Experiences of responsible gambling tools among non-problem gamblers: A survey of active customers of an online gambling platform

Abstract

Introduction Responsible gambling (RG) tools, aiming at helping gamblers to avoid gambling-related harms, are common in online gambling platforms. Gambling industry, policy makers, and researchers have warned that RG tools can potentially disturb recreational gamblers, channeling them to less protective operators. No evidence exists to support these concerns, and they can hinder the development of effective RG tools. The current study aimed to investigate the recreational gamblers' experiences of RG tools. Methods A total of 10,200 active customers of an online gambling service were invited to complete an online survey and rate their overall reactions, attitudes, disturbance and irritation towards RG tools, as well as their inclination to abandon a gambling service due to overexposure to RG tools. N = 1223 surveys were completed. Results Non-problem gamblers had positive experiences of RG tools. Moderate-risk gamblers had more positive overall reaction and less irritation to previous experiences of RG tools compared to non-problem gamblers. Problem gamblers had least positive attitudes, most disturbance and most irritation towards RG pictures. Non-problem gamblers had lowest rates of having abandoned a service because of perceived overexposure to RG tools (5.2% compared to 25.9% of problem gamblers), with a significant between-group difference (OR [95% CI] = 7.17 [3.61–14.23], p < .001). Conclusions Non-problem gamblers were not particularly disturbed by RG tools and were not at risk of abandoning online gambling services because of overexposure to RG tools. The study found no grounds for limiting the design and implementation of RG tools due to fears of disturbing recreational gamblers.

Understanding use of consumer protection tools among Internet gambling customers: Utility of the Theory of Planned Behavior and Theory of Reasoned Action

“…This study's findings imply that consumer protection tool use could be best studied within the framework of the TRA rather than the TPB. Previous research shows that most gamblers hold positive views towards consumer protection tools (Gainsbury et al, 2013;Griffiths et al, 2009b;Ivanova et al, 2019). However, low subjective norm scores were found in the current study, indicating that respondents believe important people in their lives do not deem the tools as valuable.…”

“…The survey referenced 'gambling tools' rather than using terms 'responsible gambling' or 'consumer protection' in an effort to avoid bias. Nonetheless, the current study has several strengths, including the recruitment of a sample from across six wagering operators, whereas previous research on attitude towards consumer protection tools are based on customers from a single online operator (Griffiths et al, 2009b;Ivanova et al, 2019). Although it did not predict intention or behaviour, testing the role of perceived behavioural control was important to demonstrate that this is not an apparent factor influencing consumer protection tool use.…”

“…Moreover, while consumer protection tools are intended to assist gamblers, they have been developed in the absence of clear conceptual frameworks. Although little empirical research on gamblers' attitudes and behaviour towards using consumer protection tools exists, studies suggest that attitudes toward online consumer protection tools are positive (Gainsbury, Parke, & Suhonen, 2013;Griffiths, Wood, & Parke, 2009;Ivanova, Rafi, Lindner, & Carlbring, 2019). To date, no research has explored social pressure and perceived behavioural control in the context of consumer protection tool use.…”

A systematic review of educational programs and consumer protection measures for gambling: an extension of previous reviews

“…These measures are defined as policies and practices intended to reduce the potential harms resulting from gambling and are traditionally implemented by the gambling industry (Blaszczynski et al 2004(Blaszczynski et al , 2008(Blaszczynski et al , 2011. Common features of RG measures include setting limits on the amount of time or money individuals can spend gambling and supplying personal feedback on gambling activities or self-exclusion (Ivanova et al 2019). Williams et al (2012, p. 6) stated the following regarding RG measures: 'Unfortunately, the development, implementation, and evaluation of most of these initiatives have been a haphazard process.…”

Use of Consumer Protection Tools on Internet Gambling Sites: Customer Perceptions, Motivators, and Barriers to Use

“…However, the gambling operators from which participants were recruited all use the term 'responsible gambling'. The term responsible gambling should be avoided where possible as this term may be interpreted to imply that it is the gambler's individual responsibility to gamble in a sustainable way without recognising the interplay between the gambling product and environment (Blaszczynski et al, 2011;Ivanova, Rafi, Lindner, & Carlbring, 2019;Reith, 2008).Terminology is needed to clarify that the tools are relevant for the entire consumer base (e.g., play management or account tools) to ensure that gambling is sustainable and affordable and to prevent the development of related problems (Tanner, Drawson, Mushquash, Mushquash, & Mazmanian, 2017). As most gamblers already set themselves budgets, there is a clear perceived recognition of the importance of such actions.…”