A Critical Review of the Harm-Minimisation Tools Available for Electronic Gambling

 Critical Review of the Harm Minimization Tools Available for Electronic Gambling

Abstract

Increased accessibility to gambling is possible due to the increasing sophistication of electronic gambling products. This also encourages rapid and continuous gambling. From a responsible gambling perspective this presents many challenges in terms of player self-awareness, and self-control. These technological advances in gambling can be used to help reduce gambling-related damage and provide responsible gambling tools. In fact, there are many harm minimization strategies that can be used to encourage self-awareness in gambling and self-control during a session. Breaks in play, 'pop up' messaging, limit setting, and behavioral tracking are all examples of harm-minimization strategies. The paper discusses the theoretical basis for the application of harm-minimisation tools and provides an overview of empirical research on their efficacy in influencing gambling cognitions.

Background

High-intensity, commercial gambling is relatively new in comparison with other legalized, hazardous, or consumptive behaviours like tobacco and alcohol (Adams, et al. 2008). Advertising for gambling products is almost commonplace. The promotion of gambling may have even become a social norm (Parke, et al. 2014a, b). The ubiquitous presence of gambling is inextricably tied to national and international sporting events. 2014).

It is particularly important to see the evolution of gambling products in sophisticated electronic platforms that have structural features that interact and affect the gambler to create ego-dystonic, and even maladaptive effects (see Breen & Zimmerman 2002), which can be termed 'gambling related harm'. This harm is a major issue, and the strategic approach is crucial. Adams et al. (2008) state that in a society that is relatively stable in consumption, it makes sense to focus attention on the treatment for those with gambling problems. Adams et.al. According to Adams (2008), such concentrated effort is not as urgent in a rapidly changing environment displaying escalation in risk. Instead, focus should be on the actual situation.

...when submerged rocks penetrate a hole in the boat's bottom it makes no sense to pay attention to anyone else. Instead, it makes more sense to direct a lot of energy towards stopping the water from flowing through the hole. 2008; pp. 869).

This analogy might be especially pertinent given the growing view that the Theory of Total Consumption is valid for gambling behavior (Lund 2008. The positive relationship between the average alcohol consumption in a society and the percentage of problem or heavy drinkers has been established for a long time in alcohol studies (Babor et. al. 2003). Lederman (1956) first proposed such a relationship. It is now known as the single distribution theory, or the total consumption model. Evidence suggests that the total consumption model can be applied to a wide range of phenomena (Lund, 2008). This includes gambling behavior. Several studies show that increased gambling accessibility leads to greater gambling participation (e.g. Room and al. 1999; Turner et al. 1999; Turner and al.

This theory assumes that gambling increases when people along the whole consumption continuum gamble more. However, gambling below or just below the limit is considered excessive gambling (Lund 2008). The increased gambling participation within this subgroup will shift them towards the more serious gambling group. This is especially significant given the statistics that show that in addition the UK's 0.5 percent prevalence of problem gambling, another 4.2 % can be classified as being at-risk for developing a gambling addiction (Wardle et. al. 2014, this amounts to about 2.5 million people. An increase in gambling consumption could lead to increased risk for those at higher risk. It can also make it more difficult for those who gamble regularly, but not problem-free, into problem gamblers. Dickson-Swift and colleagues found that for every problem gambler, there are many family members, friends, or individuals who are negatively affected by problem gambling. 2005), but the number of affected individuals is less for adolescent problem gambling (Griffiths, 1995). This strong argument supports the need to tackle problem gambling from a health perspective.

There is still the question of how to address the problem of problem gambling and promote responsible gambling. These issues have led to many harm-minimization initiatives and RG. Wohl et. al. have suggested that one harm-minimization strategy is to reduce gambling access by limiting opening hours at licensed gambling venues. 2010), and also reduce the amount of gambling products in the UK by limiting the number of EGMs (electronic gambling machines) in UK licensed betting offices to four (Association of British Bookmakers, 2015). The voluntary self-exclusion program allows individuals with gambling problems to report to the venue and agree to exclusion for a set or indefinite time. Noting that voluntary self exclusion may be positive and preventive, it is important to remember that this option is also available for those who have not yet developed a gambling problem but feel they might be at risk, or simply don't want anymore to gamble.

These are examples of harm-minimisation that use'supply reducing'. Other options include "demand reduction", which involves adopting policies that make gambling less appealing, such as banning smoking in the house or banning alcohol consumption (Williams and al. 2004). Some demand reduction strategies may also aim to educate customers on the real nature and odds of certain gambling games (e.g. Wohl, et al. 2010), in the hope of educating gamblers about how statistically they are most likely to lose money.

The final harm-minimization initiative (and the subject of this paper) is "harm reduction", which operates more from an "restrictivist" philosophical and moral standpoint when it comes to tackling problem gambling. As Collins et al. As Collins et. al. (2015) have shown, a restrictivist perspective operates somewhere in the middle between prohibitionists or libertarianism. Restrictivists do not believe gambling should be banned. And, unlike libertarians they recognize that gambling is not like any other entertainment or leisure business (Collins and al. 2015). This belief argues for gambling to be allowed but that it should be controlled so that gambling can be done responsibly and safely.

Technology is advancing rapidly in gambling products, which can lead to the development of harm minimisation tools that assist gamblers to maintain self-control as well as make rational and controlled gambling-related choices. Harm-minimization tools make gambling safer and less addictive. Although harm-minimisation is gaining popularity as a psychology research field, it remains a new area of study. This paper will conduct a systematic literature search to synthesize and critically assess the empirical evidence supporting current harm-minimisation methods. While there are some dated reviews of the evidence supporting specific harm-minimization tools, we don't know of any literature reviewing that examines all the evidence across the harm minimization literature.

Methods

Search Strategy

The in-depth literature review consisted of three simultaneous phases: (1) searching of online electronic databases; 2) sharing personal papers with professional contacts in the gambling field to minimize harm from gambling; (3) snowballing--a method where reference lists are viewed and relevant papers pursued. As a primary source, electronic databases were used by the authors' Library One Search, which is an all-encompassing database search engine, including PsychArticles; PsychInfo and Science Direct. Google Scholar was also used. There were three search terms: gambling'; electronic gaming' and gambling. Other search terms include?gambling harm minimisation';?responsiblegambling'; PsychInfo, Science Direct, and Scopus.

Criteria for Inclusion

To be considered an output for evaluation, the paper must have: (1) dealt with harm-minimization tools in an within-session [electronic/online] gamble context with an aim to facilitate controlled gambling; (2) been written in English; (3) reported an empirical research; (4) been published within 10 years (2005 to 2015); and (5) been published by a peer-reviewed journal.

Harm-Minimisation Tool Categorisation

After the papers had been filtered according to abstract and title, a deeper assessment was made using the inclusion criteria. The remaining papers were then categorized according to the harm minimization tool. The categories are based upon previous categorizations in the literature and are the terms most likely to be used when searching in literature databases and comprised: (1) enforced breaks in play, (2) messaging, (3) limit-setting/pre-commitment, (4) behavioural tracking tools, and (5) note acceptor prohibition or modification. These categories were frequently found in gambling harm minimisation literature. It is important to note that the different types of tools and the components involved can overlap. Pop-up messages may also contain breaks in play. For example, setting monetary limits could involve receiving a pop up message after the limits have been reached. Therefore, each tool was classified according to its primary purpose. For example, pop-ups can be used to interrupt play. However, the message content is the primary harm minimisation goal. Therefore, it is placed in the "pop-ups" section. Finally, the section that describes approaches to limit setting with pop-up reminders and limits being exceeded is in the "limit-setting" sections. In the discussion section, we will provide an overview of research findings as well as an overall evaluation of each tool. a critical review of the full size blackjack table