A Critical Review of the Harm-Minimisation Tools Available for Electronic Gambling - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

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

Andrew Harris et al. J Gambl Stud. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

The increasing sophistication of gambling products afforded by electronic technologies facilitates increased accessibility to gambling, as well as encouraging rapid and continuous play. This poses several challenges from a responsible gambling perspective, in terms of facilitating player self-awareness and self-control. The same technological advancements in gambling that may facilitate a loss of control may also be used to provide responsible gambling tools and solutions to reduce gambling-related harm. Indeed, several harm-minimisation strategies have been devised that aim to facilitate self-awareness and self-control within a gambling session. Such strategies include the use of breaks in play, 'pop-up' messaging, limit setting, and behavioural tracking. The present paper reviews the theoretical argument underpinning the application of specific harm-minimisation tools, as well as providing one of the first critical reviews of the empirical research assessing their efficacy, in terms of influencing gambling cognitions and behaviour.

Keywords: Behavioural tracking; Breaks in play; Harm-minimisation tools; Limit-setting; Pop-up messaging; Responsible gambling.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

The authors received no specific funding support for this work. However, the second author has received funding for a number of research projects in the area of gambling education for young people, social responsibility in gambling, and gambling treatment from the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, a charitable body which funds its research programme based on donations from the gambling industry. Both authors have undertaken consultancy for various gaming companies in the area of social responsibility. Andrew Harris has previously worked full time as research assistant for the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT), a charitable body which funds its research programme based on donations from the gambling industry, a charity who’s goals are directed towards funding research in the prevention of problem gambling as well as funding problem gambling treatment. This paper was written as part of Andrew’s PhD studies at Nottingham Trent University, and is no way connected to his previous role at the RGT, or his current part time research position with the RGT.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abbott M, Williams MM, Volberg RA. Seven years on: A follow-up study of frequent and problem gamblers living in the community. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs; 1999.
    1. Adams PJ, Raeburn J, de Silva K. A question of balance: prioritizing public health responses to harm from gambling. Addiction. 2008;104:688–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02414.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson G, Brown RIF. Real and laboratory gambling, sensation-seeking and arousal. British Journal of Psychology. 1984;75:401–410. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01910.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Association of British Bookmakers. (2015). What is a FOBT (fixed odd betting terminal) and why do betting shops have them when they didn’t have them before? Retrieved October 25, 2015, from http://abb.uk.com/what-are-fobts-and-why-do-betting-shops-have-them-when....
    1. Auer M, Griffiths MD. Behavioral tracking tools, regulation, and corporate social responsibility in online gambling. Gambling Law Review and Economics. 2013

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources