Equivalent gambling warning labels are perceived differently

Abstract

Background and Aims The same information may be perceived differently, depending on how it is described. The risk information given on many gambling warning labels tends to accentuate what a gambler might expect to win, e.g. ‘This game has an average percentage payout of 90%’ (return‐to‐player), rather than what a gambler might expect to lose, e.g. ‘This game keeps 10% of all money bet on average’ (house‐edge). We compared gamblers’ perceived chances of winning and levels of warning label understanding under factually equivalent return‐to‐player and house‐edge formats. Design Online surveys: experiment 1 was designed to test how gamblers’ perceived chances of winning would vary under equivalent warning labels, and experiment 2 explored how often equivalent warning labels were correctly understood by gamblers. Setting United Kingdom. Participants UK nationals, aged 18 years and over and with experience of virtual on‐line gambling games, such as on‐line roulette, were recruited from an on‐line crowd‐sourcing panel (experiment 1, n = 399; experiment 2, n = 407). Measurements The main dependent variables were a gambler's perceived chances of winning on a seven‐point Likert scale (experiment 1) and a multiple‐choice measure of warning label understanding (experiment 2). Findings The house‐edge label led to lower perceived chances of winning in experiment 1, F(1, 388) = 19.03, P < 0.001. In experiment 2, the house‐edge warning label was understood by more gamblers [66.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 60.0%, 73.0%] than the return‐to‐player warning label (45.6%, 95% CI = 38.8%, 52.4%, z = 4.22, P < 0.001). Conclusions House‐edge warning labels on electronic gambling machines and on‐line casino games, which explain what a gambler might expect to lose, could help gamblers to pay greater attention to product risk and would be better understood by gamblers than equivalent return‐to‐player labels.

Gaming the system: sub-optimal compliance with loot box probability disclosure regulations in China

“…However, the actions of some video game companies do at least seem to draw parallels with corporate actions in other, more established addictive areas. For example, the alcohol (Petticrew et al, 2016), gambling (Newall et al, 2020), and tobacco industries (Hiilamo et al, 2012) have all taken various actions which likely reduce the effectiveness of their product warnings. The actions of most video game companies in this study appear to be more consistent with ideas of 'sludge' (Sunstein, 2020;Thaler, 2018) or 'dark nudges' (Newall et al, 2020;Petticrew et al, 2020) which inhibit consumer choice, than with the traditional conceptualisation of 'nudge' (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008) which improve consumer choice.…”

“…However, companies may also take various actions which inhibit the consumers' abilities to make informed decisions: for example, by hiding important information within long legal documents, such as the terms and conditions (Bar-Gill, 2012). Actions which inhibit informed consumer choices have been contrastingly termed 'sludge' (Sunstein, 2020;Thaler, 2018), or 'dark nudges' (Newall et al, 2020;Petticrew et al, 2020).…”

“…UK alcohol companies have not always met their voluntary pledges around health warnings (Alcohol Health Alliance UK, 2020; Petticrew et al, 2016). Gambling companies' disclosures about the odds of winning are provided in an arguably suboptimal risk communication format (Newall et al, 2020). However, tobacco, alcohol, and gambling are all established consumer industries that operate very differently from the much younger and rapidly developing video gaming industry: video game companies may instead prefer to be more socially responsible and develop trust with their player-consumers by interpreting RMM disclosure requirements in a way that is most helpful to consumers.…”

Statistical risk warnings in gambling

“…Some results show that gamblers display a better understanding of this information when it is given in terms of the house edge. Specifically, 66.5% of gamblers correctly understood a house edge statement of, 'This game keeps 10% of all money bet on average', compared to 45.6% of those given a return-toplayer statement (Newall et al, 2020a). Furthermore, gamblers perceived a lower chance of winning when given house edges of between 5% and 15% than when given equivalent return-to-player statements ranging from 95% to 85% (Newall et al, 2020a).…”

“…Specifically, 66.5% of gamblers correctly understood a house edge statement of, 'This game keeps 10% of all money bet on average', compared to 45.6% of those given a return-toplayer statement (Newall et al, 2020a). Furthermore, gamblers perceived a lower chance of winning when given house edges of between 5% and 15% than when given equivalent return-to-player statements ranging from 95% to 85% (Newall et al, 2020a). Taken together, these results imply that gamblers have a more informed and less optimistic interpretation of the winning chances when given house edge information compared to the more widely used return-to-player information.…”