Gambling Industry Employees' Experiences with an Onsite Responsible Gambling Program

Player-Facing Casino Employees: Engagement with Responsible Gambling Programming and its Association with Referring Players

This research explores the engagement of player-facing casino employees with GameSense, a responsible gambling (RG) program, and referral of players to GameSense. We surveyed 280 employees across three casinos in Massachusetts that use this RG program as part of their RG strategy. We found that although most player-facing casino employees were aware of GameSense, slightly over half visited a GameSense Information Center, and about two-thirds interacted with a GameSense Advisor. In terms of the reason for visiting, Latent Class Analysis (LCA) revealed three distinct classes: Comprehensive Interests, RG Interests, and Focused Interests. As for those who have yet to visit, LCA two classes emerged: RG Proficiency Beliefs and Tempered RG Proficiency Beliefs. Engaged employees were more likely to refer players to GameSense, highlighting the need for targeted approaches addressing the diverse interests of player-facing employees for engaging or not engaging with GameSense. These findings underscore the importance of have player-facing casino employees engage with RG programming, and targeted approached for engagement, to enhance the efficacy of RG initiatives, and contribute to a more robust RG framework within the gambling industry.

Much Ado About Nothing? The Role of Land-Based Gambling Venue Employees in Facilitating Problem Gambling Harm Reduction and Help-Seeking

Over the past decade, greater emphasis has been placed on the role of the land-based gambling industry to respond to problem gambling behaviour in their venues. Despite this, there is a lack of clear information advising best practice responses by gambling venue employees. This article reviews strategies, practices, and policies employed by land-based gambling venues concerning their employees' role in preventing gambling-related harm and responding to problem gambling behaviours. A systematic search strategy was applied to source peer-reviewed literature which identified 49 articles. The synthesised results were arranged and presented across five categories: (1) the identification of gamblers with potential problems in the venue; (2) gambling venue staff responses to gamblers with potential problems; (3) gamblers' perspectives around venue responsibilities and interactions with gamblers with potential problems; (4) corporate social responsibility programs and the identification of gamblers with problems in the venue; and (5) gambling venue staff needs. The results suggest that most activity performed by venue staff concerning their response to problem gambling is limited to observing and documenting risky behaviours and then discussing this internally with other venue staff. Action which moves beyond this, such as approaching and interacting with identified gamblers of concern, rarely occurs. The results of this review suggest that a focus on the identification and intervention specifically with identified gamblers of concern is a particularly unhelpful aspect of the role of venue staff. The results also indicate that a re-thinking of the role frontline staff play in addressing problem gambling is necessary.

Examining Responsible Gambling Program Awareness and Engagement Trends and Relationships with Gambling Beliefs and Behaviors: A Three-Wave Study of Customers from a Major Gambling Operator

A considerable body of literature has examined elements of responsible gambling (RG) programs in land-based gambling venues. The present pre-registered study examines GameSense RG program awareness and engagement trends and relationships with gambling beliefs and behaviors, at MGM's U.S.-based casino properties using three samples of MGM's loyalty program members. We used a repeated cross-sectional approach including observational data collected from one sample (N = 3748) shortly before the rollout of GameSense in 2017-2018, and from two samples collected 1 year (N = 4795) and 2 years (N = 3927) after the program's implementation. We found that awareness of the GameSense program increased between pre- and 1-year post-implementation, yet did not increase further at 2-years post-implementation. Bivariate analyses showed that respondents who were aware of more GameSense components had a better understanding of gambling concepts and used more RG strategies, whereas respondents who engaged with GameSense used more RG strategies than those who did not, but did not display a better understanding of gambling concepts. The relationship between GameSense awareness and self-reported use of RG strategies remained significant in multivariate analyses with covariates. Moderation analyses indicated that a positive effect of overall GameSense engagement on gambling literacy was only found for respondents who had attended a regional property, as compared to respondents who attended Las Vegas or metropolitan properties. All effect sizes were weak, which suggests that practical impacts of the program currently are limited. Our findings have implications for research on land-based RG programs and we provide recommendations for enhancing such programs.

Update on Gambling Disorder

Gambling disorder (GD) is estimated to be experienced by about 0.5% of the adult population in the United States. The etiology of GD is complex and includes genetic and environmental factors. Specific populations appear particularly vulnerable to GD. GD often goes unrecognized and untreated. GD often co-occurs with other conditions, particularly psychiatric disorders. Behavioral interventions are supported in the treatment of GD. No medications have a formal indication for the GD, although clinical trials suggest some may be helpful. Noninvasive neuromodulation is being explored as a possible treatment. Improved identification, prevention, and treatment of GD are warranted.

A Comparison of Two GameSense Implementation Approaches: How Program Awareness and Engagement Relate to Gambling Beliefs and Behaviors

Despite the size and scope of responsible gambling (RG) programs in the U.S., relatively few studies have evaluated these programs. Using survey data from 4795 subscribers to a casino loyalty program, we examined respondents' awareness of and engagement with the GameSense RG program, and gambling beliefs and behaviors. We compared how differences in the implementation structure and visibility of the GameSense program (i.e., state-regulated with a standalone, branded GameSense center vs. corporate-integrated as part of loyalty program desks) was associated with GameSense awareness and engagement, perceptions of gambling operator RG practices, three Positive Play subscales (i.e., behavior, personal responsibility, and gambling literacy), understanding of gambling concepts, and use of RG strategies. More respondents who had visited the property with a state-regulated, branded center were aware of GameSense (36.5%), compared to respondents who visited other properties (7.4%). Perceptions of the operator's RG practices were generally high for all respondents. Multivariate analyses revealed no relationship between GameSense awareness and gambling belief or behavior outcomes, yet showed that respondents who picked up a GameSense brochure used slightly more RG strategies. Our findings suggest that the visibility of an RG program might influence program awareness and engagement but not certain RG-related behavioral outcomes.