Commentary on Graydon et al. (2019): Realistic simulations and nudging gambling policy

Nudge theory and gambling: a scoping review

Background

Gambling disorder (GD) is a pressing public health concern with significant societal costs. The recently developed nudge theory, which is rooted in behavioral economics, aims to influence the decision-making behaviors of individuals by implementing changes in the environment.

Aim

This scoping review aims to synthesize the literature on nudge theory as it relates to gambling.

Methods

This scoping review accords with the Arksey and O'Malley framework, as refined by Levac et al. It includes only articles from peer-reviewed journals that focus, as main themes, on both nudge theory and gambling. The final study selection includes six articles.

Results

The scoping review process led to studies explaining how (1) nudges aim to prod people toward healthier gambling choices, fostering the adoption of more responsible gambling practices, and (2) some gambling features, called dark nudges (or sludges), exploit and harm the decision-making processes of people who gamble.

Conclusion

This scoping review highlights the fact that many stakeholders are involved in the field of gambling, and that better cooperation between them would promote safer and more responsible gambling practices. Future research is also needed to empirically test nudges to develop a better understanding of their impact on those who gamble.

Self-compassion Buffers Impaired Decision-Making by Potential Problem Gamblers in a Casino Setting

Self-compassionate individuals treat themselves kindly when undergoing stress. The present study examined self-compassion's relationship to risky decision-making on a gambling task by 240 problem and non-problem gamblers who were tested in a casino setting. Multi-level modeling analyses showed that participants expressed differential rates of learning to avoid risks on the gambling task, depending on their status as potential problem/non-problem gamblers and their level of self-compassion. Among potential problem gamblers, participants higher in self-compassion showed significant gains in performance over decision-making trials, which approximated those of non-problem gamblers and adults without impairments in the population. In contrast, potential problem gamblers lower in self-compassion showed chance levels of performance, which approximated those of adults with impairments. In some circumstances, self-compassion can disinhibit individuals from taking greater risks. For potential problem gamblers in a casino setting, however, the benefits of self-compassion as a means to reinforce self-control appear to outweigh the risks.

Equivalent gambling warning labels are perceived differently

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The same information may be perceived differently, depending on how it is described. The risk information given on many gambling warning labels tends to accentuate what a gambler might expect to win, e.g. 'This game has an average percentage payout of 90%' (return-to-player), rather than what a gambler might expect to lose, e.g. 'This game keeps 10% of all money bet on average' (house-edge). We compared gamblers' perceived chances of winning and levels of warning label understanding under factually equivalent return-to-player and house-edge formats.

DESIGN

Online surveys: experiment 1 was designed to test how gamblers' perceived chances of winning would vary under equivalent warning labels, and experiment 2 explored how often equivalent warning labels were correctly understood by gamblers.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

UK nationals, aged 18 years and over and with experience of virtual on-line gambling games, such as on-line roulette, were recruited from an on-line crowd-sourcing panel (experiment 1, n = 399; experiment 2, n = 407).

MEASUREMENTS

The main dependent variables were a gambler's perceived chances of winning on a seven-point Likert scale (experiment 1) and a multiple-choice measure of warning label understanding (experiment 2).

FINDINGS

The house-edge label led to lower perceived chances of winning in experiment 1, F_{(1, 388)}  = 19.03, P < 0.001. In experiment 2, the house-edge warning label was understood by more gamblers [66.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 60.0%, 73.0%] than the return-to-player warning label (45.6%, 95% CI = 38.8%, 52.4%, z = 4.22, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

House-edge warning labels on electronic gambling machines and on-line casino games, which explain what a gambler might expect to lose, could help gamblers to pay greater attention to product risk and would be better understood by gamblers than equivalent return-to-player labels.