The book concludes with recommendations on how to take a harm reduction approach, from a political and human rights perspective. This work gives a rare synopsis of the present-day issues when considering the implementation of a harm reduction strategy for gambling. The Strategies Harm reduction strategies include. ● setting limits on the amount of money spent by not bringing money access cards to the gambling venue (e.g., credit cards, atm cards) ● paying attention to physical needs while gambling (e.g., taking a break from the gambling activity, using the washroom facilities, eating, stretching) 7. Harm Reduction: 1 May Be Enough, and 1,000 IS Too Many. Prevention and Intervention Strategies for Service Providers. Most people with a gambling disorder don't. This has resulted in calls for a public health approach to address a possible 'prevention paradox' in gambling related harm. The aim of this study was to evaluate the systematic review evidence base on the effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours, and gambling related harm.

Many regions have policies and programs to limit exposure to gambling and protect people from gambling harms. At the same time, regions may allow the promotion of gambling through advertising and marketing. For instance, the broadcasting of sports events may be accompanied by gambling commercials, and gambling company logos may be displayed on the field and on players’ uniforms.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Related

A variety of programs have been used to prevent and reduce gambling harms. Some regions have well-developed school-based programs for teens and young adults to prevent the development of gambling problems. Public awareness campaigns aim to influence people’s attitudes and knowledge about gambling. However, many of these campaigns have yet to include guidelines on safe gambling. There is weak evidence that these campaigns can influence gambling behaviours.

Stronger evidence is available for resources that target features of gambling products or venues. For example, pop-up messages that warn players of risky gambling behaviours can be effective. Messages have more impact if they are displayed in the centre of the screen, interrupt play, and require players to actively remove them.

Self-exclusion programs are available to people who have concerns about their gambling behaviours. These programs allow people to ban themselves from specific gambling venues or websites for a period of time. There is evidence that self-exclusion results in less gambling and improved well-being; however, self-exclusion programs are under-used in many regions.

Download the two-page Gambling Resources Factor summary (PDF)
Also available in: Francais Spanish Mandarin

Download the Gambling Resources Factor section from the Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling (PDF)

Download the complete Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling (PDF)

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling

Responsible gaming programs are intended to prevent or reduce potential gambling-related harms (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004). Examples of such programs range from brochures about disordered gambling to helping gamblers keep track of money wagered through “smart cards.” But are these programs effective? A recently published study by Drs. Lia Nower and Alex Blaszczynski, “Gambling Motivations, Money-Limiting Strategies, and Pre-commitment Preferences of Problem Versus Non-Problem Gamblers,” demonstrates that rigorous scientific research is vital to determining the effectiveness of a responsible gaming strategy. This study also shows that such investigations have to consider the motivations of gamblers who get into trouble and the viability of the program—in this case, the use of smart cards—in real-life gambling situations.

Attempts to identify the specific “addictive” features of electronic gaming machines have yielded largely inconclusive results, suggesting that the interaction between a gambler’s motivation-related thought process and the machine, rather than the machine itself, fuels excessive play (Blaszczynski et al., 2005).

A number of studies have reported that problem gamblers are particularly motivated by the desire to win money (Ladouceur, Sylvain, Boutin, & Doucet, 2002; Neighbors, Lostutter, Cronce, & Larimer, 2002; Park, Griffiths, & Irwing, 2004; Wood, Gupta, Derevensky, & Griffiths, 2004). This is partly due to the misconception that gambling is an income-generating activity rather than a form of entertainment (Walker, 1992). Research has reported that machine players with gambling problems adopt a number of erroneous thought patterns regarding the probability of winning and the nature of randomness, leading to an over-inflated estimate of the likelihood of winning and, in turn, to excessive spending (Gaboury & Ladouceur, 1989; Manoso, Labrador, & Fernandez-Alba, 2004).

Some authors have suggested that requiring patrons to gamble with cards limited to pre-set amounts of money (i.e.,“smart” cards), similar to gift cards, will decrease the impulsive overspending characteristic of problem gamblers (see e.g., Dickerson & O’Connor, 2006). It is unknown, however, whether adopting “pre-session” (i.e., prior to gambling) spending limits will decrease the money spent gambling irrespective of distorted or erroneous thoughts during play. In this study, we explored whether problem gamblers differed from other groups in their motivations to gamble and their willingness to either set or adhere to pre-session spending limits.

A total of 127 electronic gaming machine players in Brisbane, Australia were recruited from the gaming floor at one of four venues and asked to complete a questionnaire. We assessed reasons for gambling, demographics and preferred gambling activities. The questionnaire also measured gamblers’ perspectives on pre-commitment strategies, including: (a) their willingness to gamble with a pre-set amount of money; (b) the perceived effectiveness of pre-commitment on limiting gambling expenditures; (c) potential strategies to compensate for the limitations of pre-commitment; (d) funding preferences; and (e) overall perceptions of money-related harm reduction strategies.

About 71 percent of the participants in the study were men with an average age of 38 years. Women were considerably older, averaging 44 years of age. Participants were grouped according to the Problem Gambling Severity Index of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (Ferris & Wynne, 2001): non-problem gamblers (48.4 percent), low-risk gamblers (19.7 percent), moderate-risk gamblers (15.7 percent), and problem gamblers (15.7 percent).

Consistent with prior research, we observed a fundamental distinction in the primary motivation for gambling between non-problem and problem gamblers in this study. Although a high proportion of all gambling groups indicated that gambling was fun and enjoyable, a significantly higher proportion of problem gamblers, as compared to non-problem gamblers, reported that playing machines was a way to earn income or to escape problems. In contrast, non-problem gamblers endorsed fun/enjoyment and socialization as the two primary motivations for gambling.

With respect to pre-commitment, problem gamblers expressed much more reluctance than other groups about using smart cards, though they admitted losing track of money while gambling and were rarely aware of whether they were winning or losing. They indicated they would only use a smart card if cards were refillable, or if they were either able to access additional funds as needed or allowed to purchase an additional card if they ran out of funds and wanted to “chase” a loss. These responses suggest that pre-commitment would have little effect on decreasing gambling expenditures among those who are intent on continued gambling, because they will likely find a means of obtaining additional cards or seek out venues where refills or other options were available. Nonetheless, future studies should investigate whether pre-commitment strategies might have a protective effect for non-problem or low-risk gamblers who might otherwise proceed to more serious levels of gambling.

Lia Nower, J.D., Ph.D., is associate professor and director of the Center for Gambling Studies at Rutgers University. Alex Blaszczynski, Ph.D., holds a chair in psychology at the University of Sydney.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Disorders

References

Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H.J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 301-317.

Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Shannon, K., & Coughlan, M.-J. (2005). Structural characteristics of electronic gaming machines and satisfaction of play among recreational and problem gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 5, 187–198.

Dickerson, M.G., & O’Connor, J. (2006). Gambling is an addictive disorder: Impaired control harm minimisation, treatment and prevention. Cambridge: International Research Monographs in the Addictions.

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Gaboury, A., & Ladouceur, R. (1989). Erroneous perceptions and gambling. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 411–420.

Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., & Doucet, C. (2002). Understanding and treating pathological gamblers. London: Wiley.

Manoso, V., Labrador, F.J., & Fernandez-Alba, A. (2004). Differences on cognitive distortions during gambling in pathological gamblers and no-gamblers. Psicothema, 16, 576–581.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Anxiety

Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T.W., Cronce, J.M., & Larimer, M.E. (2002). Exploring college student gambling. Motivation, 18, 361–370.

Harm Reduction Strategies For Gambling Devices

Park, A., Griffiths, M., & Irwing, P. (2004). Personality traits in pathological gambling: Sensation seeking, deferment of gratification and competiveness as risk factor. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 201–212.

Walker, M.B. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon.

Wood, R.T.A., Gupta, R., Derevensky, J.L., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Video game playing and gambling in adolescents: Common risk factors. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 14, 77–100.