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

Attitudes Consumer protection Online gambling Problem gambling Recreational gamblers Responsible gambling

Journal

Addictive behaviors reports
ISSN: 2352-8532
Titre abrégé: Addict Behav Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101656077

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Historique:
received: 16 10 2018
revised: 11 01 2019
accepted: 18 01 2019
entrez: 14 6 2019
pubmed: 14 6 2019
medline: 14 6 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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], 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31193727
doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100161
pii: S2352-8532(18)30173-1
pii: 100161
pmc: PMC6542737
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100161

Références

J Gambl Stud. 2017 Jun;33(2):505-523
pubmed: 28265831
J Gambl Stud. 2014 Mar;30(1):71-88
pubmed: 23097131
Health Promot Int. 2004 Jun;19(2):137-40
pubmed: 15128705
Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 23;6:339
pubmed: 25852630
Addiction. 2018 Apr;113(4):699-707
pubmed: 29105942
Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 28;7:1875
pubmed: 27965611
J Gambl Stud. 2010 Mar;26(1):67-88
pubmed: 19730998
J Gambl Stud. 2008 Dec;24(4):463-77
pubmed: 18696219
Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009 Aug;12(4):413-21
pubmed: 19594379
Internet Interv. 2017 Mar 23;8:53-62
pubmed: 30135829
Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2018 Jun;35(3):215-234
pubmed: 32934528
J Gambl Stud. 2018 Mar;34(1):225-253
pubmed: 28707140
Sex Roles. 2014;70:240-254
pubmed: 24634562
Addict Behav. 2019 Mar;90:380-388
pubmed: 30529994
Harm Reduct J. 2008 Aug 06;5:27
pubmed: 18684323
J Gambl Stud. 2004 Fall;20(3):301-17
pubmed: 15353926

Auteurs

Ekaterina Ivanova (E)

Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.

Jonas Rafi (J)

Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.

Philip Lindner (P)

Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Centre for Dependency Disorders, Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Friskvårdsvägen 4, floor 2, S:t Göran, 112 81 Stockholm, Sweden.

Per Carlbring (P)

Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark.

Classifications MeSH