Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Measuring the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategy: Introducing the Positive Play Index

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 35 Ad

Measuring the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategy: Introducing the Positive Play Index

Download to read offline

Measuring the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategy: Introducing the Positive Play Index
Dr. Richard Wood, GameRes

Presented at the New Horizons in Responsible Gambling Conference in Vancouver, February 1-3, 2016

Measuring the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategy: Introducing the Positive Play Index
Dr. Richard Wood, GameRes

Presented at the New Horizons in Responsible Gambling Conference in Vancouver, February 1-3, 2016

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Measuring the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategy: Introducing the Positive Play Index (20)

Advertisement

More from Horizons RG (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Measuring the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategy: Introducing the Positive Play Index

  1. 1. Measuring the effectiveness of responsible gambling strategy: Introducing the Positive Play Index Dr Richard Wood, President, GamRes Limited Dr Michael Wohl, Professor, Carleton University
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. “Gambling should be responsible and fun!”
  5. 5. “Do you want to maximise your positive playing experiences?”
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Developing the Positive Play Index (PPI) (Wood, Wohl & Philander)
  8. 8. Phase 1: defining positive play • Examine relevant literature • Expert feedback from10 leading researchers
  9. 9. 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)
  10. 10. 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)
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Initial PPI items • Qs on frequency of play, games played, 16 behavioural items (7 point Likert) • 27 belief items (7 point Likert)
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Total sample Recruitment 1551 Traditional lottery players 300 Casino players 400 Encore members 400 PlayNow members 400
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. always never In the last month I…..... *= significant difference between +ve players and PGs
  18. 18. always never In the last month I…..... *= significant difference between +ve players and PGs
  19. 19. How much do you agree With the following? strongly agree strongly disagree *= significant difference between +ve players and PGs
  20. 20. strongly agree strongly disagree How much do you agree With the following? *= significant difference between +ve players and PGs
  21. 21. strongly agree strongly disagree How much do you agree With the following? *= significant difference between +ve players and PGs
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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 -
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. Email: info@gamres.org Questions?
  32. 32. 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.

Editor's Notes

  • RG is still s good term to be used for research and internal (non-player facing) uses.
    should be for everyone, not just PG, less stigmatising and more about being entertained. RG has traditionally been designed using a top down approach (i.e., experts and researchers) instead of asking the players. This can lead to a one-size-fits-all approach and important ideas and principles can be missed. Also, consistent finding that –ve messages work best for experts, whereas +ve messages better for public. When you consider that gambling is a leisure activity the need for +ve messaging becomes even more apparent!
  • Ok so this presentation isn’t really about what positive messages should look like, that is a whole other research project, an interesting one, but not today’s topic. This is just to show you the idea and the direction of Positive play.
  • Not much lit on pos play but we were able to positively frame lit on RG and gambling problems.
  • Currently, definitions of RG are sparse. The most often cited model of responsible gambling is the ‘Reno Model’ (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004), which focuses on the actions of gaming operators to assist players to help themselves in making well-informed choices. However, it does not define what responsible gambling looks like from the player’s perspective.
  • Player panel: BCLC proprietary online research panel of players. Recruited from multiple sources.
    PlayNow database: Database of players who have created an account in order to participate in BCLC's internet gambling offering.
    Encore database: Database of players who are members of BCLC's casino loyalty program
    Vision critical recruits by other means: Survey respondents from 3rd party (Vision Critical) proprietary online research panel. Recruited from multiple sources.
  • I think if we had asked the same question about behaviour over the last year then the differences would have been even greater. However, we want the PPI to measure fairly short period of time so that the impact of RG strategies can be measured before and after introduction.
  • Can we ask these in a +ve frame?
    Can we use these as a proxy for PGSI?
  • If a player only plays occasionally with small amounts then why would they need to take limited cash or keep track of gambling expenditures? These items were endorsed most by low-risk and moderate-risk players and least by no-risk or PGs. However, the overall alpha score for this factor is quite low, we can try to tweak the wording a bit and see if it makes any difference, but this factor probably won’t make the final index.
  • Everyone agrees but only non-PG are doing it. Personal responsibility may be driving it. How you encourage responsibility is another issue, we just found that PR drives +ve bvrs. People who take responsibility.
  • Negative behaviours not correlating but they are something else and the sample contained no PGs. Question having PGs in the PCA does it muddy the water or not?

    Informed decision making currently has two items that don’t discriminate PG from +ve play
  • Personal responsibility makes sense and is a major goal of treatment. However, not to say that the individual bears the full burden of responsibility

×