Griffiths, MD

Wood, RTA

English

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)

	   1	  Putting	  responsible	  gambling,	  theory	  and	  research	  into	  practice:	  Introducing	  the	  Responsible	  Gambling	  Review	  	  Dr.	  Richard	  T.A.	  Wood	  GamRes	  Limited,	  Canada	  info@gamres.org	  	  Dr.	  Mark	  D.	  Griffiths	  Nottingham	  Trent	  University,	  International	  Gaming	  Research	  Unit,	  UK	  mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk	  	  Editors,	  Responsible	  Gambling	  Review	  	  Welcome	   to	   the	   launch	   of	   Responsible	   Gambling	   Review	   (RGR).	   As	   way	   of	   an	  introduction,	  we	  thought	  some	  background	  would	  be	  helpful	  to	  explain	  the	  purpose,	  aims	  and	  scope	  of	  this	  new	  journal,	  and	  the	  role	  that	  we	  hope	  it	  will	  play	  in	  moving	  the	  gambling	  studies	  field	  forward.	  Over	   the	   last	   15	   years	   or	   so,	   the	   field	   of	   responsible	   gambling	   (RG)	   has	  developed	  from	  a	  basic	  interest	  in	  minimising	  gambling	  problems,	  to	  a	  fast-­‐growing	  field	   of	   research,	   theory,	   and	   practice	   covering	   all	   aspects	   of	   the	   gambling	  experience.	   Even	   in	   the	   recent	  past,	  RG	  was	   typically	   the	   remit	   of	   perhaps	  one	  or	  two	   individuals	   in	   an	  organisation,	  maybe	   just	   a	  minor	  part	   of	   their	  primary	   role.	  However,	  over	  the	  last	  few	  years	  and	  in	  many	  gaming	  companies,	  RG	  has	  become	  a	  concept	  embraced	  at	  all	  levels	  from	  the	  CEO	  down	  to	  the	  point-­‐of-­‐sale	  retailer,	  and	  all	  those	  in	  between.	  Whilst	  some	  of	  this	  focus	  has	  been	  driven	  through	  regulatory	  policy	  and	  an	  increased	  awareness	  of	  problem	  gambling	  across	  many	  jurisdictions,	  much	  of	  the	  interest	  stems	  from	  a	  realisation	  that	  problem-­‐free	  players	  make	  for	  a	  better	  business.	  That	  is,	  long-­‐term	  customers	  are	  going	  to	  be	  those	  who	  continue	  to	  play,	  without	  problems,	  primarily	  for	  reasons	  of	  leisure.	  In	  short,	  proactive	  gaming	  companies	  have	  developed	  socially	  responsible	  business	  models,	  that	  are	  based	  on	  increasing	  the	  number	  of	  moderate-­‐spending,	  long-­‐term	  repeat	  customers	  and,	  that	  strive	  to	  avoid	  custom	  from	  players	  with	  gambling	  problems.	  	  The	   expansion	   of	   RG	   practice	   has	   been	   accompanied	   by	   an	   overall	   shift	   of	  perspective	  in	  relation	  to	  research	  and	  theory.	  Previously,	  RG	  was	  largely	  influenced	  by	   a	   view	  of	   gambling	  problems	   that	   primarily	   adopted	   a	  medical	   and/or	   disease	  model,	  with	   little	   control	   or	   power	   attributed	   to	   those	   that	  were	  most	   negatively	  affected.	   However,	   increasing	   support	   for	   individual	   autonomy	   has	   become	   the	  important	  issue	  (Bernhard,	  2007;	  Reith,	  2009).	  This	  position,	  was	  outlined	  in	  detail	  by	  the	  “Reno	  Model”	  (Blaszczynski,	  Ladouceur,	  &	  Shaffer,	  2004)	  which	  argues	  that	  responsible	  gambling	  programs	  should	  be	  based	  upon	  two	  fundamental	  principles:	  (1)	  decisions	  to	  gamble	  reside	  with	  the	  individual	  and	  represent	  a	  choice,	  and	  (2)	  in	  order	  to	  make	  good	  decisions,	  individuals	  need	  to	  be	  well	  informed.	  	  	   This	   shift	   in	   perspective	   also	   reflects	  wider	   social	   and	   cultural	   changes	   that	  have	  seen	  more	  of	  an	  emphasis	  on	  the	   importance	  of	  consumers	  making	  informed	  purchase	   choices	   across	   a	   variety	   of	   products	   and	   services	   –	   whether	   reading	  Responsible	  Gambling	  Review	  January	  2014,	  Vol	  1,	  No.	  1,	  pp.	  1-­‐5	  	   2	  nutritional	  labels	  for	  dietary	  purposes	  or	  clearly	  understanding	  the	  implications	  of	  signing	   credit	   agreements.	   As	   is	   the	   case	   in	   a	   number	   of	   commercial	   settings,	  facilitating	   RG	   through	   informed	   player	   choice	   has	   become	   a	   major	   priority	   in	  building	  RG	  policy	  and	  strategy	  –	  an	  approach	  that	  reflects	  the	  fact	  that	  millions	  of	  participants	  willingly	  gamble	  worldwide	  every	  day	  as	  a	  legitimate	  and	  problem-­‐free	  leisure	  activity	  (Wood	  &	  Bernhard,	  2010).	  	  	   Partly	  as	  a	  driving	  force,	  and	  partly	  in	  response	  to	  the	  developing	  field	  of	  RG,	  the	  number	  of	   research	   studies	   in	   this	   area	  has	  been	   steadily	   increasing.	  This	  has	  both	   helped	   to	   shape	   RG	   theory	   and	   improve	   upon	   the	   overall	   effectiveness	   of	  gaming	  company	  RG	  policies,	  procedures	  and	  protocols.	  Consequently,	  the	  range	  of	  responsible	   gambling	   tools	   and	   features	   has	   expanded	   considerably,	   to	   include	   a	  diverse	   range	   of	   initiatives	   such	   as:	   enhanced	   player	   information	   and	   support	  services,	   self-­‐diagnostic	   tests,	   behavioral	   tracking	   and	   feedback,	   pre-­‐commitment	  and	   limit-­‐setting	   (for	   both	   time	   and	   money),	   dynamic	   warning	   messages,	  educational	  videos,	  and	  game	  risk	  analysis	  (see	  for	  example:	  Auer	  &	  Griffiths,	  2013;	  Auer,	  Malischnig	  &	  Griffiths,	  2014;	  Bernhard,	  Lucas,	  &	  Jang,	  2006;	  Griffiths,	  Wood	  &	  Parke,	   2009;	   Monaghan,	   2008;	   2009;	   Monaghan	   &	   Blaszczynski,	   2007;	   2010a;	  2010b;	  Nisbet,	  2005;	  Sharpe	  et	  al,	  2005;	  Williams,	  West	  &	  Simpson,	  2007;	  Wohl	  et	  al,	  2010;	  2011;	  Wood	  &	  Bernhard,	  2010;	  Wood	  &	  Griffiths,	  2008;	  Wood,	  Shorter	  &	  Griffiths,	  2014).	  	  	  	   At	  the	  same	  time,	  technological	  developments	  have	  become	  a	  driving	  force,	  for	  both	   the	   design	   of	   games	   and	   gambling	   environments,	   as	   well	   as	   for	   tools	   and	  services	  that	  can	  assist	  players	  to	  play	  responsibly.	  As	  Wood,	  Shorter	  and	  Griffiths	  (2013)	   recently	   reported	   in	   a	   Delphi	   study	   comprising	   of	   RG	   experts,	   treatment	  providers,	  and	  recovered	  problem	  gamblers,	  there	  are	  now	  many	  more	  RG	  features	  available	  for	  Internet-­‐based	  games	  than	  there	  are	  for	  traditional	  offline	  venue-­‐based	  games.	  For	  example,	   the	  study	   identified	  34	  RG	   features	   that	  might	  be	  utilized	   for	  Internet	   bingo	   games,	   whereas	   for	   traditional	   bingo	   in	   a	   bingo	   hall,	   casino,	   or	  gaming	   centre	   only	   15	   such	   RG	   features	   were	   identified.	   The	   nature	   of	   Internet	  based	   gambling	   is	   such	   that	   there	   is	   arguably	   a	   greater	   capacity	   than	   with	  traditional	   offline	   games	   in	   (i)	   controlling	   the	   gaming	   environment	   (e.g.,	   the	   look	  and	  sound	  of	  the	  game),	  (ii)	  changing	  the	  characteristics	  of	  the	  actual	  game	  (e.g.,	  the	  speed	  and	  duration	  of	  a	  game),	  (iii)	  providing	  players	  with	   limit-­‐setting	  tools	  (e.g.,	  player-­‐defined	   spend	   and	   time	   limits),	   (iv)	   providing	   players	   with	   behavioral	  feedback	  (e.g.,	  alerting	  players	  when	  their	  behavior	  has	  significantly	  changed	  over	  a	  specific	   time	  period),	   (v)	  providing	  players	  with	   instant	   referral	   to	  online	   support	  services	   (e.g.	  www.GamTalk.org),	   and	   (vi)	   educating	   players	   through	   entertaining	  and	  animated	  vignettes	  that	  almost	  appear	  to	  be	  a	  part	  of	  the	  game	  itself.	  	  However,	  whilst	   there	  has	  been	  an	  expansion	   in	  research	  and	  technological	  developments	  in	  the	  RG	  field,	  the	  translation	  of	  research	  into	  wide-­‐spread	  practice	  has	   sometimes	  been	   slower	   to	   take	  effect.	   Furthermore,	   staying	  up-­‐to-­‐date	  on	   the	  latest	  developments	  can	  be	  a	  difficult	  and	  time-­‐consuming	  process.	  A	  major	  barrier	  being	   that	   research	   is	   typically	   published	   in	   a	   broad	   collection	   of	   subject-­‐specific	  journals	   (e.g.,	   psychology,	   sociology,	   social	   policy,	   law,	   etc.)	   as	   well	   as	   broadly	  focused	  gambling	  related	  journals.	  Within	  these	  journals,	  articles	  and	  papers	  on	  RG	  are	   interspersed	   amongst	   numerous	   other	   articles	   that	   are	   often	   concerned	   with	  	   3	  issues	   focused	   on	   problem	   gambling.	   Furthermore,	   the	   reporting	   of	   such	   findings	  has,	   according	   to	   the	   tradition	   of	   academic	   publishing,	   usually	   involved	   rather	  lengthy	   theoretical	   and	   methodological	   discussions	   with	   little	   consideration	   for	  translating	   findings	   into	   practical	   applications	   that	   can	   be	   readily	   utilized	   by	   the	  gaming	  industry	  or	  gaming	  regulators.	  In	  practice,	  it	  is	  too	  often	  the	  case	  that	  an	  RG-­‐related	  article	   is	   read	  by	  only	  a	  handful	  of	  people,	  usually	  other	  academics,	  and	   is	  consigned	   to	   the	   university	   library	   where	   access	   is	   restricted	   to	   other	   university	  staff	  and	  students.	  In	  addition,	  by	  the	  time	  research	  is	  published,	  it	  may	  already	  be	  out	  of	  date.	  Added	  to	  this,	  the	  lengthy	  process	  involved	  in	  traditional	  publishing,	  can	  mean	  that	  it	  often	  takes	  a	  year	  or	  more	  before	  important	  papers	  are	  finally	  printed.	  	  To	  address	  these	  issues,	  the	  RGR	  has	  opted	  for	  a	  free-­‐to-­‐access	  online	  format,	  by	   which	   papers	   and	   articles	   can	   be	   published	   very	   quickly	   following	   the	   peer	  review	  process,	  with	  no	  need	  to	  wait	  whilst	  a	  series	  of	  papers	  are	  gathered	  together	  for	  a	  printed	  edition.	  Once	  a	  paper	  is	  accepted,	  the	  RGR	  can	  publish	  it	  online	  and	  it	  will	  be	  accessible	  to	  everyone.	  Bridging	  the	  gap	  between	  research	  and	  practice	  –	  as	  well	  as	  making	  RG	  knowledge	  more	  accessible	  –	  are	  the	  key	  aims	  of	  RGR.	  Through	  a	  focus	   on	   (i)	   translating	   research	   into	   more	   easily	   digestible	   and	   user-­‐friendly	  writing,	   (ii)	   summarizing	   key	   findings,	   and	   (iii)	   highlighting	   actionable	   strategies,	  RGR’s	  aim	  is	  to	  engage	  with	  a	  much	  wider	  audience	  than	  has	  traditionally	  been	  the	  case.	   In	   addition,	   the	   inclusion	   of	   reports	   on	   the	   experiences	   and	   practices	   of	  applying	  RG	  provide	  an	  opportunity	  to	  share	  best	  practices	  and	  highlight	  where	  the	  application	  of	  RG	  theory	  and	  practice	  is	  making	  progress.	  To	  date,	  the	  field	  of	  RG	  has	  lacked	   a	   focal	   point	   by	   which	   to	   bring	   together	   knowledge	   and	   experience	   of	  practicing	  RG.	  However,	  by	  sharing	  knowledge	  and	  experience	  freely	  we	  can	  better	  learn	  what	  works,	  what	  doesn’t,	  and	  what	  holds	  potential	  for	  the	  future.	  Through	  a	  focus	  on	  communicating	  research,	  practical	  experience,	  and	   issues	  directly	   related	  to	   RG,	   we	   hope	   RGR	   will	   provide	   some	   helpful	   direction	   and	   continuity	   in	   this	  rapidly	  expanding	  field.	  	  We	   would	   like	   to	   express	   our	   warmest	   thanks	   to	   those	   people	   that	   have	  contributed	  to	  our	  inaugural	  issue.	  We	  look	  forward	  to	  hearing	  more	  from	  you	  again	  and	   from	   other	   colleagues	   (e.g.,	   other	   RG	   staff,	   regulators,	   researchers	   etc.)	   who	  wish	  to	  share	  their	  RG	  experiences,	  RG	  research	  findings,	  and	  discuss	  RG	  issues.	  	  References	  	  Auer,	  M.	  &	  Griffiths,	  M.	  D.	  (2013).	  Voluntary	  limit	  setting	  and	  player	  choice	  in	  most	  intense	  online	  gamblers:	  an	  empirical	  study	  of	  gambling	  behaviour.	  Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Studies,	  29,	  647-­‐660	  Auer,	  M.,	  Malishnig,	  D.	  &	  Griffiths,	  M.	  D.	  (2014).	  Is	  ‘pop-­‐up’	  messaging	  in	  online	  slot	  machine	  gambling	  effective?	  An	  empirical	  research	  note.	  Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Issues,	  in	  press.	  Bernhard,	  B.J.	  	  (2007).	  	  The	  voices	  of	  vices:	  Sociological	  perspectives	  on	  pathological	  gambling.	  	  American	  Behavioral	  Scientist.	  51,	  8-­‐32.	  	  	  	   4	  Bernhard,	   B.	   J.,	   Lucas,	   A.	   F.	  &	   Jang,	  D.	   (2006).	  Responsible	  Gaming	  Device	  Research	  Report.	   Nevada:	   University	   of	   Nevada,	   Las	   Vegas	   International	   Gaming	  Institute.	  Blasczczynski,	  A.,	  Ladouceur,	  R.,	  &	  Shaffer,	  H.J.	   (2004).	  A	  science-­‐based	   framework	  for	   responsible	   gambling:	   The	  Reno	  model.	   Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Studies,	  20,	  301-­‐317.	  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	  and	  Behavior,	  12,	  413-­‐421.	  Monaghan,	  S.	  (2008).	  Review	  of	  pop-­‐up	  messages	  on	  electronic	  gaming	  machines	  as	  a	   proposed	   responsible	   gambling	   strategy.	   International	   Journal	   of	   Mental	  Health	  and	  Addiction,	  6,	  214-­‐222.	  	  Monaghan,	   S.,	   (2009).	   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.	  Monaghan,	  S.,	  &	  Blaszczynski,	  A.	  (2007).	  Recall	  of	  electronic	  gaming	  machine	  signs:	  A	   static	  versus	  a	  dynamic	  mode	  of	  presentation.	   Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Issues,	  20,	  253-­‐268.	  	  Monaghan,	   S.,	   &	   Blaszczynski,	   A.	   (2010a).	   Electronic	   gaming	   machine	   warning	  messages:	  Information	  versus	  self-­‐evaluation.	  Journal	  of	  Psychology,	  144,	  83-­‐96.	  Monaghan,	   S.,	  &	  Blaszczynski,	  A.	   (2010b).	   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.	  	  Nisbet,	   S.	   (2005).	   Responsible	   gambling	   features	   of	   card-­‐based	   technologies.	  International	  Journal	  of	  Mental	  Health	  and	  Addiction,	  3,	  54-­‐63.	  Reith,	  G.	   (2009).	  Reflections	   on	   responsibility.	   Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Issues,	  22,	   149-­‐155.	  Sharpe,	   L.,	   Walker,	   M.,	   Coughlan,	   M.,	   Enersen,	   K.,	   &	   Blaszczynski,	   A.	   (2005).	  Structural	   changes	   to	   electronic	   gaming	   machines	   as	   effective	   harm	  minimization	   strategies	   for	   non-­‐problem	   and	   problem	   gamblers.	   Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Studies,	  21,	  503-­‐520.	  Williams,	  R.	  J.,	  West,	  B.	  L.,	  &	  Simpson,	  R.	  I.	  (2007).	  Prevention	  of	  problem	  gambling:	  A	  comprehensive	   review	   of	   the	   evidence.	   Report	   prepared	   for	   the	   Ontario	  Problem	  Gambling	  Research	  Centre,	  Guelph,	  Ontario,	  Canada.	  Wohl,	   M.	   J.	   A.,	   Christie,	   K.,	   Matheson,	   K.,	   &	   Anisman,	   H.	   (2010).	   Animation-­‐based	  education	   as	   a	   gambling	   prevention	   tool:	   Correcting	   erroneous	   cognitions	  and	  reducing	  the	  frequency	  of	  exceeding	  limits	  among	  slot	  players.	  Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Studies,	  26,	  469-­‐486.	  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	  http://www.responsiblegamblingns.ca/presentations/	  Wood,	  R.	  T.	  A.	  &	  Bernhard,	  B.	  J.	  (2010).	  Found	  in	  translation.	  Paper	  presented	  at	  the	  Nova	  Scotia	  Gaming	  Corporation	  Responsible	  Gambling	  Conference,	  Halifax.	  	  	   5	  Wood,	  R.	  T	  .A.	  &	  Griffiths,	  M.	  D.	  (2008).	  Why	  Swedish	  people	  play	  online	  poker	  and	  	  actors	   that	   can	   increase	   or	   decrease	   trust	   in	   poker	  websites:	   A	   qualitative	  investigation,	  Journal	  of	  Gambling	  Issues,	  21,	  80-­‐97.	  Wood,	   R.T.A.,	   Shorter,	   G.W.,	   Griffiths,	   M.D.	   (2014).	   Rating	   the	   Suitability	   of	  Responsible	   Gambling	   Features	   for	   Specific	   Game	   Types:	   A	   Resource	   for	  Optimizing	   Responsible	   Gambling	   Strategy.	   International	   Journal	   of	   Mental	  Health	  and	  Addiction,	  DOI	  10.1007/s11469-­‐013-­‐9473-­‐y.	    	  	  

Putting responsible gambling, theory and research into practice: introducing the Responsible Gambling Review

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)