The document introduces the Positive Play Index (PPI), a tool developed to measure the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategies. It discusses defining positive play based on literature and expert feedback. An initial PPI survey with behavior and belief items was administered to over 1,500 players in British Columbia. Factor analysis identified several subscales measuring absence of negative behaviors, presence of precommitment behaviors, personal responsibility beliefs, informed decision making, and positive behavioral intentions. The PPI shows potential to measure levels of responsible gambling across different player segments and identify strengths and weaknesses to optimize responsible gambling strategies. Further testing and applications of the PPI are suggested.

2. Measuring the effectiveness of
responsible gambling strategy:
Introducing the Positive Play Index
Dr Richard Wood, President, GamRes Limited
Dr Michael Wohl, Professor, Carleton University

3. What is RG?
• Many people perceive RG as
• The policies and actions of gaming operators
and regulators
• A field of research (mostly on –ve aspects)
• Something we want to encourage amongst
players

4. What is positive play?
• RG with a player facing perspective (Wood & Griffiths, 2015)
• Using the right language
• Focuses on maximising healthy and happy playing
experiences (not just fixing problems)
not

5. “Gambling should be
responsible
and fun!”

6. “Do you want to maximise your
positive playing experiences?”

7. Measuring +ve play
• No standardised way to measure +ve changes
• Prevalence studies only focus on –ve play
• Measuring +ve play shows more subtle changes
• Measure and optimise success of RG strategy
• Segment RG strategy

8. Developing the Positive
Play Index (PPI)
(Wood, Wohl & Philander)

9. Phase 1: defining positive play
• Examine relevant literature
• Expert feedback from10 leading researchers

10. Current definitions of
Responsible Gambling
• Focus on the actions of gaming operators (e.g.,
Reno Model)“Responsible gambling refers to policies and practices designed to
prevent and reduce potential harms associated with gambling;
these policies and practices often incorporate a diverse range of
interventions designed to promote consumer protection,
community/ consumer awareness and education, and access to
efficacious treatment.”
(Blasczczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer (2004)

11. Reframing Responsible Gambling
• Focusing on the player perspective
“Responsible gambling is when a player exhibits positive playing behaviour
and holds attitudes and beliefs that do not put them at risk for developing
gambling problems. More specifically, this means only spending what is
affordable to lose and sticking to personally allocated spend and time limits
(formal or informal). Responsible gambling includes honesty and openness
with self and others about personal gambling involvement. Belief in luck or
other superstitions may be present, but they do not have a significant
negative impact on play. There is recognition that gambling will always
involve some degree of chance.” (Wood, Wohl & Kim 2015)

12. Positive play dimensions Items
Cognitive Attitudes and beliefs
Luck and superstition
Recognition of chance
Personal responsibility
Behavioural Positive experiences
Spend what can afford
Limit spend and time playing
Honesty with self and others
Personal gambling profiles
No risk for problems

13. Initial PPI items
• Qs on frequency of play, games played, 16
behavioural items (7 point Likert)
• 27 belief items (7 point Likert)

14. Phase 2: item selection
• Survey administered online to 1551 players in
BC who had gambled in last 12 months
• Age, gender, games played, income levels,
amounts won/lost in last month
• GBQ, PGSI (last month)
• A mix of positively and negatively framed items

15. Total sample Recruitment
1551
Traditional lottery players 300
Casino players 400
Encore members 400
PlayNow members 400

16. Male 54.6% 847
Female 45.4% 704
Age
19-24 1.6% 25
25-34 5% 78
35-44 8.5% 132
45-44 18.2% 282
55-64 27.9% 432
65+ 38.8% 602

17. PGSI category % n = (1551)
No-risk (0) 72.4% 1123
Low-risk (1-2) 17.2% 266
Moderate-risk (3-7) 6.9% 107
Problem gambler (8+) 3.5% 55
Note: These are not prevalence rates as based on players only
and not a representative sample

20. always
never
In the last month I….....
*= significant difference
between +ve players and PGs

21. always
never
In the last month I….....
*= significant difference
between +ve players and PGs

22. How much do you agree
With the following?
strongly
agree
strongly
disagree
*= significant difference
between +ve players and PGs

23. strongly
agree
strongly
disagree
How much do you agree
With the following?
*= significant difference
between +ve players and PGs

24. strongly
agree
strongly
disagree
How much do you agree
With the following?
*= significant difference
between +ve players and PGs

25. Initial behaviour items
Absence of negative behaviours subscale α=.702
I felt my gambling was out of control* .853
I experienced unwanted thoughts about gambling when I wasn’t
playing*
.848
I gambled to forget about problems in my life* .662
I used an ATM to take money out to continue gambling* .401
*Significant difference between +ve players and PGs
n = 1123

26. Presence of precommitment behaviours subscale α=.571
I considered the amount of TIME I was willing to spend BEFORE I
gambled. *
.844
When going out to a gambling venue (e.g., a casino, racetrack,
bingo hall etc.) I took a limited amount of cash with me.** .673
I considered the amount of MONEY I was willing to spend BEFORE
I gambled. *
.636
I kept track of my gambling expenditure (e.g., money lost).** .435
*Significant difference between +ve players and PGs
** No significant difference between +ve players and PGs
n = 1123

27. Personal responsibility beliefs subscale α=.717
I should be able to walk away from gambling at any time* .772
I should be aware of how much MONEY I spend when I gamble*
.766
It is my responsibility to spend only money that I can afford to
lose*
.736
I would seek help if I felt I was losing control over my gambling
behaviour*
.612
I should only consider gambling when I have enough money to
cover all my bills*
.471
*Significant difference between +ve players and PGs
n = 1123

28. Informed decision making subscale α=.831
Having accurate information about how much MONEY I have
spent gambling would help me manage my gambling
expenditures**
.856
Having accurate information about how much TIME I have spent
gambling would help me to manage how long I gamble** .843
I would consider using a TIME-LIMIT to help me manage the
amount of time I spend gambling*
.809
I would consider using a MONEY-LIMIT to help me manage the
amount of money I spend gambling*
.719
*Significant difference between +ve players and PGs
** No significant difference between +ve players and PGs
n = 1123

29. Positive behavioural intentions subscale α=.575
It is not a god idea for me to gamble when feeling blue
(i.e., feeling down)**
.782
It is important to control how much TIME I spend
gambling*
.747
The odds of winning are mostly against me when I
gamble*
.575
It is important to control how much MONEY I spend
gambling*
.460
I should be aware of how much TIME I spend when I
gamble*
.388
*Significant difference between +ve players and PGs
** No significant difference between +ve players and PGs
n = 1123

30. PPI subscales (not final)
Negative
behaviour
Precommit
behaviour
Informed
decision
making
Personal
respons
+ve bhvr
intention
Negative
behaviour
Pearson cor
Sig.
1
-
Precommit
Bhvr
(low α)
Pearson cor
Sig.
.002
.935
1
-
Informed
decision
making
Pearson cor
Sig.
-.035
.246
.275
.000
1
-
Personal
respons
Pearson cor
Sig.
-.121
.000
.250
.000
.225
.000
1
-
+ve bhvrl
intention
(low α)
Pearson cor
Sig.
-.035
.246
.275
.000
1.000
.000
.225
.000
1
-

31. Some conclusions
• Personal responsibility a key issue (relates to
precommitment, +ve behavioural intent, informed
decision making)
• The PPI measures levels of RG and across
different segments (ages, gender, game
preferences etc.) but it may also identify RG
strengths and weaknesses in a player population

32. What next?
• More analysis
• Change some behaviour items to +ve framing
• Examining behavioural data (limit setting, intensity of
play etc.)
• More validity and reliability testing
• Qualitative examination of +ve players
• Further expert feedback

33. Putting the PPI into practice
• Test the PPI in other jurisdictions
• Do you want to learn more about your players?
-How do your players differ (gender, age, game
types etc?)
-Would you like to be able to examine how effective
your RG strategy is?
• Develop a self-test version of the PPI

34. Email: info@gamres.org
Questions?

35. 1. Open New Horizons app
2. Select the Agenda button
3. Select This Session
4. Select Take Survey at the bottom
To provide session feedback:
If you are unable to download the app,
please raise your hand for a paper version.
If you are unable to download the app, please
see one of our conference hosts located just
outside the room.