Adolescent Health and Medicine, 22(1), 113–128.Google Scholar
  28. Nelson, S., LaPlante, D., Peller, A., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. (2008). Real limits in the virtual world: Self-limiting behavior of internet gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 463–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nisbet, S. (2005). Responsible gambling features of card-based technologies. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3(2), 54–63.Google Scholar
  30. Parke, J., Rigbye, J., & Parke, A. (2008). Cashless and card-based technologies in gambling: A review of the literature. Report for the Gambling Commission, Salford: University of SalfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Pasadeos, Y. (1990). Perceived informativeness of and irritation with local advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petry, N. (2005). Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Report no: 50, Canberra.Google Scholar
  34. Rodda, S., & Cowie, M. (2005). Evaluation of electronic gaming machine harm minimisation in Victoria: Final report. Melbourne, Australia: Office of Gaming and Racing, Victorian Government Department of JusticeGoogle Scholar
  35. Schellinck, T., & Schrans, T. (2007). VLT player tracking system. Nova Scotia: Focal Research.Google Scholar
  36. Smeaton, M., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Internet gambling and social responsibility: An exploratory study. CyberPsychology and Behaviour, 7(1), 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stymne, A. (2008). Motives behind and effects of state-owned Netpoker. Östersund: Swedish National Institute of Public Health.Google Scholar
  38. Tolchard, B., Thomas, L., & Battersby, M. (2006). Single-session exposure therapy for problem gambling: A single-case experimental design. Behavioral Change, 23, 148–55.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2008). Why Swedish people play online poker and factors that can increase or decrease trust in poker web sites: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 21, 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood, R., & Williams, R. (2010). Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns, problems, and policy options. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sally Gainsbury
    • 1
  1. 1.Southern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia

Personalised recommendations