Warning and Messaging

Online gambling offers an ideal medium through which personalised messages and feedback can be displayed to account holders. Behavioural tracking tools allow monitoring of

frequency, duration of sessions and intensity of expenditure using algorithms to detect deviation from personal typical patterns of play, and comparisons against similar

demographic account holders. Early intervention benefits accrue from the tool forewarning and offering player insights into shifts towards more risky patterns of play (Griffiths, Wood & Parke, 2009). In addition, real time feedback on expenditure and patterns of play is offered across the full spectrum of players irrespective of their gambling status. Deleting identified players displaying risky behaviours from promotional material/advertising mailing lists may also reduce incentives to continue.

Given the voluntary nature of enrolling in online responsible gambling tools, and reliance on players to self-modify their behaviour in response to information provided, at best such tools may assist a small to moderate proportion of players in making more optimal informed choices (Auer & Griffiths, 2015a, 2015b; Griffiths, Wood & Parke, 2009). For example, Auer and Griffiths (2015a) found that exposure to either simple compared to enhanced self- appraisal pop-up messages influenced the behaviour of 1.39% and 0.67% of highly involved account holders, respectively. However, part of the difficulty in ascertaining the impact on player behaviours is the fact that those enrolling in online responsible gambling programs, it is reasonable to argue, exhibit higher levels of motivation and readiness to commit to control over gambling behaviours than those electing not to opt-in. Differences in outcome may be accounted for by motivation rather than personalised feedback or self-appraisal messages.

Imposing mandatory enrollment in responsible gambling behavioural tracking programs and enforcing temporary suspension of play for those breaching limits or exhibiting risk

behaviours represents one approach to maximising program reach. However, this requires legislation requiring all operators to introduce such programs, and runs the risk of migrating players to offshore sites outside the legislated jurisdiction.

Although online behavioural tracking include real gamblers and actual gambling behaviours, most land-based studies incorporate cross-sectional designs on analogue student

populations using self-report estimates of predicted effects on behaviour, awareness or cognitive beliefs (Cloutier, Ladouceur, & Sevigny, 2006; Gainsbury, Aro, Ball, Tobar, & Russell, 2015; Ladouceur & Sevigny, 2003; Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2007, 2010). In

addition, there are significant methodological difficulties in evaluating the effects of messages in in-vivo settings with real gamblers. This is because in laboratory studies it is relatively easy to schedule and manipulate the number and frequency of messages to which

participants are exposed. In real settings, exposure is more sporadic and uncertain. The extent to which an individual is exposed to a message is subject to the frequency with which messages are displayed within a session. Options include set times (e.g., every 15, 30 or 60

minutes) independent of player behaviour, set time characteristics triggered by the

commencement of a session of play (insertion of credits or player card), or a threshold set by the individual (precommitment) being approached or met. In the former option,

exposure will be random while in the latter two exposure will be dependent on the duration and/or extent of play on that machine. Thus, individuals frequently switching machines or engaged in relatively short periods of play per machine may be exposed to a minimum of pop-up messages, if at all, during a total session of play.

Blaszczynski, Gainsbury and Karlov (2014) evaluated a series of modified EGM machine in in-vivo settings with a sample of 299 gamblers. Although 38% of participants reported that a dynamic responsible gambling message appearing in the panel above the playing screen would make a positive difference to their gambling, only 4% indicated that the message influenced their actual behaviour. Interestingly, the messages did not affect the enjoyment of non-problem and low risk players or were associated with any negative outcomes, finding consistent with Gainsbury, Aro, Ball, Tobar and Russell (2015a, b). However, in

Blaszczynski, Gainsbury and Karlov’s (2014) study, significantly more problem gamblers compared to non-problem gamblers reported a significant reduction in their enjoyment of play in response to the messages suggesting a differential response by this subgroup of gamblers. Whether such messages induce guilt or negative reactions among problem

gamblers resulting in their playing less or simply shifting to machines without messages is yet to be elucidated.

Findings from studies conducted in laboratory settings are consistent in suggesting that personalised feedback interventions (Auer & Griffiths, 2015b; Marchica & Derevensky, 2016), self-appraisal messages delivered in dynamic compared to static mode (Gainsbury, Aro, Ball, Tobar, & Russell, 2015a, 2015b; Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2007, 2010a), and those promoting self-appraisal (Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010b) and adherence to pre-set

monetary limits (Stewart & Wohl, 2013) exert limited but positive effects on a minority of players. These have shown promising outcomes; at least on intention to reduce gambling behaviours, restrict expenditure to pre-set limits, and overall expenditure at least in in the short term.

What is lacking is any data on the durability of awareness and its impact on actual gambling in in-vivo settings over the long term, and if there are any differential effects on players meeting criteria for a gambling disorder. There is some evidence from one more ecologically valid in-vivo study to suggest that there are no differences in responses to informative versus self-appraisal messages between non-problem and problem gamblers (Gainsbury, Aro, Ball, Tobar, & Russell, 2015a). Disconcertingly, less than half the sample of respondents in this study reported recalling seeing the messages, with slightly over half of this subsample able to accurately recall the content of at least one message. These findings indicate that for messages to be informative, they must be presented in a manner that attracts attention, are displayed prominently, interrupt play and direct attention to behaviours, resonate with and have personal meaning or relevance, and outline potential actions to be taken (Gainsbury, Aro, Ball, Tobar, & Russell, 2015).

In summary, there is evidence that dynamic compared to static messages enhance recall, gambling-related cognitions, and behaviours in the short term, with both informative and self-appraisal messages appearing to have relatively equivalent impacts on these variables. The positive effects are observed among a minority of gamblers in general, with some suggestion that these effects might reflect more motivational variables rather than messages

per se among real gamblers. However, uncertainty remains as to whether or not the

messages in their various guises (content and mode of delivery) have any substantive durable impact on actual patterns of behaviour or expenditure (money and time) exhibited by real gamblers in in-vivo settings in the longer term.

Key Points

§ Personalised messages based on player behaviour can be readily implemented in online forms of gambling.

§ Dynamic compared to static messages tend to improve recall, gambling-related cognitions, and behaviours in the short term.

§ Informative and self-appraisal messages appear to have relatively equivalent effects. § For messages to be effective, they must readily attract attention, contain personally

relevant content, be easily understood, and recommend appropriate actions to be taken.