THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION’S GAMBLING … · Annamaria Sani, Tazio Carlevaro and Professor...

GAMBLING RESEARCH

Volume 17(1)

May 2005

Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies

(Australia)

Gambling Research ISSN: 1832 – 4975 Published by: The National Association for Gambling Studies Inc PO Box 5114 Alphington 3078 AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]: www.nags.org.au Ph: +61 3 9496 2346 Fax: +61 3 9499 5806 Copyright © 2005 All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for academic, research or other purposes, no part of this publication may be reproduced except with the express permission of the editors or individual authors.

2

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nags.org.au/

Gambling Research Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia) Publication Dates Two issues per year: May and November. Manuscript Submission The primary focus of the journal is to disseminate results of empirical research in the field of gambling. Manuscripts should be submitted either electronically or as hard copy accompanied by diskette. Hard copy submissions should presented on one side of A4 paper, double-spaced. All submissions should follow the specifications of the American Psychological Association. Contributions to Gambling Research are peer reviewed in accordance with the Higher Education Research Data Collection specifications of the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). All manuscripts should be forwarded to the following address: The Editors, Gambling Research National Association for Gambling Studies PO Box 5114 Alphington VIC 3078 Australia or electronically to: [email protected] Other Items Articles other than research reports, including commentaries, theoretical analyses, literature reviews and book reviews are invited. Such articles shall be subjected to the same editorial review process as research articles. Priority will be given to coherent and concise articles demonstrating originality of the ideas expressed.

3

Editors

Dr Michael Walker and Dr Gregory Coman School of Psychology Department of Psychiatry University of Sydney University of Melbourne

Australia Australia

Editorial Assistant

Ms Kirsten Shannon School of Psychology University of Sydney

Australia

Panel of Review

Clive Allcock Chantal Braganza

Paul Delfabbro Enrique Echeburua Nady El-Guebaly

Gavin Faunce Mark Griffith Nerilee Hing

David Hodgins Jane Oakes Tian Oei

Nancy Petry Sylvana Sturevska

Tony Toneatto

4

Table of Contents

EDITORIAL.............................................................................................................. 6

ERRATA TO VOLUME 16(2) NOVEMBER 2004 .............................................. 6

THE EFFECTS OF PARAMETER VARIATIONS IN ELECTRONIC GAMBLING SIMULATIONS: RESULTS OF A LABORATORY-BASED PILOT INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 7

PAUL DELFABBRO, KATYA FALZON AND TANIA INGRAM...................................... 7

WHO BENEFITS? UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES AROUND CARD BASED GAMBLING TECHNOLOGY ...............................................................26

SHAREN NISBET ....................................................................................................26

IMPACT OF A COUNSELLING SESSION ON AT-RISK CASINO PATRONS : A PILOT STUDY.............................................................................47

ANNAMARIA SANI, TAZIO CARLEVARO AND ROBERT LADOUCEUR ....................47

GIVING THE GAMBLERS A VOICE: THE PERCEIVED EFFICACY OF RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING PRACTICES IN NSW CLUBS.........................53

NERILEE HING .......................................................................................................53

INVITATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS......................70

5

EDITORIAL We are pleased to issue this edition of Gambling Research, which again contains a range of quality papers that span the range of interest areas in the field of gambling. Indeed, this edition continues to reflect our goal of showcasing quality Australian research whilst at the same time exposing the readership to cutting edge research and practice that is taking place throughout the world. Two of the three Australian authored papers are by well respected and well known researchers, Dr Paul Delfabbro and Dr Nerilee Hing. Dr Delfabbro’s paper describes research in which he varies characteristics of gaming machines, such as lights, sounds and reel spin speed to determine player preferences. Dr Hing’s paper is also related to electronic gaming machine players but examines the opinions that players have to venue responsible gaming practices. Sharen Nisbet may not be quite so well known within the gambling research fraternity at present, but this is likely to change. She is currently a PhD student in the Centre for Gambling Education & Research, Southern Cross University (Australia) and was the 2004 winner of the NAGS Student Research Award. Her paper examines issues surrounding cashless gambling, from venue, gambler and regulatory authority perspectives. Also in this edition is a truly international paper; its authors are from Switzerland and Canada. Annamaria Sani, Tazio Carlevaro and Professor Robert Ladouceur join forces to examine the benefits of providing gaming information during a counselling session to casino patrons identified by staff as possibly having gambling difficulties. We commend this issue of Gambling Research to you. Dr Michael Walker Dr Gregory Coman School of Psychology ACPMH University of Sydney PO Box 5444, Heidelberg West New South Wales 2006 Victoria 3081 Australia Australia ERRATA TO VOLUME 16(2) NOVEMBER 2004 We sincerely apologise to our authors and our readership for a number of errors that appeared in the November 2004, 16(2) edition of Gambling Research. The errors were, unfortunately, quite fundamental, and escaped the proofing process we had in place at the time. We can assure you that procedures have been modified to ensure correct copy in future. The errors were: On the contents page, David Wells should read David Walls, Kelly Brooks should read Kelly Busche; and the title of the Thomas and Jackson article should read “Influences of Gambling Behaviours and Outcomes: a Model for the Design of Effective Interventions” on both the Contents page and the title page of the article.

6

Gambling Research, 17(1), p.7-25, Printed in Australia ©2005. National Association for Gambling Studies

THE EFFECTS OF PARAMETER VARIATIONS IN ELECTRONIC

GAMBLING SIMULATIONS: RESULTS OF A LABORATORY-BASED PILOT INVESTIGATION

Paul Delfabbro, Katya Falzon and Tania Ingram Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide Email: [email protected]; phone: 08) 8303 4455

Abstract: This study investigated the behavioural and subjective effects of parameter modifications to simulated EGMs under laboratory conditions. Three studies, each with 24 regular gamblers, were conducted to investigate the effects of orthogonal variations in two machine characteristics. Modifications included variations in play-speed, sound, illumination levels, the form of outcomes, and the availability of line and betting options. Players were provided with initial exposure to all four machines in each condition and then were free to choose their preferred machine for the remainder of the 30-minute session. Player preferences were gauged using self-report measures and objective measures including the relative amount of time spent, number of plays and return to player on each machine. The results showed that players’ subjective preferences were most strongly influenced by play-speed, the number of lines available and sound. Specifically, players tended to prefer machines that were faster, provided more betting lines and sound. Behavioural analysis indicated that a greater number of lines, faster play speed and lower illumination increased either the number of plays or time spent on each machine. The implications of these findings for harm minimization and machine modification are discussed. Introduction In almost all countries containing legalised gambling, a very substantial proportion of revenue is derived from electronic gaming machines (or EGMs). EGMs (also termed fruit machines or video lottery terminals in Canada, or “slots” in the United States) are a rapid form of gambling involving the staking of money on the outcome of electronic or mechanical spinning reels containing symbols or pictures. Players earn money by obtaining patterns of symbols that match predetermined winning combinations (e.g., three or four symbols in a row) that appear in a display window in the form of a grid (Figure 1)1. Bets can be placed on whether the winning symbol combinations appear in any number of different lines or directions. In Australia, where this type of gambling is most prevalent, EGMs account for 60% of total gambling revenue (in 2004, over $15 billion), and have been found to be the game of choice for over 70% of people identified as problem gamblers using current diagnostic classifications (Productivity Commission, 1999).

1 The diagram depicts a very simplified version of actual machines. EGMs in Australia often

allow gambling on as many as 30 pay-lines with a variety of bet amounts.


Parameter Variations in Electronic Gaming Simulations

8

Given these findings, it is not surprising that there has been considerable policy and research interest in why this form of gambling has proved so popular and so often leads to problematic gambling behaviour (Dickerson, Cunningham, Legg-England & Hinchy, 1991; Dickerson, Hinchy, Legg-England, Fabre, & Cunningham, 1992; Ladouceur & Sevigny, 2003; O’Connor & Dickerson, 2003; Walker, 1992a,b). Although gambling behaviour in general is thought to be best understood from a multidisciplinary perspective, involving the inclusion of biological, social, and cultural influences (e.g., Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002; Brown, 1986; Griffiths & Delfabbro, 2001; Sharpe, 2002), EGM gambling continues to attract specific interest from psychologists because of the close affinity between the structure of EGM gambling and traditional schedules of reinforcement studied in the laboratory. As devices which reward players for every X number of responses, EGMs are thought to operate according to a random ratio schedule of reinforcement, a schedule known to be capable of maintaining very rapid response rates and behaviour highly resistant to extinction (Delfabbro & Winefield, 1999a, b; Dickerson, Hinchy, Legg-England, Fabre, & Cunningham, 1992; Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Lewis & Duncan, 1958; Skinner 1953). This schedule is thought to explain why gamblers lose money so quickly, as well as persist even after having sustained prolonged periods without reward. The assumption underlying this theoretical perspective is that, like animal behaviour in the laboratory, human gambling behaviour is sensitive to the schedule of rewards (Schreiber & Dixon, 2001; Hineline, 1977). Thus, changes in the sequencing or nature of reward should influence behaviour (its speed, duration, resistance to extinction, or all three). More importantly, if this logic extends to EGMs, it is very possible that by varying machine characteristic it may be possible to influence behaviour and therefore expenditure. Accordingly, studies have been undertaken to determine whether EGM gambling appears to vary as a consequence of machine events, and whether modifications to machine characteristics can influence behaviour and gamblers’ choice of different schedules. Dickerson et al. (1992), for example, studying regular players in gambling venues, found that response rates appeared to increase in the interval following small wins, but slowed down after large wins (of a specified magnitude). Similar findings were obtained by Delfabbro and Winefield (1999a) using more technologically advanced machines. Post-reinforcement pauses (PRPs) followed larger rather than smaller wins, and betting patterns (increases or decreases) were more sensitive to outcomes in regular as opposed to occasional players. More recently, Williamson and Walker (2000) and Walker (2001) in a series of observational studies have showed that gamblers appear to adopt playing styles that suggest a preference for certain patterns of reinforcement over others. On the machines they studied (as with most EGMs worldwide), it was possible for players to vary the potential frequency of reinforcement, the magnitude of reinforcement, or both, during game-play by varying credit and line combinations. Reinforcement frequency could be increased by betting on more play lines, so that one would win if the winning symbol combinations came up on any number of lines. Reinforcement magnitude could be increased by increasing the amount bet per play line. In both studies, most players adopted what Walker termed a Maximin strategy, involving the choice of maximum lines (up to 20) and the minimum bet per line. Thus, players appeared to maximise the frequency of reinforcement rather than the magnitude, and appeared averse to missing out on outcomes that might have occurred on non-played lines. Other research has sought to examine a broader range of machine characteristics and how these influence behaviour. For example, based upon detailed observations of fruit machine

Delfabbro, P., Falzon, K. & Ingram, T.

9

players in the United Kingdom, Griffiths (1995) argues that player behaviour is likely to be influenced, not only by the monetary reinforcements described above, but also by other secondary factors accompanying monetary reinforcement, e.g., the colours and light displays, how the wins are presented (e.g., in credits or dollar amounts) and the sound effects accompanying winning. Some support for these predictions was obtained in a laboratory study by Loba, Stewart, Klein, and Blackburn (2002)2, in which the responses of 24 non-problem and 16 problem gamblers3 were compared on modified spinning reel slot-machines. These modifications included variations in reel-speed and sound, as well as changes to the visual display so that wins were presented in smaller dollar amounts rather than in credits. Players were given money to play and required to play on each machine for 20 minutes in a counterbalanced order. The conditions included: Slow/ No sound vs. Fast/ Sound vs. Control vs. Counter in dollars. The results showed that problem gamblers disliked the slower game, found it harder to stop when the counter displayed credits rather than dollars, whereas non-problem gamblers disliked the faster game. The authors concluded that delays in reinforcement caused by the slowing of reel speed, and well as the reduced saliency of reward caused by the loss of sound clearly influence the attractiveness of gambling, and particularly so for problem players. Unfortunately, a limitation of their study was that their manipulations were not entirely orthogonal, so that it was not possible to determine which specific factor (e.g., sound or speed) contributed to the effect. However, a study that avoided this confounding was undertaken by Blaszczynski, Sharpe and Walker (2001) involving a very large sample of gamblers playing with their own money on real machines in gambling venues. Modified machines with slower play speed and maximum betting limits ($1 vs. $10) were placed in the same venue as unmodified machines (fast and $10 per spin betting limit) and the experimenters recorded player enjoyment ratings and the amount of time spent on each machine4. The results showed that slower play speed and bet limitations reduced player enjoyment and satisfaction, although these effects were generally very small (only 0.2 points on a 5-point Likert scale). The authors therefore concluded that structural characteristics may play only a relatively minor role in EGM gambling. However, these conclusions may be premature in that two important methodological elements of the experiment may have served to lessen the effects observed. First, the experiment did not allow any possibility of controlling what players were doing in between the times they spent on the experimental machines. Players were free to wander away and play other non-experimental machines obtaining various other wins and losses before returning to the experimental machines. Second, machine features were not held constant in conjunction with the specified schedule modifications. For example, if one compared players faced with a slower machine vs. faster machine, there was nothing to prevent those on the slower machine increasing their bet size and the number of lines played to compensate for the slower speed. Again, this factor may have reduced the likelihood of obtaining clear differences between the machines subject to the different manipulations.

2 Another study along these lines was conducted by Schellick and Shrans (2002) in Nova Scotia,

but involved other harm minimization measures (e.g., pop-up reminders of play time) rather than manipulations of the gambling schedules.

3 The actual n’s for many of these specific comparisons was quite small, usually involving 6 problem gamblers vs. 14 regular gamblers.

4 Blaszczynski et al. (2001) also included a third modification (the modification of bank note accepters) on machines, but this is not directly relevant to the current study.


10

The Present Study From this research, it therefore appears that both ongoing gambling behaviour as well as the choice of machine, appears to be influenced, not only by the pattern of monetary reinforcers (e.g., the frequency or magnitude of reward, Delfabbro & Winefield, 1999; Dickerson et al., 1992; Walker, 2001), but possibly also by secondary characteristics unrelated to reward (e.g., aesthetic qualities such as lights and sound effects, Loba et al., 2002). However, in all the studies described so far, the strength of these characteristics in player preferences has not been subject to a fully controlled comparison. In Loba et al’s study, the effects of individual factors could not be differentiated because of the simultaneous manipulation of more than one factor, whereas Blaszczynski et al. were unable to prevent players from exposure to miscellaneous situational factors that might have reduced the strength of their manipulations. Accordingly, in the present study, the controlled conditions utilised by Loba et al. were replicated but without the confounding of manipulations. Regular gamblers were asked to play laboratory slot-machine simulations set up as concurrent schedules where the choice was only between these machines. In each experiment, two parameters were manipulated and participants played each variation in counterbalanced order for a specified time and had a genuine opportunity to win money. This design made it possible to identify main effects for each pair of parameters as well as interaction effects. The parameters investigated included: the number of lines (reinforcement frequency), bets per line (average win magnitude), sound, illumination level, credit display (smaller dollar amounts or larger credit amounts), and play speed (slow vs. fast). Based on the findings of Loba et al. (2002), Blaszcynski et al. (2001), it was hypothesised that players would generally prefer machines that provide more frequent and/or larger reinforcements (i.e., more lines, larger bets allowed per line, faster play speed) per unit time. In addition, as based on Walker’s (2001) observation of a preference of maximin strategies, players would tend to prefer machines that provide opportunities to gamble on multiple lines in preference for those which provided fewer lines, even when it was possible to be more per line in this latter situation. Finally, it was expected that machines that included aesthetic features including sound, full illumination, and credit displays totals would be preferred over those that lacked these qualities. Method Participants Participants were drawn from the general South Australian public using advertisements placed in suburban newspapers. Advertisements called for regular players (defined as people who had gambled on electronic gaming machines at least three times per month or more often in the last 6 months), who were aged 18 years or older, who were not in treatment for problem gambling at the time of the study. Participants who did not meet these criteria were excluded from the study. The sample comprised 72 participants (36 men, 36 women). Respondents ranged in age from 20 to 80 years of age (M =55.83 years, SD =16.66 years). A breakdown of age categories showed that 17 (23.6%) were aged 20-30 years, 40 (55.6%) were aged 40-60 years, and that 15 (20.8%) were over 60 years of age. The vast majority were very experienced EGM (electronic gaming machine) players. Only 7 (9.7%) had played for only 12 months, 23 (31.9%) had played for 2-5 years and the rest (N = 42 or 58.3%) had played for 6 or more years. In terms of current participation, all except 5 gambled at least 3 times


11

per month, with 59 or 82% gambling at least once per week5. This sample of 59 weekly players included 36 (half the overall sample) who gambled 2-7 times per week. Twenty two (31%) of the sample scored 5 or more on the SOGS and therefore could be considered probable problem gamblers. Apparatus All experimentation was conducted within a small laboratory located in the Department of Psychology at the University of Adelaide. This laboratory was divided into four booths, each of which contained a computer with a simulated 4-reel poker-machine with three pay-out lines. Each machine, programmed in Visual Basic-6, was a simulation of a typical modern poker-machine with music, pay out sequences, and variable bet options, with a 90% return to the player (legal rate). The term 90% refers to the long-term expected return to the player based upon repeated gambling after taking into account winning and losing. Mathematically, it is the expected value of the game as based upon the sum of all possible outcomes multiplied by their respective probabilities and subtracting the amount wagered. For example if the return were 90%, a person who spent $10 would expect to obtain $9 back, and then $8.10 of this $9 if this were in turn reinvested. These amounts would decrease until the person had no money left. Over time, wins and losses (usually the entire amount) would average out to around 90%. In the current series of experiments, the distributions of returns were positively skewed due to several players obtaining very high returns. The median value ranged from 0.89 to 1.15 across the three experiments, with a mean of 99%, somewhat higher than expected. Predetermining the outcomes was considered a form of deception and therefore ethically inappropriate. The machines were all 2c machines, where $1 was earned for every 50 credits accumulated on the credit meter. The payouts for different outcomes were so designed to make the expected return average out to 95%. This was achieved in the programming by mapping each of the 15 symbols that appeared on the screen to numbers produced by random number generators. Rarer and more valuable symbols (in the sense that obtaining them in a row provide larger wins) were associated with less frequently obtained numbers in the range of the random number sequences. Each program contained an internal log that tracked outcome and behavioural data. All computers used the Microsoft XP-Home operating system running on an Athlon 1700 processor. Each machine had a 17-inch monitor and sound card with detached speakers with clear sound and music reproduction. Players gambled by clicking the mouse when the cursor was positioned over the ‘Play’ button on the screen, could choose the number of lines by clicking on the 1, 2 or 3 line button below the machine, the number of bets 1, 2 or 3. Once play was clicked, the symbols would then spin and the final outcome determined on all lines (the normal time to outcome determination was 3.5 seconds). If the player obtained a winning sequence on at least one line, the credits would be counted off on the meter located next to the outcome window. (See Figure 1).

As indicated above, electronic gaming machines are similar to fruit-machines in the United Kingdom. They are games of chance in which players bet money on the outcome of random sequences of symbols that appear on the screen. If certain sequences line-up across

5 Five participants gambled only fortnightly. However, because their results did not appear to differ

from the weekly gamblers they were included in the final analysis rather than excluded.


12

the screen (usually left to right, e.g., 3 kings, 3 zebras), the person gets paid according to a specified pay-out schedule usually set out on the machine (e.g., 3 Kings betting 1 credit on a line = 20 credits).

Players can influence both the typical magnitude and frequency of reinforcement by varying how much they bet. One can obtain more frequent reinforcement by betting on more lines (1 to 3). Betting on three lines as opposed to one will mean that the player will typically obtain wins three times as often because it is equivalent to playing three games at once. By contrast, betting more credits per line means that the person will obtain larger wins. For example, betting two credits per line means that the person would obtain twice the typical payout associated with a given symbol combination (e.g., 3 kings). Thus, it is possible to game-play scenarios where these two characteristics can be varied orthogonally. One could have 3 lines x 3 credits (large and frequent wins) or 1 line x 3 credits (infrequent but larger wins). On the current machines, it was possible to vary six different characteristics:

1. Reinforcement frequency: 1 line vs. 3 line betting 2. Reinforcement magnitude: 1 credit vs. 3 credit per line betting 3. Play speed: minimum of 3.5 seconds between outcomes vs. 5 seconds 4. Sound: Music and spin sounds (Off or On) 5. Illumination: Maximum vs. 35% original level 6. Display: 2c Credits vs. Dollar amounts (e.g., 300 vs. $6.00)

Pre-experimental Measures

(a) Survey of gambling habits

All participants were administered a brief survey that asked them to summarize their gambling habits (i.e., the frequency of their gambling, their preferred form of gambling, how long they have been gambling on slot machines) and demographic details. Participants were asked to state how frequently they gambled on a 7-point scale, where 1 = Never, 2 = Less than once per month, 3 = Once per month, 4 = 2-3 times per month, 5 = Once per week, 6 = 2-6 times per week and 7 = daily or more often. They were asked to name machines that they played frequently and the things which made them prefer these machines to others. Further questions requested participants to specify how many cents per credit they played on machines and the number of lines and credits they usually bet. They were also provided with seven features of slot-machines (e.g., free spin or bonus features, pays out wins more often, sound effects and colours, etc.) and asked to indicate the 3 that they regarded as most important in influencing their choice of machines. (b) South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS)

Participants were also administered the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) (Lesieur & Blume, 1987) which is a widely used measure of problem gambling. The SOGS is a 20-item scale comprised of statements to which respondents must answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (17 questions), and three for which they must indicate the frequency of the behaviour described. Points are scored based upon the number of items that are endorsed by either a yes response or other valid response indicating agreement with the item. A score of five or higher indicates that the person is a probable problem gambler. Total scores can range


13

from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating more serious gambling problems. The SOGS has demonstrated internal consistency, test-retest reliability and discriminant validity (Lesieur & Blume, 1987). Analysis of this scale within the present study showed that it had very good internal consistency, α = 0.84. Research Design The 72 participants were assigned to one of the three experiments described below (24 to each experiment) in the order with which they contacted the researchers (first 24 into Experiment 1, second 24 into Experiment 2 etc), but were recruited using exactly the same methodology and matched for background characteristics. In each Experiment, two of the structural characteristics listed above were varied in a 2 x 2 design that allowed both the main effect and interaction of the two effects to be examined simultaneously. Each of the 24 participants in each of the three experiments was able to gamble on the 2 x 2 = 4 different machines in each experiment. In other words, each of the three experiments was a single sample repeated measures design involving 24 participants who were observed gambling on all four machines in each experiment.

Experiment 1: Reinforcement Magnitude and Reinforcement Frequency (n = 24) This group comprised 12 women and 12 men with a mean age of 55.83 (SD = 16.66) with seven classified as problem gamblers. These participants were provided with four machines as based upon high and low frequency and reinforcement magnitudes. Two machines allowed betting on only 1 line, and two allowed 3 lines (to vary reinforcement frequency). Two had 1 credit per line betting, and two had 3 credits (to vary reinforcement magnitude). In other words, all 4 combinations: 1:1, 3:3, 3:1, 1:3 were available. In the 3 bets per line condition, participants were only able to bet 3 credits per line.

Experiment 2: Sound and Screen Illumination (n = 24) This group comprised 9 men and 15 women with a mean age of 46.25 years (SD = 17.89) with 5 classified as problem gamblers. These participants had a choice of 4 machines based upon combinations arising from a 2 Sound (Off vs. On) x 2 Illumination Level (Low vs. High) design. Thus, there was one machine with Sound On: Low illumination, Sound On: High Illumination, Sound Off: Low Illumination, Sound Off: High Illumination. Experiment 3: Outcome Display and Reel Speed (n = 24) This group comprised 15 men and nine women with a mean age of 47.92 years (SD = 15.60) with 10 problem gamblers. In this experiment, participants were given a choice of four machines based upon combinations arising from a 2 Outcome Display (Credits vs. Dollars) x 2 Reel Speed (Slow vs. Fast) design.

Procedure

All 24 participants in each of the three experiments undertook the study individually. After filling out a short background questionnaire describing their gambling habits and the SOGS, they were brought into the laboratory and allocated initially to one of the four machines (labeled A, B, C and D), and then the others in turn. The order in which the machines were introduced was perfectly counterbalanced (4! = 24 different orders within


14

each group) so that no participant in the study received the same sequence. Each experiment comprised a 3-minute forced choice exposure followed by a 30-minute free choice period. Thus, when participants first entered the laboratory, they were told to play 3-minutes on each of the four machines in a predetermined order. Once this period had ended (after 12 minutes), they were then free to play as long as they liked on any machine until an additional 30 minutes had ended. At the end of both the 12-minute pre-exposure period and 30 minute free choice period, participants were asked to rate how exciting they found each machine (on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = Not exciting at all and 10 = Extremely exciting) and to rank the machines in order of preference (1 = highest, 4 = Lowest). Participants were taken to each machine when making this rating to remind them of what they had played. Objective behavioural data was recorded by the computer, including the amount of time spent and number plays on each machine as well as the total amount bet and lost so that a return to player could be calculated. In order to enhance the ecological validity of the experiment, players were allowed to keep all money won in the experiment. Each player received $5 on each machine (250 credits) as a form of participation fee. Participants were also allowed to play when the balance on any machine dropped below 0 to avoid machines being ignored or not preferred simply as a result of early losses. Any negative balances were, however, taken into account at the end of the session when determining the final amount awarded to the players. Although some researchers have questioned the external validity of laboratory studies such as these on the grounds that they may not generate behaviour that is representative of real-life gambling, almost all of these studies related to investigations of physiological arousal and gambling (e.g., Anderson & Brown, 1984; Diskin, Hodgins, & Skitch, 2003). Previous studies by Delfabbro and Winefield (1999) and Ladouceur, Gaboury, Bujold, Lachance, and Tremblay (1991) have shown that providing genuine opportunities to win money encourages realistic play in laboratory settings, especially when players are allowed to keep their winnings. Although players cannot lose money in the same way as in a real setting, once they have won money on the machine, these game-generated gains can be lost during the course of the session. In accordance with the ethical principles governing the research, players were informed that they were under no obligation to play during the 30 minutes during which the machines were available. However, all participants gambled for the entire 30 minutes. The amount of time spent on any machine in this free choice period was in no way influenced by their actions in the initial 12-minute pre-exposure period. Results Statistical considerations Within each experiment, analyses involve the comparison of 24 participants across 4 conditions in a series of 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVAs. All tests of statistical significance were accompanied by appropriate measures of effect. Cohen’s d is presented where appropriate for mean differences, and eta-squared for ANOVA to indicate the proportion of total variability explained by the independent variable. No coefficient was presented if the effect size was miniscule (e.g., < .03). An eta-squared value of .01 is considered small, .07 moderate, and .14 large (Cohen, 1988). As indicated below, most


15

effects were large to very large so that the sample size was more than sufficient to detect the majority of significant effects. Experimental results Experiment 1 For excitement ratings, there was a significant main effect of Lines, with higher ratings found to be associated with machines with 3 lines (see Table 1). This effect was obtained for both the initial 3 minutes (F (1, 23) = 31.06, p < 0.001, η2 = .58), and also in the subsequent 30 minutes of play (F (1, 23) = 8.85, p < 0.01, η2 = .29). There was no significant main effect of Credits in the first 3-minutes (F (1, 23) < 1). However, there was a significant main effect in the subsequent 30 minutes (F (1, 23) = 19.10, p < 0.001, η2 = .47), indicating that machines that allowed 3 credit per line betting were found to be more exciting than those where betting was restricted to 1 credit per line. For preference ratings, there was a significant main effect of Lines, with significantly higher preference ratings found to be associated with machines with 3 lines (Table 1). This effect was obtained for both the initial 3 minutes (F (1, 23) = 55.86, p <0.001, η2 = .71), and also in the subsequent 30 minutes of play (F (1, 23) = 32.74, p < 0.001, η2 = .59). There was also a significant main effect of Credits, with significantly higher preference ratings found to be associated with machines with 3 credits. This effect was obtained for both the initial 3-minutes (F (1, 23) = 12.23, p < 0.01, η2 = .35), and also in the subsequent 30 minutes of play (F (1, 23) = 10.15, p < 0.01, η2 = .31). For behavioural measures, there was a significant main effect of Lines for time spent (F (1, 23) = 40.02, p < 0.001, η2 = .64) and number of plays (F (1, 23) = 42.4, p < 0.001, η2 = .64) with players having played longer and produced more plays on the 3 lines machines. However, the Credits was non-significant for both variables: time spent (F (1, 23) = 2.11, p > 0.05, η 2= .08) and number of plays (F(1, 23) < 1). No Lines x Credits interactions were significant for any of the dependent measures investigated (F (1, 23) < 1). The results unequivocally show that players preferred machines with maximum lines rather than minimum lines. Machine B was clearly preferred to Machine C even though each should theoretically produce the same amount of reinforcement (B by producing more frequent, but smaller wins, and C by producing less frequent but larger wins). On the other hand, although being able to play more credits per line also appeared to influenced players’ enjoyment of the machine, this characteristic was not found to have a significant influence on objective behaviour.


16

Table 1 Mean (SD) Excitement, preference ratings and Time spent on each machine in Experiments 1, 2 and 3 (all n = 24) Experiment 1 3 lines: 3 Credits 3 lines: 1 Credit 1 Line: 3 Credits 1 Line: 1 Credit Ex rating (3 mins) 6.67 (2.28) 6.54 (2.64) 4.04 (1.65) 4.21 (2.30) Ex rating (30 mins) 7.43 (2.39) 6.30 (2.12) 5.48 (2.39) 4.22 (2.58) Pref rating (3 mins) 1.46 (0.83) 2.13 (0.85) 2.92 (0.72) 3.50 (0.89) Pref rating (30 mins) 1.58 (0.78) 2.00 (0.93) 2.88 (0.68) 3.54 (0.93) Time spent (mins) 13.92 (10.45) 10.67 (9.70) 4.01 (5.71) 1.40 (2.26) Total plays 189.54 (118.35) 177.58 (127.40) 86.28 (54.78) 65.17 (34.04) Experiment 2

High Illumination: Sound

High Illumination: No Sound

Low Illumination: Sound

Low Illumination: No Sound

Ex rating (3 mins) 7.37 (1.69) 4.33 (2.12) 6.88 (2.73) 4.79 (1.84) Ex rating (30 mins) 6.83 (1.69) 5.08 (2.10) 7.67 (2.16) 4.87 (2.05) Pref rating (3 mins) 1.87 (0.90) 3.29 (0.96) 1.83 (0.92) 3.00 (0.93) Pref rating (30 mins) 2.04 (0.96) 3.00 (0.98) 1.67 (0.92) 3.29 (0.81) Time spent (mins) 6.65 (4.46) 4.63 (4.20) 10.63 (7.91) 7.61 (6.35)

Total plays 125.50 (59.11) 97.33 (57.61) 169.42 (94.54) 143.26 (82.63)

Experiment 3

Fast: Dollars Fast: Credits Slow: Dollars Slow: Credits Ex rating (3 mins) 6.04 (2.10) 6.50 (1.84) 5.00 (1.91) 4.63 (1.88) Ex rating (30 mins) 6.29 (2.42) 6.21 (2.47) 5.04 (2.31) 4.96 (1.76) Pref rating (3 mins) 2.17 (1.09) 2.29 (1.20) 2.83 (1.13) 2.71 (1.00) Pref rating (30 mins) 1.79 (0.88) 2.17 (1.09) 3.12 (1.08) 2.92 (0.93) Time spent (mins) 8.41 (6.50) 8.96 (6.96) 5.60 (5.13) 6.96 (7.61) Total plays 165.43 (97.03) 171.42 (100.02) 89.70 (50.15) 88.52 (55.78)

Experiment 2 For excitement ratings, there was a significant main effect of Sound, with significantly higher ratings found to be associated with machines with sound. This effect was obtained for both the initial 3 minutes (F (1, 23) = 28.96, p < 0.001, η2 = .56), and also in the subsequent 30 minutes of play (F (1, 23) = 17.41, p < 0.001, η2 = .43). There was no significant main effect of Illumination in the first 3-minutes (F (1, 23) < 1), nor for the subsequent 30 minutes (F (1, 23) < 1). For preference ratings, there was a significant main effect of Sound, with significantly higher preference ratings found to be associated with machines with sound (Table 1). This effect was obtained for both the initial 3 minutes (F (1, 23) = 24.92, p < 0.001, η2 = .52), and also in the subsequent 30 minutes of play (F (1, 23) = 34.16, p < 0.001, η2 = .60). There was no significant main effect of Illumination in the first 3-minutes (F (1, 23) < 1), nor for the subsequent 30 minutes (F (1, 23) < 1). For the behavioural measures, there were no significant main effects of Sound for the amount of time spent (F (1, 23) = 2.35, p > 0.05, η2 = .09) or the number of plays (F (1, 23) = 1.75, p > 0.05, η2 = .09), indicating that sound did not influence the amount of time spent on individual machines. However, there was a significant main effect of Illumination (F (1, 23) = 7.90, p < 0.05, η2 = .26) for time spent, and also for the number of plays (F (1,


17

23) = 8.73, p < 0.05, η2 = .28) suggesting that participants spent significantly more time on machines that had lower illumination.

No significant Sound x Illumination interaction was recorded for any dependent measure. In other words, the overall results showed that illumination and sound appeared to influence player preferences independently. Less brightly illuminated machines and those with sound appear to influence player enjoyment, but only illumination levels influenced how much time was spent on different machines. Experiment 3 For excitement ratings, there was a significant main effect of Play Speed, indicating that faster machines were found to be more exciting than slower machines. This effect was obtained for both the initial 3 minutes (F (1, 23) = 8.67, p < 0.01, η2 = .27), and also in the subsequent 30 minutes of play (F (1, 23) = 4.52, p <0.05, η2 = .16). There was no significant main effect of Display Type in the first 3-minutes (F (1, 23) < 1), nor in the subsequent 30 minutes (F (1, 23) < 1). For preference ratings, there was a significant main effect of Play Speed, with faster machines found to be more preferred. This effect was obtained in both the initial 3 minutes (F (1, 23) = 4.50, p < 0.05, η2 = .16), and also in the subsequent 30 minutes of play (F (1, 23) = 14.62, p <0.01, η2 = .39). There was no significant main effect of Display Type in the first 3-minutes (F (1, 23) < 1), nor for the subsequent 30 minutes (F (1, 23) < 1). Analysis of the behavioural data showed that there was no significant main effect of Play Speed or Display Type on the amount of time spent: (F (1, 23) = 1.74, p > 0.05, η2 = .07) and (F (1, 23) < 1) respectively. However, as might be expected, a significantly greater number of plays were produced on the faster machines (F (1, 23) = 14.16, p < 0.05, η2 = .39). Once again, no significant interaction, in this case between Play speed x Display Type, was observed for any of the dependent measures. In other words, the principal outcome of Experiment three was that players had a clear preference for faster play speed (at least in terms of the subjective ratings). This effect was not so strongly observed in the distribution of behaviour, but was in the same direction.

Table 2 Summary of experimental results (* significantly increased interest in game) for 30-minute free choice period

Feature

Excitement rating

Machine Preference

Time spent

Number of plays

Number of lines (3) * * * * Credits per line (3) * * - - Illumination level (low) - - * * Sound available * * - - Display as credits - - - - Faster reel speed * * - *


18

An overall summary of the results for all three experiments is provided in Table 2. As indicated, the results clearly showed that subjective preference was consistently influenced by the availability of four features: the number of betting lines available, the number of credits allowed per line, the availability of sound, and play speed. People preferred machines that were faster and which provided more frequent and/or larger reinforcements and where it was possible to hear the sound of the machine. Analysis of the objective behavioural measures showed some evidence that a greater number of pay lines, lower illumination and faster play speed encouraged greater interest in playing individual machines. Experimental Manipulation Checks In the three experiments or groups described above, machine variations involve both manipulations of the expected magnitude or frequency of reward as well as factors (e.g., sound, display, illumination) that are unrelated to primary or monetary reinforcement, a factor very likely to influence machine preferences (i.e., people are likely to stay on the machine that pays out more irrespective of any other characteristics). An important consideration in this analysis therefore is to confirm that: (a) The schedule manipulations involving variations in reinforcement were effective, (b) That the aesthetic manipulations were not confounded by chance variations in reinforcement, and (c) That differences in preferences were not simply the result of certain machines yielding a greater statistical return to players. Such checks are important because the software was programmed to mimic real machines with genuinely chance-determined outcomes, with restraints only being placed on the betting options and style of playing. Check (a) involves confirming that the machine with 3 lines: 3 credits should have produced greater reinforcement than all others, that 3 Line: 1 Credit and 1 Line: 3 Credit machines were very similar, and that 1 Line: 1 Credit was lower than all others. Check (b) requires confirmation that differences due to aesthetics (e.g., sound) were not due to differences in reinforcement. That is, if a machine with sound was preferred, was this because of the sound, or because greater reinforcement or a higher overall return was obtained (due to chance) on this machine? Finally, Check (c), concerning the statistical return to player, is important because players may have preferred some machines only because they happened (by chance) to have yielded a greater ratio or wins to losses. This was not expected to differ across the 4 machines because machines with greater reinforcement rates would involve greater losses on unsuccessful trials. This means that there is no genuine monetary advantage of playing this machine unless one likes to get more frequent and larger reinforcements. However, a problem would arise if the machine that provided more reinforcement also, by chance, provided a better statistical return because it would therefore be a rational choice to have stayed on this machine. Two dependent measures were used to investigate these issues. The first was the reinforcement-rate for the machine. The reinforcement-rate was calculated for each machine by dividing the total number of reinforcements received as wins / number of trials played. The second was the statistical return to player. This was calculated by dividing the total amount won / total amount bet, across all trials played on a given machine. A summary of results for the three experiments is provided in Table 3.


19

Table 3 Mean (SD) Reinforcement rates and statistical returns to players for Experiments 1, 2 and 3 (all n = 24) Experiment 1 3 lines: 3 Credits 3 lines: 1 Credit 1 Line: 3 Credits 1 Line: 1 Credit r.f. rate per trial 7.96 (4.04) 3.07 (1.67) 4.19 (4.53) 1.28 (1.29) % return 0.93 (0.42) 1.02 (0.56) 1.43 (1.53) 1.28 (1.29) Experiment 2

High Illumination: Sound

High Illumination: No Sound

Low Illumination: Sound

Low Illumination: No Sound

r.f. rate per trial 3.06 (1.65) 3.43 (2.14) 4.61 (2.91) 2.75 (1.22) % return 1.02 (0.54) 1.14 (0.71) 1.54 (0.97) 0.92 (0.41)

Experiment 3

Fast: Dollars Fast: Credits Slow: Dollars Slow: Credits r.f. rate per trial 3.90 (3.71) 3.22 (2.29) 4.35 (7.39) 3.68 (3.39) % return 1.30 (1.24) 1.07 (0.76) 1.45 (2.46) 1.23 (1.13) For Experiment 1 (reinforcement rate), a 2 Lines x 2 Credits repeated measures ANOVA was applied with Fisher LSD post-hoc comparisons (equivalent to planned comparisons). As expected the reinforcement rate (or win frequency) was greater in the 3 line condition than in the 1 line condition (F(1, 22) = 8.83, p < .01, η2 =.28) and in the 3-credit per line condition (F (1, 22) = 33.88, p < .001,η2 =.60). A significant interaction was observed6 (F (1, 22) = 7.01, p < .05, η2 =.25), which was entirely consistent with the greater reinforcement rate for 3 Lines: 3 Credits and relatively lower rate for 1 Line: 1 Credit. Fisher post-hoc comparisons confirmed that the 3 Lines: 3 Credit machine provided more reinforcement per trial than the other 3 machines; the equivalence of machines B and C, and the significantly lower rate on the 1 Line: 1 Credit Machine. Similar analysis comparing statistical returns on the 4 machines yielded no significant main effects or interaction, and certainly no trend consistent with the preference structure. In fact, higher returns were obtained on the least popular machines. For the largest difference (1.43 vs. 0.93), the effect size (Cohen’s d) was 0.32, but in the opposite direction from that would have confounded the results above. In Experiment 2, a 2 Sound x 2 Illumination repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant Sound x Illumination interaction (F (1, 22) = 7.07, p < .05). Fisher post-hoc comparisons indicated that the Low Illumination machine with sound provided a significantly higher reinforcement rate than the Low Illumination machine with sound and the High Illumination machine with sound. Identical results were observed for the ANOVA involving the return rate, with a significant interaction (F (1, 22) = 7.07, p < .05) but no significant main effects. The machine with Low illumination and sound was found to have produced a better return to player than the Low Illumination machine without sound and the High Illumination machine with sound (Fisher LSD test, p < .05). These results may explain why the machine

6 Both main effects were significant, but were qualified by the interaction. In such a situation, it is

appropriate that the interaction be the primary subject of discussion.


20

with Low Illumination and sound was so popular (i.e., people won more on it irrespective of its aesthetic qualities). Despite this, people still preferred machines with sound irrespective of any chance variations in winnings, because the other machine with sound was still more popular than machines without sound, even through it had a relatively lower rate of return to players.7 In Experiment three, there was no evidence that the effects observed for play-speed were in any way confounded with the reinforcement rate or differences in the return to player. A 2 Play Speed x 2 Display Type repeated measures ANOVA yielded no significant main effects or interaction (all Fs < 1). The largest difference, namely between machines B and C for statistical return had an effect size of d = 0.11. The effect of individual differences Pearson correlations were conducted to ascertain whether those who scored higher on the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) had a preference for a particular type of machine in each of the three studies. Preference and excitement ratings and time were included. All of the correlations were non-significant and small (90% smaller than 0.20) suggesting that the effects observed above were unlikely to have been substantially influenced by the participants’ level of problem gambling. T-test analyses were also conducted to identify any gender differences in ratings across the machines used in the each of the three experiments. All gender differences were trivial in effect size and non-significant. Thus, it is unlikely that the variations in gender and problem gambling status across the three experiments substantially influenced the results. For example, having three fewer males in Experiment two or three more in Experiment three to make the numbers equal appears unlikely to have influenced results in that male and female responses within these experiments were very similar. Discussion The results of this series of experiments provided only limited support for Loba et al.’s and Griffiths’ (1995) contention that subtle variations in slot-machine design can have a significant influence on player preferences and behaviour. For the most part, player behaviour and preferences were consistently related to factors influencing the rate and frequency of reinforcement, although frequency was generally found to be more important than magnitude. In other words, consistent with the observations of Walker (2001), players will tend to favour machines that allow the option of betting on maximum lines with a minimum bet rather than the reverse: minimum lines at the maximum bet, despite the fact that schedules should

7 An anonymous reviewer pointed out that the use of a mean return to player could be misleading

in that a very high rate of return obtained by a relatively small proportion of players could make it appear that one machine paid out more than average. Inspection of the distribution of percentage return figures across individual gamblers confirmed that the Low illumination + Sound machine mean figure confirmed that the mean figure was not misleading in that 15/24 participants made a profit on this machine vs. only 9/24 on each of the other machines.


21

yield approximately the same quantum of reinforcement over time8. In addition, players also clearly preferred a faster rather than a slower play speed, presumably because this decreased the delay between possible reinforcements. In this sense, these findings are generally consistent with previous operant behaviour research in the field of psychology (e.g., Logan, 1965) that suggests that subjects prefer immediate over delayed rewards. It also accords with the delay-reduction theory suggested by Fantino (e.g., Fantino, 1969; Fantino & Logan, 1979; Fantino, Preston, & Dunn, 1993) that hypothesises that subjects will tend to distribute their responses not only according to the relative frequency of reward, but also in such a way so as to reduce the delay to the next reinforcer. By contrast, the results for modifications to aesthetic characteristics were more variable. Although the removal of sound clearly reduced player excitement and preferences, it did not influence actual gambling gambling. Conversely, while a lower or more subtle illumination level appeared to encourage longer periods of play on particular machines, this variable did not influence player preferences. The effectiveness of sound effects has previously been documented in studies by Griffiths (1995) involving British fruit-machine players in which it has been reported that 50% of adolescent players report that the music and sound effects generated by machines are one of its most attractive features. Sounds are thought to make wins more salient and memorable and enhance the atmosphere of game-play. In the current study the removal of sound meant that players were deprived of background music, the sounds of betting, and also the win counter when they won, and a number of players indicated that this made the game less enjoyable as well as more difficult for them to know when they had won. However, these data provide little evidence that players will reduce their involvement when sounds are absent, and that such aesthetic qualities are probably secondary to the desire to obtain a steady flow of monetary reinforcements. In terms of the implications of these findings for reducing the potential harms associated with gambling, the findings suggest that slowing down machines, reducing the total number of betting lines, and reducing the saliency of sound effects are all features that will make the machines subjectively less appealing to players, and which may also reduce the amount of playing. Reductions in betting options would reduce the amount of money that players could spend in a given period of time, although, as Blaszczynski et al. point out, one would need to ensure that players are not gambling longer to compensate for the less intensive playing options. Furthermore, although Blaszczynski et al. did not specifically investigate the role of sound, clinical evidence suggests that sounds may influence the experience of gambling even if, as we have shown here, it may not influence how long players stay on the machines (Battersby & Tolchard, 2000). According to these authors, people develop strong conditioned associations between machine sound

8 As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, a difference between this study and Walker’s

observations is that people in the current study could not choose to adopt a maximin strategy on any single machine because lines and bets were fixed. Nevertheless, our results (based upon choices between machines) appear to be consistent with the view that people prefer to play machines where this option is available.


22

effects and feeling of anxiety or urge to gamble, and it has been found that exposure to these sounds combined with imaginal desensitisation and relaxation (counter-conditioning) has proved a promising strategy for the reduction of gambling urges. These observations suggest that the reduction of at least some auditory cues may be potentially beneficial to some gamblers. Similarly, in relation to play speed, there is evidence to suggest that the high rates of problem gambling associated with slot-machines is because of the very rapid rate of play which increases the likelihood of players losing control over their gambling (O’Connor & Dickerson, 2003), while also decreasing the time available for players to reflect on each outcome as it occurs (Griffiths, 1995). Conclusions and Future Research Although laboratory research offers many advantages, including the ability to control manipulations and available choices, it is important to acknowledge that the effects described here may not be as strong in field settings when other contextual factors are taken into account, e.g., the availability of smoking, drinking, sounds of other machines, the presence of other patrons, and the positioning of machines in the venue. It may be that, while we have found some evidence to support the importance of these factors in an isolated context, the modifications might be less obvious or effective when introduced to the complexity of highly sophisticated gambling venues. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that the effects observed in these simulations (e.g., the preference for a maximum line betting, faster play speed) are in the same direction as those observed in Blaszczynski et al.’s (2001) field studies. For this reason, we argue that there may be considerable advantages in the development of future parallel laboratory and field investigations that are capable of addressing the validity concerns arising from each context. A third issue of potential concern in the current study was the relatively limited sample size that was employed across the six studies. Although the number of regular gamblers were similar, or larger, than those used in previous published experimental studies and most effect sizes due to the experimental manipulatons were large to very large (e.g., Delfabbro & Winefield,, 1999a; Dickerson et al., 1992; Griffiths, 1995; Loba et al., 1992), it would be beneficial to replicate these results using a larger sample, to allow more refined analyses of individual differences. For example, a principal limitation of this study is that it was primarily geared to investigate the effects of modifications on regular gamblers, and allowed little scope for comparing problem with non-problem gamblers. Thus, it would be desirable to extend these analyses to include a larger sample of problem gamblers, so that more detailed analyses could be made of this group to understand whether their responses to machine modifications perhaps differ in more subtle ways that are not immediately evident within the current design. One important extension of the present research would be to make gradual variations in parameters during game-play (e.g., a gradual decrease in play-speed or reinforcement rate) with the dependent variable being the decision-point leading to the player moving to another machine. This is predicated on the assumption that, although problem gamblers did


23

not differ from other gamblers in general in terms of their preferences, they might nonetheless be more sensitive to specific degrees of variation not included in the present design. There may be “optimal” or threshold schedule parameters that can be used to identify the points where gaming machine schedules are no longer able to maintain player interest and behaviours, and these may differ between problem and non-regular gamblers. For example, there may be a particular play-rate that is considered too slow, or a particular reinforcement frequency that is too sparse? Future investigations to be undertaken and reported by the authors will examine the findings of these parameter specification studies and their implications for the design of gaming machines that potentially minimise the potential harms to players. References Anderson, G., & Brown, R.I.F. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling, sensation-

seeking and arousal, British Journal of Psychology, 75, 405-410. Battersby, M., & Tolchard, B. (1996). “The effect of treatment of pathological

gamblers referred to a behavioural psychotherapy unit: II- Outcome of three kinds of behavioural intervention”. In B. Tolchard (Ed.). Towards 2000: The Future of Gambling: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies (pp. 219-227), Adelaide, South Australia.

Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., & Walker, M. (2001). The assessment of the impact of the reconfiguration on electronic gaming machines as harm minimisation strategies for problem gambling. University of Sydney, Gambling Research Unit.

Blaszczynski, A. & Nower, L. (2002). A Pathways Model of Problem and Pathological Gambling. Addiction, 487-499.

Brown, R.I.F. (1986). Arousal and sensation-seeking components in the general explanation of gambling and gambling addictions. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 1001-1016.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Delfabbro, P.H., & Winefield, A.H. (1999a). Poker machine gambling: An analysis of within session characteristics. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 425-439.

Delfabbro, P.H., & Winefield, A.H. (1999). The danger of over-explanation in psychological research. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 447-450.

Dickerson, M.G., & Hinchy, J., England, S.L., Fabre, J., & Cunningham, R. (1992). On the determinants of persistent gambling behaviour. I. High-frequency poker machine players. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 237-248.

Dickerson, M.G., Cunningham, R., Legg England, S. & Hinchy, J. (1991). On the determinants of persistent gambling III Personality, prior mood, and poker machine play. International Journal of the Addictions, 26, 531-548.

Diskin, K., Hodgins, D. C. & Skitch, S. (2003). Psychophysiological and subjective responses of a community sample of video lottery gamblers in gambling venues and laboratory situations. International Gambling Studies, 3, 133-148


24

Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 12, 723-730.

Fantino, E. & Logan, S. (1979). The experimental analysis of behavior: A biological perspective. San Francisco: W.H. Freenman & Company.

Fantino, E., Preston, R.A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay reduction: Current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159-169.

Ferster, C.B., & Skinner, B.F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-century Crofts.

Griffiths, M.D. (1990). Psychobiology of the near-miss in fruit-machine gambling. Journal of Psychology, 125, 347-357.

Griffiths, M.G. (1995). Adolescent gambling. London: Routledge. Griffiths, M.D. & Delfabbro, P.H. (2001). The biopsychosocial approach to the

study of gambling. eGambling: The Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues (Feature article), 5, 1-33, www.camh.net/egambling.

Hineline, P.N. (1977). Negative reinforcement and avoidance. In W.K. Honig & J.E.R. Staddon (Eds.). Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 364-414). New York: Prentice Hall.

Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Bujold, A., Lachance, N. & Tremblay, S. (1991). Ecological validity of laboratory studies of videopoker gaming. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7, 109-116.

Ladouceur, R. & Sevigny, S. (2003). Interactive messages on video lottery terminals and persistence at gambling. Gambling Research, 15, 45-50.

Lesieur, H.R., & Blume, S. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (the SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184-1188.

Lewis, D. J., & Duncan, C.P. (1958). Expectation and resistance to extinction of a level-pulling response as a function of percentage of reinforcement and number of acquisition trials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 121-128.

Loba, P. Stewart, S.H., Klein, R.M., & Blackburn, J.R. (2002). Manipulations of the features of standard video lottery terminal (VLT) games: Effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 297- 320.

Logan, F.A. (1965). Decision-making by rats: Delay versus amount of reward. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 59, 1-12.

O’Connor, J., & Dickerson, M. (2003). Impaired control over gambling in gaming machine and off-course gamblers. Addiction, 98, 53-60.

Productivity Commission (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Canberra, Australia.

Schellinck, T. & Schrans, T. (2002). Atlantic Lottery Corporation Video Lottery Responsible Gambling Feature Research- Final report. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Focal Research Consultants.

Schreiber, J. & Dixon, M.R. (2001). Temporary characteristics of slot machine play in recreational gamblers. Psychological Reports, 89, 67-72.

Sharpe, L. (2002). A Reformulated Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Problem Gambling: A Biopsychosocial Perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1-25.

Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press.

http://www.camh.net/egambling


25

Walker, M.B. (1992a). The Psychology of Gambling. Sydney: Pergamon Press. Walker, M.B. (1992b). Irrational thinking among slot machine players. Journal of

Gambling Studies, 8, 245-288. Walker, M.B. (2001). “Strategies for winning on poker machines”. In

A.Blaszczynski et al. (Eds.). Culture and the gambling phenomenon: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies (pp. 391-396), Sydney.

Williamson, A., & Walker, M. (2000). “Strategies for solving the insoluble: Playing to win Queen of the Nile”. In G. Coman (Ed.) Lessons of the Past: Proceedings of the 11th annual conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies (pp. 444-452), Mildura, Victoria.

Line 2 Line 1

Credit Display

Line 3

Play Button

1 Line 2 Lines

3 Lines

1 Credit 2 Credits 3 Credits

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the screen design for simulated slot-machine

Gambling Research, 17(1), p.26-46, Printed in Australia ©2005. National Association for Gambling Studies WHO BENEFITS? UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES AROUND CARD

BASED GAMBLING TECHNOLOGY

Sharen Nisbet Centre for Gambling Education & Research, Southern Cross University PO Box 157, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Phone: +61 2 6620 3930 Email: [email protected] Abstract: This paper reports the results of a study that sought to expose the factors affecting the introduction and acceptance of cashless gambling technologies in New South Wales (NSW), Australia from a range of stakeholder perspectives. A mixed methodology was employed, including interviews with gambling industry stakeholders, an analysis of submissions to the NSW IPART enquiry into gambling harm minimisation (2003), and the administration of a survey to 134 patrons of two NSW venues where these technologies had been recently introduced. The advantages of card based technologies for supply side stakeholders were clearly articulated. In particular, venues benefit from a reduction in operating costs and improved security through a reduction of cash. However, some venues are hesitant to introduce these technologies without evidence of support from players. While questionnaire respondents indicated high levels of support for the usability of the system, reliability and security are the paramount concerns. Non-users were most cautious in their assessment of the advantages of use. Key words: gaming machines, card systems, responsible gaming Introduction Much interest centres on the potential of card based gambling technologies to facilitate responsible, machine based gambling (Blaszczynski, Sharpe, & Walker, 2003; Holmes, 2003; Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales [IPART], 2003, 2004). However, the impacts of the introduction of cards and other cashless systems such as tickets extend beyond usability, affecting venue operations and profitability, consumer enjoyment, and the ability of the State government to achieve its objectives. Thus, it is useful to consider the advantages and disadvantages of this technology as perceived by each key stakeholder group. Supply side stakeholders From a supply-side perspective manufacturers and venues are united in their claim that cashless systems generate cost savings for venues, primarily through reduced overheads (Aristocrat Technologies, 2002; Toneguzzo in Hing, Breen, & Weeks, 2002; Truman, Sandoe, & Rifkin, 2003; Wall Street Journal, 2003b). The evidence here is compelling: in one international casino, the introduction of a cashless gambling system on 100% of gaming machines reduced total operating costs by 40% (Berger & Hauk, 2002). This was achieved through a decrease in cash handling costs at the cashier and in the back office. An


Nisbet, S.

27

added advantage is a reduction in cash handling errors (Australasian Gaming Machine Manufacturers Association, circa 2002; Truman et al., 2003). Another area where operational cost savings can be realised is through reduced labour costs. In particular, maintenance costs are minimised when coin hoppers are made redundant (Henderson, 2003). Harrah’s entertainment estimates labour costs savings of 15% resulted from converting one third of machines to cashless (ticket in – ticket out) technologies (Glader, 2003). There is also evidence that carded systems increase the rate of play on card based machines by up to 15% (Palmeri, 2003), and therefore maximise turnover (Ben-Meir, c. 1999). Card based and other cashless systems also enhance the security of monies (Ben-Meir, c. 1999; Drehmann, Goodhart, & Krueger, 2002). For some stakeholders, the potential of the card to eliminate or reduce the ability of individuals to engage in dubious or illegal activities is an argument for its introduction (Ben-Meir, c. 1999; Drehmann et al., 2002). Importantly though, some card technologies, such as magnetic swipe cards, are susceptible to fraud, as seen in the banking industry, where the response is to move to more expensive chip based or ‘smart’ cards (D. Davis, 2003). Smart cards however, are not immune to the risk of fraud. It is feared that despite increased security, storing the balance locally, on a chip based card increases the stakes which in turn may increase the risk (Briney, 2002). Magnetic swipe cards have the advantage of a low unit cost (Ben-Meir, c. 1999; Drehmann et al., 2002), and a technology platform that is present in many NSW venues (ClubsNSW, 2003). Despite this, the cost of upgrade or acquisition of new technology is recognised as a major barrier to the introduction of new payment systems (Hoenig, 1995). Aristocrat estimates the cost of a card based system at $250 per machine. The suppliers of these technologies do suggest that this upfront cost is offset by reductions in operating costs (Aristocrat Technologies, 2002; Ben-Meir, c. 1999; Palmeri, 2003). However, Australian unions state that these cost savings accrue from a reduction in labour (Casey, 2003), thus jeopardising the significant economic contribution the gambling industry makes to employment (Australian Institute of Gambling Research [AIGR], 1999). Gaming machine manufacturers also cite high levels of consumer acceptance of cashless gambling systems (Berger & Hauk, 2002; eBet Limited, 2001, 2003a) (Berger & Hauk, 2002; eBet Limited, 2001, 2003b). Figures range from 95% in overseas systems (Berger & Hauk, 2002) to 90% locally (eBet Limited, 2003b). This reported trend contradicts evidence from other industries that the uptake of cashless payment mechanisms is stagnant or declining (Drehmann et al., 2002), and trials of new electronic payment systems in controlled environments have failed (Truman et al., 2003). Demand side stakeholders At the time of this study there was little empirical evidence as to the preferences and opinions of gamblers toward cashless technologies. Nonetheless, the available material, primarily press releases and promotional notes, suggests that advantages include improved player convenience and security (Ben-Meir, c. 1999; Berger & Hauk, 2002; Henderson, 2003). Improved customer service equals convenience, which refers to the usefulness of the technology, including its accessibility and whether it saves time and provides advantages

Card-based Gaming Technology

28

and benefits with use (F. D. Davis, 1989; Truman et al., 2003). Reported benefits of using cashless gaming systems include ease of moving between machines and no waiting for an attendant for a payout (Berger & Hauk, 2002). Conversely, security provisions such as low balance limits and personal identification numbers lead to trade-offs in convenience, ease of use and reliability, which in turn may lead to lower levels of acceptance (Drehmann et al., 2002). The sensory experience that accompanies cash handling also has been implicated as a factor affecting customer acceptance (Brewer & Cummings, 1995; Glader, 2003; Palmeri, 2003; Wall Street Journal, 2003a). However, whilst some players enjoy the experience of handling cash and coin, it is also notoriously dirty: no coin handling means cleaner hands (Drehmann et al., 2002; Palmeri, 2003). Loss of anonymity is cited as a disadvantage of electronic payment mechanisms (Drehmann et al., 2002). Anonymous account based play is not permitted in NSW, although other payment mechanisms, including cash and ticket out, protect a player’s anonymity. Even though privacy regulations cover the release of information collected by venues as a result of the use of cards, it is possible that gamblers may simply wish to remain anonymous. A number of studies have examined the issue of consumer acceptance of card based payment technologies. Truman and Sandoe (2003) tested the relationship between the advantages of smart cards and consumer acceptance against Rogers’ framework of the diffusion of innovations (2003). They found that convenience was positively associated with acceptance, and that complexity of use was negatively associated with use. Despite these strong indicators of support for the card in their study and a reliable technology base, it was withdrawn. The issuers cited a lack of critical mass; that is, whilst users were satisfied, the volume of transactions was too low to sustain the promotional and marketing efforts of manufacturers. It has also been suggested that the elderly may be averse to using new technologies generally, and card based payment technologies specifically (Gilly & Zeithhaml, 1985). With club industry membership characterised by a predominance of elderly persons (Hing & Breen, 1999), and clubs in NSW supplying 74% of the state’s gaming machines, the perceived advantages and disadvantages of this technology by the elderly warrant consideration. The largely anecdotal evidence presented above, combined with a lack of published data on likely consumer acceptance of cashless gaming technologies or the unique features of these systems that deliver these advantages, encouraged this study to make an empirical contribution to the body of knowledge around card based gambling. Methodology A two-stage approach to primary data collection was employed. Stage one was largely exploratory, and as such suited to the use of qualitative research techniques (Malhotra 1993); depth interviews were conducted to uncover themes and issues pertinent to cashless gambling. Comment was sought from a variety of stakeholder

Nisbet, S.

29

groups in the gambling environment. This included representatives of venues, suppliers, government, and the community and problem gamblers. Participants were selected for their ability to provide informed commentary on contemporary gambling issues: given the limited installation of cashless technologies in NSW, representatives of peak bodies were targeted. These participants were then asked to nominate others within their industry (‘snowball sampling’) with knowledge of the issues surrounding cashless gambling. Three stakeholders represented manufacturers and suppliers of cashless gaming machine technologies, including the peak Australian industry association. Ten club or gaming machine managers were also interviewed, representing a range of venues operating a number of different systems. Two venues operated ticket based cashless systems on all EGMs and another two operated a card based EGM system on all machines. All four venues were early adopters of these technologies in NSW, and all four are represented in the top 20 clubs in NSW for gambling turnover. Another venue operated a customer loyalty program based on magnetic stripe cards only, and was active in the peak state industry association. One venue with 1500 EGMs had committed to converting 160 of these to ticketed technology. Another two venues had begun the roll out of card-based technologies: one was committed to launching the system on all 450 machines plus at all points of sale, the other had a small number of carded machines and players amongst their installation. All venues except one operate in the greater Sydney metropolitan area. A participant each from the state regulator and social services was also interviewed. A further interview was conducted with a provider of club based responsible gambling training and problem gambling counselling. The three primary interview questions were: How do you define cashless gambling? What do you perceive the benefits of cashless gambling to be for you/your organisation/other stakeholders? And what do you perceive the costs of cashless gambling to be for you/your organisation/other stakeholders? Sample size was also determined by the information obtained as the interviews progressed. Once the emergent issues began to recur, data redundancy was deemed to have begun, and no further interviews were sought. The 30-60 minute interviews were transcribed at the end of each interview. The results were then analysed thematically to draw out key issues and sub issues. In addition, the submissions of 11 key stakeholders to the recent NSW IPART inquiry (2003), a substantive primary data source, were examined with particular reference to their representations on card based gambling. Stage two of data collection involved the design and administration of a questionnaire to 134 patrons of two large venues in Sydney that have rolled out card based gaming systems on all machines. Davis’ technology acceptance model (TAM) (1989), which posits that user acceptance is a function of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, provided a framework for this stage of the data collection, although the questions were modified on the basis of the results of the interviews. Primarily, this involved inserting the name of the card based technology used by each club into each TAM questionnaire statement. Additional items were those themes raised by stage one participants that were not readily adapted to each of the TAM constructs. In total, these 23 likert-scaled statements aimed to understand consumer perception of the consequences of use of the cards. These were rated from 1 to 7, where 1 equalled strongly disagree and 7 equalled strongly agree. Each item in


30

the questionnaire is listed in Table 2. Demographic details and usage details, including frequency of play and current use of the card were requested at the end of the questionnaire. The survey was administered to 134 patrons at two large clubs in Sydney, NSW over three days each. Each venue had more than 310 gaming machines and 26,500 and 38,000 members respectively. Each club ranked in the top 25 clubs in NSW by gaming machine revenue in 1999 (NSW Department of Gaming and Racing, 2000). The interviewer was on site during late morning, late afternoon and early evening at each venue. At the time of this study, these were the only two clubs with card based, cashless gambling systems available to patrons. Each club used a branded version of eBet Limited’s cashless, card based system, which they had rolled out to all members in the preceding two months. A convenience sampling was selected, although all patrons were asked to complete the questionnaire as they entered the gaming area of the club. A number of respondents chose interviewer assistance. The non-response rate is estimated at 1/3 of requests. Results and Discussion Supply Side Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages and disadvantages of card based gambling systems were strongly articulated, and supported in some instances by quantitative evidence. These findings are discussed in detail in this section. For clarity, key stakeholders interviewed in stage one of the study are referenced to as ‘participants’, while patrons who completed the stage two questionnaire are referred to as ‘respondents’. Table 1 presents a summary of the key supply side advantages and disadvantages of card based gaming machine technologies uncovered.

Nisbet, S.

31

Table -1 – Summary of supply-side advantages and disadvantages Venues Manufacturers Regulators

Advantages • Existence of regulatory guidelines

• Promotes responsible gambling?

• Reduced risk of fraud • Improvements in OH&S

for employees • Improved security of

money and personnel • Less/less frequent

maintenance • Reduction in labour

costs • Marketability -

opportunity to build customer loyalty

• Don’t earn interest on coin

• Improved customer service

• Redeployment of labour to other/customer service duties

• Opportunity to upgrade ageing technology

• Co-operative

approach between

industry and regulators

in NSW

• Increased sales

• Reduction in fraud • Improved

monitoring and compliance and therefore protection of taxation revenues

• Co-operative approach between industry and regulators in NSW

• Uncertain technological future

• Responsible gambling?

• Incentives and rewards vs. responsible gambling

Disadvantages • Lack of regulatory guidelines

• Perceived slow regulatory approvals process

• Uncertain regulatory future –mandate participation?

• Cost of technology and installation

• Ticket systems require ongoing maintenance and consumables

• Inadequate $200 limit • Inadequate existing

technology base • Uncertain consumer

acceptance • Technology skills of

managers and employees • Uncertain technological

future • Voluntary

• Uncertain regulatory future

• Cost of technology – impediment to sales

• Impact of new and competing technologies

• Self exclusion potential from state-wide system

• Need for ongoing review and regulation

• Additional monitoring and compliance issues

• $200 limit

Source: Primary interview data and submissions to the IPART Review into Gambling Harm Minimisation 2003

Security This theme related to reliability of the system and safety of money. All interviewees commented positively on the potential of cashless technologies to improve individual and organisational security, to the benefit of all stakeholders. Indicative statements included that the card ‘is a very reliable and secure system’ and that ‘(it) is great for the club as it reduces cash… Security is enhanced with centralised cash.’ Many participants also highlighted the security benefits for government, particularly in relation to the protection of taxation revenues.


32

As one participant noted, improved security has ‘benefits to the club (that) include reduced cash handling to protect the money that patrons put in’. Personal security is important for some patrons, particularly ‘the elderly (who) are concerned about carrying large amounts of cash.’ In their IPART submission, ClubsNSW supported the security benefits of card based systems, noting that their primary purpose should be ‘to act as a means of improving the integrity and efficiency of gambling machine operations’ (2003 p.30). Installation Costs Most participants agreed that considerable capital expenditure was required for a venue to move to a cashless system. Typical comments included that ‘implementation of cards is prohibitively expensive’ and that ‘…The costs involved in that are quite extreme’. Similarly, another participant noted that the ‘major problem with smart cards will be that everyone needs to buy new hardware.’ The inability of small venues, with lower cash flows and limited existing infrastructure to provision these systems was also highlighted: ‘a lot of the clubs and pubs would struggle to put that in place.’ Venues with larger numbers of machines would benefit from provision, as ‘you need economies of scale – need a critical level of business to make this work.’ One participant however, didn’t ‘think the cost of installation is an issue. Fifty percent of the costs are recouped almost immediately.’ The cost of converting a gaming machine to card based technology has been estimated at between $1,200 and $1,500 per machine by ClubsNSW, who suggest that there are 400 of about 1400 clubs in NSW that have installed ‘such systems’ (2003 p.30). That is, less than one-third of NSW clubs have a hardware base to support card based gambling. Managers and employee’s perceived lack of technology skills or ‘know how’ was also highlighted as a disincentive to provisioning card based systems. While training and support are provided by manufacturers, this disadvantage may be complicit in the decision of many venues not to move to cashless technologies. Appropriate, tailored training and education will therefore be fundamental to the diffusion of card based gambling, and is an issue for all demand-side stakeholders. It was also noted that a fragmented gambling industry increases the cost of implementing a state-wide solution due to extensive differences in technology (BetSafe, 2003). Nevertheless, the cost of implementing card based gambling for many venues would be outweighed by the advantages (Aristocrat 2003; BetSafe, 2003). In its submission to the IPART inquiry (2003), Aristocrat agreed that cost is an impediment to provision, and suggested that venues be encouraged to invest in these technologies (2003). The manufacturer further suggested that venues be permitted to offer incentives, such as increased bet limits, to offset potential reductions in turnover (2003a). Clearly however, where venues face installation costs to convert to cashless systems, manufacturers will benefit from increased sales of their products and services. Reduced Overheads Participants were unanimous in their appreciation of the ability of carded systems to reduce operating costs and overheads for venues. This advantage was also strongly represented in the literature, although not always positively. Most participants noted that a reduction in labour costs will result from a decrease in the number of hand pays. For example, one

Nisbet, S.

33

participant suggested that the ‘cost effectiveness is in salaries and wages’. Another, who had converted to ticket based machines, quantified this impact by indicating that in his venue ‘the main gambling floor used to have eight (staff) and now we have four.’ However, another participant disagreed, stating that he ‘(does not) see it as a cost saving as far as staff’ are concerned. The expectation in this venue was that staff would be redeployed to other duties, notably promotion of the product internally. ClubsNSW, in their IPART submission, agreed that affected staff would be used in other, primarily customer service, functions (2003). However, they further submitted that ticket in cashless technologies has not led to a reduction in staff numbers in venues where it has been introduced (ClubsNSW 2003). Ancillary gaming operations are also streamlined, further reducing staff interaction. One participant noted that cashless ‘eliminates coin handling and storage, eliminates the reading of meter data and hence the human error factor is reduced.’ Similarly, another participant enthusiastically stated that ‘the really good thing about these systems is money. One tonne of coins in a large venue going around and around, it needs to be bagged, wrapped, counted and accounted for. Cash is a room thing. That makes (cashless) systems good.’ Cashless technologies can also lead to reductions in maintenance costs and machine down time, minimise inconvenience to patrons and improve occupational health and safety. Several participants contrasted these savings with the difficulties inherent in traditional coin based operations, including the need for hopper refills, with their potential to inconvenience patrons, and the greater frequency of OH&S problems amongst staff. Marketing Card based systems can give a venue a competitive advantage, encouraging repeat visitation and acting as a significant ‘point of difference from the competition. Money on the card is like having money at the club waiting to be picked up.’ While marketability was not a strong factor influencing the introduction of cashless technologies there is evidence that, as the product matures and gains acceptance, venues will seek promotional opportunities. One participant highlighted this when he noted that ‘the system is value added. The expected maturation of the product is also evident in the planned roll out of the card to point of sale systems in the participant’s venue, which will ‘make it easier to market through the tie-ins with food and beverages.’ Another participant plans to target the point of sale component at younger patrons in an effort to reduce congestion around the ATMs late at night. With such a significant investment in the technology, this venue is looking to maximise usage and build loyalty, as well as using it to address operational problems. The Regulatory Environment Most manufacturers and venue managers discussed the limitations placed upon them by the technical regulations when prompted to nominate disadvantages of cashless technologies. In particular, those participants who had implemented ticket or card based systems cited delays in receiving approval for further innovations. Most frequently cited was frustration related to the $200 balance limit on a player card. In their submission to the IPART inquiry (2003), Aristocrat Technologies suggest that the


34

‘$200 limit is simply inadequate: it is one of the principal reasons why card based playing is not popular with either venues or players in NSW’ (Aristocrat 2003 p.15). This limit was cited as a primary deterrent to consumer acceptance of card based gambling by a number of additional participants, who suggested that ‘…you can only transfer $200 onto a card. This needs to increase’, particularly for higher stakes machines where ‘it may be okay for a 1c machine, but not for a $1 gambling machine… This is a real problem between regulation and rational practicality.’ One participant directly linked the balance limit to his decision not to provide the technology. Despite this strong and cohesive operator sentiment, the regulatory participant disagreed, stating that he was ‘not convinced that the $200 limit is an impediment to the success of the system. I don’t think that’s a big deal. Most players don’t leave money on the card for later.’ Demand Side Advantages and Disadvantages The gambling consumers’ perspective of the functionality and features of card-based play were assessed for this stage of the study, and are supported or refuted by evidence gathered in the stage one interviews. A summary of the results of the 23 Likert scaled questions administered to 134 gambling venue patrons is presented in Table 2.

Nisbet, S.

35

Table 2 - Distribution of responses to questionnaire items

n=134

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Mild

ly

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Mild

ly A

gree

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Ag

ree

Mea

n

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

% % % % % % %

Easy to register 5.3 1.6 6.0 1.5 2.2 17.2 11.9 41.0 20.1

Easy to operate 5.3 1.5 6.0 2.2 2.2 8.2 18.7 51.5 11.2

Easy to reload balance 5.3 1.6 6.7 2.2 0.7 11.9 15.7 46.3 14.9

Easy to move between machines 5.7 1.5 3.8 1.5 2.3 11.3 9.0 39.1 33.1

Less time waiting for a payout 5.4 1.5 3.0 2.2 3.7 17.9 13.4 31.3 27.6

Dislike waiting for a payout 5.3 1.8 4.5 6.0 5.3 18.8 9.8 15 40.6

The balance limit is sufficient 5.5 1.7 4.5 4.5 3.0 16.4 9.0 25.4 36.6

The PAS is a useful feature 5.3 1.6 4.5 3.0 5.2 17.2 11.2 33.6 23.1

Will help me manage my spending 3.8 1.9 17.2 14.9 6.0 22.4 14.2 16.4 8.2

The card seems reliable 4.7 1.7 8.2 4.5 3.0 28.4 13.4 29.9 10.4

The card seems secure 4.5 1.8 11.2 3.7 8.2 23.9 13.4 25.4 11.9

The PIN is a useful feature 5.8 1.6 3.0 5.2 3.7 6.0 7.5 27.6 44.8

Satisfied with privacy 5.1 1.7 5.2 3.7 7.5 18.7 13.4 25.4 23.9

Prefer to be anonymous 5.4 1.7 3.0 6.0 2.2 17.9 6.7 26.1 34.3

Intention to use 4.6 1.9 9.0 9.7 4.5 22.4 11.9 21.6 17.2

Enjoy talking to staff 4.7 1.8 7.5 7.5 3.0 26.1 12.7 26.9 13.4

Intend to use all the time 4.2 1.9 11.9 9.7 6.7 28.4 12.7 15.7 12.7

Belief that others will use 4.3 1.4 3.0 9.0 7.5 42.5 14.9 14.9 6.0

Enjoy handling cash and coin 4.3 1.9 9.0 11.9 9.7 25.4 9.7 13.4 18.7

Use only with instructions 4.5 1.8 8.2 9.0 6.7 23.9 11.2 27.6 10.4

Comfortable using the card 5.0 1.9 7.5 7.5 5.2 11.2 11.9 32.8 21.6

Use the loyalty card 4.4 2.1 13.4 9.7 6.7 19.4 9.0 17.9 21.6

Would frequent the club more often 3.4 1.8 20.1 15.7 9.7 29.9 8.2 9.7 4.5

Profile of Respondents Figure 1 shows the distribution of the age of respondents. While this approximated the general population of Sydney (ABS, 2002), the sample was skewed slightly in favour of older respondents as shown in Figure 2, which is perhaps a reflection of the time surveys were collected. In addition, both sites were clubs, which are characterised by an older membership (Hing & Breen, 1999). Some supply side participants held concerns about older patron’s intention to use card based technologies. This included suggestions that the initial adoption would be difficult as ‘pensioners are slightly more averse to plastic card technology’ and that their post-adoption


36

behaviour could lead to confusion or lost cards. Correlations between each questionnaire item and age yielded no significant correlations at p≤0.05. This suggests that, for this sample of respondents, age is unrelated to the gambling consumer’s perception of the features of, or intention to use, card based gambling systems. Figure 3 shows that almost half of respondents reported playing gaming machines at least once a week, while 4% of respondents indicated that they played gaming machines every day and a further quarter played ‘a few times a week’. 70% of respondents did not use the venue’s card based system for gambling, 16% claimed to always used the card, and a further 14% had used or continued to use the card on an infrequent basis as per Figure 4. Figure 1 – Gender of respondents

FemaleMale

Per

cent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 2 – Age of respondents

75 plus65-74

55-6445-54

35-4425-34

18-24

Perce

nt

30

20

10

0

Figure 3 - Frequency of machine play

Hardly at all/never

Once every few month

Once a month

Once a fortnight

Once a week

A few times a week

nearly every day

Per

cent

30

20

10

0

Figure 4 – Current use card

AlwaysOftenSometimesRarelyNever

Per

cent

80

60

40

20

0

Table 3 presents a summary of the key demand side advantages and disadvantages of card based gambling technologies as determined by these questionnaire respondents and interviewees and as presented in relevant IPART submissions. These are discussed below.

Nisbet, S.

37

Table 3 – Summary of demand-side advantages and disadvantages Employee Consumer

Advantages • Improved workplace safety and security

• Reduction in injuries

• Easy to use • Security of person and funds • Adequate privacy • Alternative to cash • Voluntary participation • Card has financial management

tools – player activity statement and pre-commitment ability

• $200 balance limit - regulatory protection

Disadvantages • Need for training • Job losses

• Uncertain reliability • Lack of anonymity • Pre-commitment not widely

promoted to players • Facilitates play and therefore

spending • Inducements to play – player

reward and loyalty schemes - may be inconsistent with responsible gambling ethos

• Need instructions to use • Preference of some players for

cash • Payout limit • Ease of payout/speed of payout • Reduction of social interaction • Loss of privacy

Source: Primary interview and questionnaire data plus submissions to the IPART Review into Gambling Harm Minimisation 2003

Convenience While many of the interviewees had received feedback from patrons about the features of card based systems from patrons, these claims were largely anecdotal. This lack of real evidence was a concern for some, with one participant asking, ‘how easy is it to recharge the balance? To move between machines? To remember your PIN?’ Other issues of player convenience identified by participants included the general balance limit and the ability to set spending limits. Ease of use Respondents were asked to rate their response to a series of statements designed to determine how easy they perceive it is to operate and move between machines, to reload the balance on the card and to obtain a payout. Notably, 73% of respondents expressed agreement with the statement that it would be easy to register to use the card based system in operation in the club. Four-fifths of respondents agreed that ‘it will be easy to operate gaming machines with (the card)’ and that ‘it will be easy to reload the balance…’ Neutral responses were in the range of 10% for each ease of use statement. Despite this broadly positive assessment, some respondents were more cautious about the level of convenience offered to novice users, with one person noting that ‘it will be easy once you understand. I have had problems, and there are still teething problems’.


38

Waiting for a Payout Key stakeholders were unanimous in their assessment of the benefit to card users around the payment of winnings. When respondents were asked if they thought it would take less time to process a payout with the card, 72.3% were in agreement. However, consumer perception that wait times will be reduced is not in itself a sufficient measure of convenience. As such, the second proposition ‘I dislike waiting for an attendant to process a payout’ was designed to test the efficacy of this measure. More than two-thirds of respondents agreed with this statement, although one respondent commented that ‘it annoys me that you can’t take cash out’, indicating a preference for cash based models. Card balance As noted previously, many key stakeholders were critical of the $200 balance limit on the card. In the survey data, 71% of respondents agreed that ‘the $200 card balance will be sufficient for my needs’. Discussion with some respondents revealed that they might have disagreed with this statement because they felt that $200 was too high, or that it was the minimum amount needed to participate in the scheme. This is perhaps a reflection of the description of the system presented to respondents on the front of the questionnaire. Nonetheless, a small number of those surveyed suggested a higher balance limit. Player activity statement Another mechanism of card based gambling that may assist players manage their spending is the player activity statement (PAS). Although voluntarily requested, this transaction record is widely touted as a key responsible gambling feature (Aristocrat, 2003; Banks, 2002; Productivity Commission, 1999) Respondents were strongly supportive of the usefulness of the statement, with more than two-thirds agreeing that it would be a useful feature. However, comments provided an indication of the disparity around this issue. Three respondents freely commented that a PAS would lead to thoughts of suicide, or as one respondent replied, ‘you would want to kill yourself (if you knew what you spent)’. As approximately one-third of respondents (n=44) completed the questionnaire with the assistance of the researcher, this represents an unusually high rate of comment (7%). Other comments included ‘I don’t want one’, ‘it might be a shock’, and ‘you also need to consider privacy’. One respondent commented that the PAS ‘should be mandatory.’ Despite this generally positive assessment of the usefulness of the PAS, no site was observed to be promoting this feature. One venue did not have a self-service facility for generating statements at the time of the study, although it is supposed that, given the terms of the Regulation, this venue would have been able to comply had a patron asked. The gaming machine manager at the second venue, where it was possible to request a statement through an authorisation terminal on the gaming floor, noted that demand for the service was very low. It is possible however, that this demand is in direct proportion to knowledge of the service; the player information brochure and player consent form provided by this venue did not mention the PAS.

Nisbet, S.

39

Security Both the Gaming Machines Regulation 2002 NSW and ClubsNSW (2003) emphasise that responsibility for protection of the balance on the card ultimately falls to the individual player. However, concern was expressed by a number of key participants about the complexity of the security features. One interviewee noted that ‘insisting on them changing the PIN will be a barrier...’ Nonetheless, questionnaire respondents favourably perceived the security offered by the card, with more than 50% agreeing that the card ‘seems secure’. The high proportion of neutral and negative responses (24%) may indicate that perceived security is a conditional state. For example, two respondents commented that the system is secure ‘as long as you don’t leave your card in the machine’. This was thought to occur quite frequently, and was a source of anxiety for some respondents. Another person noted the consequences of this when he noted that ‘someone else took my machine that had my card in it’. When asked to relate the outcome, this respondent said that the cash inserted by the new player loaded to his balance. The questionnaire additionally tested the perceived usefulness of the PIN, a specific security feature. Four fifths of respondents agreed that ‘the PIN is an important feature…’. Despite this strong empirical support, six respondents commented on the limitations of the PIN. One user noted that ‘you should have to use (the PIN) each time’, a reflection of the fact that the card only needs to be activated with the PIN after 30 minutes of non-use. Two respondents also thought that the default PIN allocated at registration was inadequate, as ‘(the) number is the last four dights of the membership card. What would happen if you lost the card?’ and another suggested that ‘I don’t think they have it right. It should not be the date and month of birth.’ A further respondent suggested that ‘there should be two PINs’, while another lamented that generally ‘the PIN is hassle’. Thus, there appears to be a significant difference between respondents’ perception of the functionality of the PIN and that which is realised. The trade off between card security and functionality is well documented in the literature (Drehmann et al., 2002). Enhanced security features, such as decreasing the time out limit to less than 30 minutes, would reduce functionality and could, therefore, reduce the perception that the card is convenient. As an overwhelming majority of respondents are happy with the inclusion of the PIN, it is preferable that alternative measures to increase perceived security, including player education about how to change the default PIN, be utilised by venue managers. Reliability Reliability relates to the dependability of the system. For example, ‘up time’ needs to be maximised, and the balance to credit transfer mechanism must be accurate. Trust is also a feature of reliability; players must believe that the system is dependable for this construct to be favourably perceived. More than half of respondents favourably perceived the reliability of the card as described in the questionnaire. As one user noted, the card based system ‘seems reliable, apart from the hiccups’. For another respondent, who strongly disagreed with this statement, the system was ‘up to putty’, suggesting that this user had a poor perception of system reliability. Respondents with no experience of the card were fearful of the consequences of


40

use. For example, one respondent asked ‘what happens when the computer breaks down or there is a blackout?’ While two users related some negative experiences, they expressed overall satisfaction with the system, with one relating that his ‘card has been playing up, and I think it lost $10 of credit… I really like the system though’ while the other noted that ‘sometimes, the system is down. I came in the other day and had to wait half an hour … it has a lot of downsides, but overall it is quicker. Like all things electronic, when it is working it is good, when not it is bad.’ Although the perceived reliability of the card based system in operation in each venue was not strong, with 54% of users agreeing that the system was reliable, users were more inclined to forgive the system, as the advantages of use outweigh this perceived lack of dependability. Strategies to build trust, including player education highlighting the steps taken by suppliers to implement a dependable system, could be useful in addressing this perception. Privacy The ability of a venue to keep personal and usage details private emerged as a potential influence on the acceptance of cards through the literature, and was discussed with key stakeholders in the interviews. Stakeholders were polarised about the degree to which privacy issues were a concern for consumers. Some participants felt that ‘the privacy issues are overstated’ and ‘covered off by the privacy legislation’. Another noted that he thought that ‘players wouldn’t use cards because they think we’re tracking them and that information will be available to other sources.’ While two-thirds of respondents agreed with the statement ‘I am satisfied that information on my use of (the card) would be kept private’, only one comment was made on this issue, noting that ‘privacy is only as good as the management.’ This indicates that trust in the scheme’s operators is implicit in an individual’s perception of privacy. Anonymity Card based systems in NSW cannot be played anonymously; players must register to use the system. Many interview participants noted this lack of anonymity as a potential barrier to player acceptance and usage, although were unsure to what extent and for which groups of players. When asked to assess the degree to which lack of anonymity is a barrier to player acceptance one participant replied: ‘is it a big factor? No, but it is a factor.’ Another participant highlighted those gamblers he thought most averse to being identified, noting that ‘problem gamblers generally want to be anonymous. Any take up amongst this group would be low.’ As evidence, many participants pointed to the usage rate of rewards or loyalty cards, with one manager noting that 50% of play in his venue was with a reward card and 50% was not. This participant concluded that the usage rate was unacceptably low due to the lack of anonymity afforded users of the system. While there is no empirical evidence to support this proposition, it can be assumed that, as highlighted by this manager, ‘cashless’ cards carry similar ‘risks’. It is possible that players who use the cards either do not have concerns over the privacy of their usage information or do not wish to remain anonymous.

Nisbet, S.

41

Most participants supported the idea that ticket-based systems afford high levels of anonymity. In two cases, this cashless model was promoted and implemented for this reason. These participants ‘…assumed that people liked to be and remain anonymous. So tickets mean they can….’ Further supporting this argument, another participant highlighted the experience of one offshore casino group which has determined that ‘25% of the market won't go on card based’ for this reason. In its submission to IPART, ClubsNSW appealed for the introduction of anonymous card based gambling, arguing that such a scheme would not impact the ‘ability to use such systems with problem gambling’ (2003 p.30). In response to the statement ‘I prefer to be anonymous when gambling’ more than two-thirds of respondents indicated agreement. This response supports the proposition of key stakeholders that anonymity is the preferred state for gamblers. However, it is not possible to conclude that anonymity is the primary factor in an individual’s decision not to adopt card based gambling; further analysis of the inter-relationships between this and each other construct would be required. Rather, it is prudent to conclude that card based gambling must offer strong advantages, relative to other payment options, to mitigate the desire for anonymity. Choice The existence of alternatives is a central tenet of choice. In the context of card based play, choice involves both the consumer’s ability to supplement play with cash, and a lack of compulsion to participate in the scheme. These concepts are discussed below. Cash Offering card or ticket based systems alongside cash extends the choice of gambling mode. Most key stakeholders interviewed regarded this as a benefit of the introduction of new payment technologies. In asserting that the move away from coins and notes to tickets and cards is attractive to consumers, one manager was firm in stating that a primary advantage was that ‘players don’t like the coins.’ The statement ‘I enjoy the experience of handling cash and coins’ was designed to test this proposition. Two-fifths of respondents indicated that they agreed with the statement. However, almost one-third disagreed and one quarter of respondents were neutral. One survey respondent supported the introduction of card based gambling, noting that ‘we never had an option before.’ However, three respondents requested ‘more coin operated machines rather than notes – they don’t work all the time. You get bad notes and need to go back and forth. I like the coin drop.’ Therefore, the introduction of card based gambling systems is advantageous for some consumers, but in the near term, cash in and out mechanisms allow venues to satisfy the varied demands of the market. Voluntariness By extension, choice also refers to voluntariness. The degree to which participation in card based gambling should be mandated was a frequently mentioned issue in a number of submissions to the NSW IPART inquiry (2003). Two submissions considered the effectiveness of the voluntary receipt of player activity statements and the voluntary setting of spending limits (AMC Convergent IT, 2003; Aristocrat Technologies, 2003). These


42

stakeholders conceded that, to encourage harm minimisation, pre-commitment should be mandated. The need to maintain voluntary participation in the scheme was advocated in a number of IPART submissions (AMC Convergent IT, 2003; Aristocrat Technologies, 2003; Australian Casino Association [ACA], 2003; ClubsNSW, 2003). AMC, Aristocrat and the ACA cited the failed proposal of the Federal Government to introduce an Australia Card as evidence that a mandatory card based system is against the will of the population. ClubsNSW (2003) opposed the mandatory introduction of the scheme on two grounds. The first was that it would reduce choice for consumers. Secondly, the cost of enabling card based gambling on all machines would be prohibitively expensive for many venues. Equally, the University of Sydney’s Gambling Research Unit questioned the feasibility of implementing a mandatory scheme that is not evidence based on the grounds that it may minimise harm (Blaszczynski et al., 2003) The diffusion of an innovation such as card based gambling is more likely to succeed if there is a lack of compulsion to use the technology. Alternative payment mechanisms such as cash, or perhaps even tickets, may alleviate or minimise player anxiety while the consumer is trialling the new payment system. Pre-commitment Under the terms of the NSW IPART inquiry (2003), the ability of an individual player to nominate spend limits and set other restrictions on play is referred to as pre-commitment. In its issues paper, IPART implies that this ‘liquidity control’ is an essential feature of card based gambling (2003 p.4). Thus, the value of pre-commitment is that it offers an opportunity to separate the ‘point of sale’ from actual gambling activity (Dickerson, 2003 p.41). Several submissions to the inquiry strongly supported card based pre-commitment for its effectiveness as a harm minimisation tool. For example, Aristocrat suggest that pre-commitment ‘may prove to be one of the most effective technical responsible gambling initiatives available’ (2003 p.2). The Liquor Administration Board (LAB) submitted that player cards are ‘excellent’ for harm minimisation, due to the limits on the operation of existing systems (2003 p.20), the Council of Social Service of New South Wales (NCOSS) was positive about the pre-commitment capacity of cards for the reason that it empowers the player (2003), and The Gambling Impact Society, a body representing problem gamblers, believes that pre-commitment would be of benefit to problem gamblers (2003). In contrast, ClubsNSW (2003) did not believe that pre-commitment is synonymous with card based systems. However, they do not suggest other mechanisms by which this might be achieved. Manage spending While the questionnaire did not measure the value of pre-commitment from a player perspective, it did consider perception of the degree to which the card was useful in controlling expenditure. This more general concept was identified through the interviews with key stakeholders. One participant, a manufacturer of card based technologies, was able to quantify gamblers’ assessment of these features in noting that they ‘…did surveys and 60% of players said that the system helps them manage or understand their spending’.

Nisbet, S.

43

Contrary to this strong support, approximately two-fifths of questionnaire respondents perceived that card based gambling would help them manage their spending, while an equal two-fifths of respondents disagreed with the statement. However, the comments of users, as distinct from non-users, were generally supportive of this functionality. One user summarised his response to the convenience offered by the card thus: ‘I find (it) helpful while playing the machine, that is, invest what you can afford – you can always check anytime what remains and cease when your investment has disappeared.’ Another user noted that ‘I seem to be meaner’ when gambling with the card than with cash. In considering how this feature might be utilised, a self-identified problem gambler suggested that he ‘would put a $50 limit on it. When the money was gone, it would be gone’. Equally, another respondent noted that the card ‘…wouldn’t help real (problem) gamblers.’ This assertion was additionally made by the Gambling Research Unit in their submission to the IPART enquiry (Blaszczynski et al., 2003). Frequency of Play Many stage one participants suggested that a key disadvantage of uptake of the technology amongst at-risk gamblers included a perceived lack of privacy and anonymity, and an unattractive balance limit [set at $200 under the NSW regulations]. Similarly, advantages for this group of players could include the ability to manage spending and the provision of player information via a player activity statement. As consumers’ perception of each of these constructs was tested in the questionnaire it was possible to test the relationship between each of these items and frequency of play. No significant correlations were found at p≤0.05. However, when frequency of play was tested against an aggregate measure of intention to use card based technologies a significant, positive relationship presented (r=0.19, p≤0.05). This suggests that at risk gamblers, as defined by frequency of play, may be willing to use card based technologies on the basis of a general assessment of its usefulness. Clearly, more research in this area, using a specific research design, is desirable to explore this relationship further. Inducements Stakeholders that were supportive of the advantages of card based gambling systems believe that use of the system needs to be encouraged to maximise these advantages. One method to encourage use suggested by both Aristocrat (2003) and ClubsNSW (2003) in their respective submissions to the IPART inquiry is to provide incentives for gamblers to register to use card based play. One suggested inducement included raising the balance limit above $200 (Aristocrat 2003; ClubsNSW, 2003). Aristocrat noted that its rationale for this request is that the current limit is ‘simply inadequate’ (Aristocrat 2003 p.15). This view echoed that of one key participant, who noted that players need to be recruited into the program before the benefits can be realised, and that the balance limit was one method of achieving this. Aristocrat suggested other inducements such as doubling the jackpot limit to $20,000, enabling anonymous play, and doubling the bet limit to $20 to facilitate uptake amongst players (2003). Whilst these inducements may make participation in the scheme attractive,


44

it is more certain that they will increase turnover on the machines. In spite of this, increased turnover is a reported consequence of the introduction of card based play, even without inducements (Ben-Meir, c. 1999). In contrast, Blaszczynski et al. (2003) have suggested that a symptom of an effective card based gambling scheme will be a reduction in expenditure. The inducements proposed by Aristocrat (2003) seek, it seems, to ameliorate this effect. A potentially more constructive approach to increasing participation is to identify the features of card based play that facilitate uptake, and enhance or promote these while simultaneously addressing the barriers to use. Such an approach is more consistent with the ethos of responsible gambling. Conclusion The supply-side advantages of card based technologies are strong and well supported. For venues, these include a reduction in overheads through a decreased need for machine maintenance, and the ability to reduce wage costs associated with security and gaming floor staff. A major disadvantage is the cost of providing these technologies. Manufacturers benefit from an increase in sales, and governments are able to enhance the protection of taxation revenues through improved monitoring and compliance. As identified through the analysis of questionnaire data, consumers are not united in their assessment of the relative advantages or disadvantages of some features of the card based system. For example, respondents were divided in their perception of the degree to which card based systems impinged their notion of privacy, while some expressed a preference for cash over card based play. Additionally, the extent to which the features of card based play facilitate responsible gambling are unknown, and further empirical evidence is required before this can be conclusively proven or disproved. This finding is consistent with that of the IPART enquiry (2004) which, while recommending that the card be promoted to players, advocates further research into its ability to help players manage their spending (2004). In the interim, it would seem prudent to promote the features of the system that will increase awareness of player spending, such as the player activity statement, to users. Non users could be encouraged to try the system by highlighting its ease of use and relative convenience, while the security features and robustness of the technology should be presented simply and clearly. References AMC Convergent IT. (2003). Review Of Gambling Harm Minimisation Measures by the

Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal Of New South Wales: AMC Convergent IT.

Aristocrat Technologies. (2002). Cashless Your Choice. NewsReel, p. 42. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited. (2003). Review Of Gambling Harm

Minimisation Measures: Pre-Commitment Or Smart Cards That Enable Limits To Be Set. Sydney.

Australasian Gaming Machine Manufacturers Association. (circa 2002). Ticket Out/Ticket In (TOTI) - NSW FAQ's. Sydney.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002). Basic Community Profile, Sydney Cat. No. 2004.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Nisbet, S.

45

Australian Casino Association. (2003). Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales: Australian Casino Association.

Australian Institute for Gambling Research. (1999). Australian Gambling Comparative History and Analysis. Melbourne: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority.

Banks, G. (2002). The Productivity Commission's Gambling Inquiry: 3 Years On. Paper presented at 12th Annual Conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies, Melbourne, 21 November.

Ben-Meir, D. (c. 1999). Integrating Secure and Smart card Technologies into On-line Cashless Gaming Solutions for Clubs and Casinos. Retrieved 09 Jul, 2003, from www.securitymagnetics.com.au

Berger, D., & Hauk, I. (2002). Cashless Gaming. Retrieved 18 July, 2003, from www.easg.org/Warsaw/Presentations/dominik_berger_cashless_gaming.htm

BetSafe. (2003). Betsafe Submission To Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal Review Into Gambling Harm Minimisation Measures.

Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., & Walker, M. (2003). Harm Minimization in Relation to Gambling on Electronic Gaming Machines. Sydney: Gambling Research Institute, University of Sydney.

Brewer, K. P., & Cummings, L. E. (1995). Gaming language: Getting a handle on slots. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 74.

Briney, A. (2002). A smart card for everyone? Retrieved 15 March, 2002, from infosecuritymag.techtarget.com/2002/mar/cover.shtml

Casey, A. (2003, 25 July). High tech pokies put thousands of jobs at risk in casinos and pubs. Retrieved 15 August, 2003, from www.lhmu.org.au/lhmu/news /1059085874_16739.html

ClubsNSW. (2003). Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales: ClubsNSW.

Council of Social Service of New South Wales. (2003). Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal: Review into gambling harm minimisation measures. Surry Hills: NCOSS.

Davis, D. (2003). Fraud and the case for smart cards. Card Technology, 8(11), 34-42. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of

Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339. Dickerson, M. (2003). Exploring The Limits Of 'Responsible Gambling': Harm

Minimisation Or Consumer Protection? Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies, 15, 29-44.

Drehmann, M., Goodhart, C., & Krueger, M. (2002). The challenges facing currency usage: will the traditional transaction medium be able to resist competition from the new technologies? Economic Policy, 17(34), 193-228.

eBet Limited. (2001). Thumbs Up for eBet Cashless Gaming System. Retrieved 7 July, 2003, from www.ebetonline.com/articles/press/index_releases.html

eBet Limited. (2003a, 10 February 2003). More high profile gaming venues commit to eBet's card-based ("cashless") gaming. Retrieved 7 July, 2003, from www.ebetonline.com/articles/press/index_releases.html

eBet Limited. (2003b). More High Profile Gaming Venues Commit to eBet's Card-based ("Cashless) Gaming, ASX Media Release.

Gambling Impact Society (NSW). (2003). IPART review of harm minimisation measures. Nowra: Gambling Impact Society.

Gilly, M. C., & Zeithhaml, V. A. (1985). The elderly consumer and adoption of technologies. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 353.

Glader, P. (2003). Takeoffs & Landings. Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2003 p. W.6.


46

Henderson, P. (2003). Update 3-IGT profit rises as cashless slots pay off. Retrieved 18 July, 2003, from reuters..../prtinerFriendlyPopup jhtml?type=compnay ResultsNews&storyID=311196

Hing, N., & Breen, H. (1999). A profile of Sydney club members: Implications for strategic management in a competitive environment. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 6(1), 25-44.

Hing, N., Breen, H., & Weeks, P. (2002). Club Management in Australia: Administration, Operations and Gaming. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.

Hoenig, T. M. (1995). The evolution of the payments system: A U.S. perspective. Economic Review - Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 80(3), 5.

Holmes, J. (2003). George's Gold. On Four Corners [video]: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. (2003). Review into Gambling Harm Minimisation Measures, Issues Paper. Sydney.

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales [IPART]. (2003). Review into Gambling Harm Minimisation Measures, Issues Paper. Sydney.

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales [IPART]. (2004). Gambling: Promoting a Culture of Responsibility. Sydney.

Liquor Administration Board of NSW. (2003). Submission to the independent pricing and regulatory tribunal of NSW. Sydney.

NSW Department of Gaming and Racing. (2000). New South Wales Gaming Analysis. Sydney: NSW Government.

Palmeri, C. (2003). Hit the jackpot? You won't need a bucket. Business Week, Mar 31, 2003 p. 93.

Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia's Gambling Industries: Final Report (No. b). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Truman, G. E., Sandoe, K., & Rifkin, T. (2003). An empirical study of smart card

technology. Information & Management, 40(6), 591. Wall Street Journal. (2003a). No quarter given. The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2003 p. 6. Wall Street Journal. (2003b). Takeoffs & Landings: No Quarter Given. The Wall Street

Journal, May 9, 2003 p. 6.


IMPACT OF A COUNSELLING SESSION ON AT-RISK CASINO

PATRONS : A PILOT STUDY

Annamaria Sani1, Tazio Carlevaro1 and Robert Ladouceur2

1Casino Kursaal of Locarno, Locarno, Switzerland 2Université Laval, Canada Abstract: Responsible gambling refers to policies and practices designed to prevent and reduce potential harms associated with gambling in order to decrease the incidence of problem gambling. In Switzerland, casinos must adopt social measures to help problem gamblers. Few studies have yet identified the efficacy of these measures. This paper presents preliminary data on the impact of a counselling session designed to provide feedback to casino patrons who have been identified by the casino staff as problem gamblers. Gamblers were randomly assigned to either an experimental (feedback) or control group. Participants in the experimental group were given information on the amount of time played, money spent, and number of visits, whereas participants in the control group did not receive any information. Results suggest that providing feedback produced positive outcomes on all dependent variables. The implications of these results are discussed in the context of responsible gaming and suggestions to improve self exclusion programs are provided. Key words: gambling counselling, Switzerland, self exclusion Introduction In April 2000, the new Federal Law on Games of Chance and Casinos (1998) came into effect in Switzerland. Swiss casinos are required to elaborate measures by which they intend to prevent “socially harmful” consequences of excessive gambling. Each casino is required to apply some measures such as providing information on the risks of gambling, help for patrons, training casino staff to identify problem gamblers, and provision of data to study the effectiveness of these methods. This study provides preliminary data on the impact of a counselling session on at-risk casino gamblers. No studies have yet evaluated the efficacy of different measures used by casinos to help problem gamblers. Self exclusion procedures have only recently begun to be investigated by scientists. The first study was conducted by Ladouceur, Jacques, Giroux, Ferland, and Leblond (2000) in Canada and the second in Australia by O’Neil et al. (2003). Ladouceur et al.’s study described the characteristics of individuals who decided to bar themselves from a Canadian casino. The self-exclusion program was carried out under the direction of the casino’s security department and advertised through a pamphlet available in different areas of the casino. Individuals who decided to exclude themselves from the casino were approached by a security agent who led them to a private office on the premises. Over 200 gamblers completed and signed a consent form, specifying the length of the desired self-exclusion period (minimum 6 months, maximum 5 years). The results indicate that 62% of the participants were men (mean age of 41 years), and 95 % were probable pathological gamblers (score of 5 or more on the SOGS). Almost every participant (97 %) reported that

Counselling Session for Swiss Casino Patrons

48

they would succeed in staying away from casinos during the self-exclusion period. However, 36 % reported that they went back to the casino (median breaches = 6 times) during this period. In addition, during their self-exclusion period, 50 % gambled on other games such as video-poker. But, the most significant finding of this study was that 30% reported that they succeeded in completely avoiding all gambling activities during their self-exclusion period. O’Neil and his colleagues (2003) conducted a large study in Victoria, Australia evaluating the procedures and outcomes of different self-exclusion programs implemented in various venues (pubs, clubs and casinos). They first made an exhaustive review of the related literature on helping problem gamblers, including self-exclusion procedures, and a description of the different programs used across the country. The empirical section includes observations from more than 4 000 interviews and the results of questionnaires completed by different samples, varying from self-excluded gamblers, non-excluded gamblers, workers in different gambling venues and various stakeholders. Although this study provides a lot of interesting information, two major problems should be pointed out. Firstly, there are no specific outcome measures on the efficacy of self-exclusion as a method to reduce gambling related problems. Secondly, on a methodological basis, the authors did not provide enough information about the procedure used to collect data. However, bearing these limitations in mind, their conclusions are quite negative concerning the self-exclusion procedure. Their premise is that if the industry or the government wants to implement an effective self-exclusion program, there is a need to prevent all self-excluded patrons from entering the gambling venue from which he or she has excluded him or herself. Results showed that, sooner or later, a significant number of gamblers will re-enter the venue, and more importantly, without being detected. Their conclusion is that “Most venues surveyed or directly interviewed considered that the self-exclusion program had had little or no effect on problem gambling overall” (p.12). Empirical evidence shows that self-exclusion works for some people but there is a need to know more precisely the proportion who benefit from this procedure and what interventions could be added in this procedure to increase its efficacy. The counselling session, as provided in the Locarno’s casino in Switzerland, focused on informing patrons about the risk of problem gambling and the help available to them both within and outside the casino. This information is provided before self-exclusion takes place. A patron will first be identified as a risk gambler by the staff using different criteria, such as gambling more frequently, for longer period, more money than usual, playing simultaneously many machines, mentioning that gambling is not fun anymore, often withdrawing money from cashier, complaining that the machines are not paying as they used to, etc. The staff will then send a report to the supervisor and to the psychologist in charge of the responsible gambling program. The report is analysed in order to determine whether the patron is to undergo a monitoring period, which could last several months. During this period, the frequency and duration of the gambling, the amount of money spent, and other gambling behaviours are monitored. If the monitoring confirms the presence of gambling problems, the patron is invited to attend a counselling session with a psychologist. The interview may lead to another monitoring period, a self imposed ban, a casino-imposed ban or no further action. At the end of the second monitoring period, the patron is again invited to attend a counselling session. If the patrons showed a controlled gambling “attitude”, the file is closed and the staff member is then informed about the outcome. The present research evaluates the impact of a counselling session for at-risk casinos patrons, before an exclusion procedure is implemented.

Sani, A., Carlevaro, T. & Ladouceur, R.

49

Method Participants The research was conducted in the Casino of Locarno, which is a small venue, located in South Switzerland, featuring 195 slot machines (about 60 % reel machines and 40 % video poker) and one table game called “la boule”. Twelve casino patrons showing signs of problem gambling were included (7 males and 5 females, 42 % are Swiss citizens and 33 % Italians). The mean age is 50 years. Sixty percent are married and 75 % have children. Eighty-five percent have a college degree, 75 % are employed full-time and their average monthly income is 4000 Euro. All participants obtained a score of 5 or more on the DSM-IV criteria for pathological gamblers. Design Twelve gamblers were randomly assigned to an experimental group (N=6) or to a control group (N=6). Experimental group : The counselling session is used as a preventive measure in order to increase the gamblers’ awareness of their gambling behaviour. It involves the following components: (1) Collecting socio demographic data : (2) Identifying gambling habits : (3) Evaluating the presence of pathological gambling according to DSM-IV criteria; (4) Providing information regarding what pathological gambling is and the negative consequences . Control Group : Participants of this group did not receive the counselling session, nor feedback on their gambling habits. Dependent variables The monitoring of gambling behaviours begins when the participant enters the casino. The receptionist informs the supervisor, opens the personal file of the participant, and monitors the following gambling variables through closed circuit TV: (1) time spent gambling; (2) the number of visits; (3) total money gambled; and (4) total money lost. Results and Discussion Results show that the counselling session reduced the monthly average time spent gambling, number of visits to the casino, amount of money gambled, and the money lost (see Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4). Although these differences were not statistically significant between groups, the trend is in the expected direction.


50

Figure 1. Mean Time spent Gambling per session

61,9

29,5

61,7

45,5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tme

Spen

t Gam

blin

g

Counselling No counselling

Before

After

Figure 2 . Number of Visits to the Casino

15,5

8,2

16,2

13,2

02468

1012141618

Num

ber o

f vis

its


BeforeAfter

Sani, A., Carlevaro, T. & Ladouceur, R.

51

Figure 3 . Amount of Money Gambled per Session

23300 10060

27800 26360

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Amou

nt o

f Mon

ey

Gam

bled

(Eur

o)


BeforeAfter

Figure 4. Amount of Money Lost per Session

39601345

50414351

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Mon

ey L

ost (

Eur

o)


BeforeAfter

The preliminary data of this study indicate that a counselling session may decrease the time and money spent gambling. Unlike the current casino-operated procedure that relies on external barriers and industry policing efforts, the use of a trained educator who provides feedback in a supportive environment appears to be a promising component to be included in Casino Responsible Gambling practices. The counsellor’s primary function is to provide feed-back and support to the participant. The patrons are invited to establish their goals in term of money and time spent gambling. The counsellor informs the patron about the self-exclusion program, reviews the at-risk situation for problem gambling and discusses the treatments and services available. Throughout the process, the counsellor provides the participant with intensive case-management and monitoring of his gambling habits. As previously pointed out by Ladouceur et al. (2000) and O’Neil et al. (2003), one major problem in different exclusion programs is the high number of gamblers who return to gamble (breacher) during their exclusion period. This problem may be significantly


52

reduced by offering counselling sessions to these gamblers, in order to increase their awareness of their gambling habits. This feedback may be a pivotal component to enhance the efficacy of various exclusion procedures. This study provides some indications about interesting avenues to pursue in order to increase the efficacy of self-exclusion programs. Some limitations must be pointed out. First, since it was designed as a preliminary study, the sample size is small and does not permit statistical analyses. Secondly, 6 and 12 month follow-ups must be conducted in order to assess the maintenance of this new gambling pattern. Finally, future research should aim to identify the characteristics of the gamblers who are most likely to benefit from such a procedure. References Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A Science-Based Framework for

Responsible Gambling: The Reno Model. Journal of Gambling Study, 20, 301-317 Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Giroux, I., Ferland, F. & Leblond, J. (2000). Analysis of a

casino’s self-exclusion program. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 453-460. O’Neil, M., Whetton, S., Dolman, B., Herbert, M., Giannopolous, V., O’Neil, D., &

Wordley, J. (2003). Part A – Evaluation of self-exclusion programs in Victoria and Part B – Summary of self-exclusion programs in Australian States and Territories. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.


GIVING THE GAMBLERS A VOICE: THE PERCEIVED EFFICACY

OF RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING PRACTICES IN NSW CLUBS

Nerilee Hing Associate Professor, Centre for Gambling Education and Research Southern Cross University PO Box 157 Lismore NSW Australia Ph: (02) 66 203 928 Email: [email protected] Abstract: This paper analyses qualitative data gathered from 339 patrons of ten NSW clubs via a survey assessing their perceived efficacy of venue-based responsible gambling measures. Analysis of over 25,000 words of ‘additional comments’ from these patrons yielded 541 comments, subsequently grouped into 17 themes and 56 sub-themes. Each is summarised, drawing heavily on the respondents’ verbatim comments to convey the sentiments and emotions expressed. As such, this paper gives a voice to one important, but often overlooked, stakeholder group in the gambling debate – the gamblers themselves. Most respondents were critical of governments and gambling venues in their focus on gambling, of some ineffective responsible gambling measures, of venue enticements to gamble, and of many aspects of poker machine design. While considerable concern about problem gambling was expressed, a sizeable minority felt that responsible gambling starts with the individual. However, most respondents considered that much more could be done by gambling venues and governments to encourage responsible gambling. Key words: responsible gaming, gaming venues, problem gambling Introduction The Gambling Legislation Amendment (Responsible Gambling) Act 1999 NSW established in a legislative framework certain obligations of gambling operators in New South Wales (NSW) Australia in responsible management of gambling. Specific requirements for registered clubs were detailed in the Registered Clubs Amendment (Responsible Gambling) Act 2000 NSW and associated Regulations and operationalised principally through the ClubSafe program developed by the NSW club industry association, Clubs NSW. Following enactment of this legislation and the implementation of ClubSafe, a research project was funded by the NSW Casino Community Benefit Fund to assess club members’ awareness, perceived adequacy and perceived effectiveness of responsible gambling strategies in Sydney clubs (Hing, 2003). While the quantitative findings of this study have been published previously (Hing, 2004), its qualitative findings have not, except to add some detail and depth to the quantitative results reported. Yet, these qualitative data tell a story on their own and shed particular light on whether club patrons consider that the gambling environment in clubs does, in fact, minimise harm and meet community expectations, as the ClubSafe program explicitly aims to do (Clubs NSW, 2000). What emerges from this analysis is that the club patrons surveyed have considerable interest in and concern about problem gambling and responsible gambling. Consistent with public health models that recognise that gambling problems ‘emanate from a multiplicity

Perceived Efficacy of Responsible Gambling Practices

54

of environmental, social and psychological factors’ (e.g. Productivity Commission, 1999), they were able to identify numerous contributors to gambling problems and suggestions for change. From a broader perspective, it is apparent that, for these people, problem gambling is a social issue in Australia that is yet to be resolved, and that its resolution requires substantive action, particularly from gambling venues, governments and poker machine designers. Methodology This paper discusses qualitative responses given as additional comments on an otherwise quantitative survey administered to patrons of ten registered clubs in Sydney NSW Australia. The methodology, characteristics of respondents and quantitative results for this study have been explained in detail elsewhere (Hing, 2003, 2004), so only an overview is provided here. Two surveys were conducted. The sample for the first, a mail survey, comprised the top, middle and bottom 500 people (according to gambling expenditure in the previous 12 months) on the player tracking system of each of four clubs, to include people of varying levels of gambling involvement. The second survey, conducted on-site in another six clubs, used convenience sampling as patrons entered the club. All participating clubs had gaming machines, TAB and keno facilities. The sample included clubs of different types (RSL, workers, leagues, community), with differing membership bases and located in suburbs with varying socio-economic profiles. Thus, while this sample was not representative of the population of NSW clubs, the results should not be overly biased towards clubs with particular characteristics. In reality, the club sample selected was also determined by the willingness of the clubs to participate. The researchers commenced negotiations in August/September 2002, by contacting clubs they had previously engaged in research and those whose managers or gaming managers they knew personally. By October 2002, the management and boards of ten clubs had agreed to participate. However, a change in the data collection protocol became necessary when six of these clubs subsequently declined to participate in the mail out, but allowed on-site surveying instead. Both surveys were completed by mid-2003. Three-quarters of a page of lined space was left on the questionnaire’s back page inviting respondents to ‘please use this space if you wish to make any additional comments about responsible gambling’. Of the 706 respondents to the mail survey, 292 people (41.4% of respondents) provided comments, as did 47 (19.0%) of respondents to the on-site surveys. This totalled 339 respondents or 35.5% of the 954 respondents overall. To analyse these data, all comments were entered into a word processing program and totalled over 25,000 words. The researcher then read through all comments and identified themes within which they could be coded. The data were then coded into these themes by grouping relevant comments under appropriate headings. Sub-themes within these categories were then identified. Separating comments that covered multiple themes and sub-themes resulted in 541 comments in total, covering 17 themes and 56 sub-themes. Table 1 identifies the themes, sub-themes and number of related comments that emerged. What is immediately apparent is the large diversity of themes and sub-themes, reflecting the complexity and controversy surrounding the issue of responsible gambling. Each of these themes and sub-themes is summarised below, drawing heavily on the respondents’ own comments to convey the sentiments and emotions expressed.

Hing, N.

55

Table 1: Themes, Sub-Themes and Number of Related Comments

Themes Sub-Themes No. of Comments

Sub-Total (%)

Concern For Problem Gambling and Those Affected

General concerns about problem gambling Problem gambling as an addiction Sympathy for problem gamblers Concern for problem gambling’s impact on others

10 14 5 6

35 (6.5%)

Personal Experiences Of Gambling Problems

Own experiences with problem gambling Others’ experiences with problem gambling

13 11 24

(4.4%) Individual Responsibility For Problem Gambling

Controlling gambling is individual responsibility Personal strategies to control gambling

42 27 69

(12.8%)

Individual Motivations For Gambling

Fun and entertainment Relaxation Relieves loneliness or boredom Social interaction

17 8 5 3

33 (6.1%)

Government Priorities In Gambling

Criticism of revenue raising priority Criticism of the accessibility of gambling General irresponsibility

12 4 6

22 (4.1%)

Gaming Venue Priorities In Gambling

Criticisms of hotels Criticisms of clubs Criticisms of hotels and clubs Support for responsible gambling initiatives

14 8 4 13 39

(7.2%) Accessibility To Machines

Reduce poker machine numbers Shorter opening hours

15 18

33 (6.1%)

Responsible Gambling Signage And Information

Consider signage effective Consider signage ineffective Suggested improvements to signage

9 30 13

52 (9.6%)

Physical Environment In Gambling Areas

Improve visibility of clocks Improve lighting, particularly natural lighting Put gambling areas out of view Provide alternatives to gambling Support for non-gambling facilities provided Seating design Ban smoking as a responsible gambling measure

6 7 8 12 4 1 4

42 (7.8%)

Access To Cash

Remove ATMs and EFTPOS from venues ATMs and EFTPOS too close to gambling areas Limit ATM withdrawals Criticisms of current cheque cashing

22 5 11 7 4 49

(9.1%)


56

policies Advocate cash payouts be reduced

Payouts and Change Procedures

Delays in getting change Delays in getting machine payouts

5 19

24 (4.4%)

Gambling and Alcohol Consumption

Contribution of alcohol to excessive gambling

5 5 (0.9%)

Self-Exclusion Criticism of current self-exclusion procedures

4 4 (0.7%)

Gaming Venue Promotions

Promotions lead to longer gambling sessions Criticism of promotions as inducements to gamble

9 9

18 (3.3%)

Gambling Venue Staff

Increased intervention by gambling venue staff Staff training in responsible gambling

11 2 13

(2.4%)

Poker Machine Design

Criticisms on the fast rate of play Better information on the odds of winning Criticism of note acceptors Reduce the maximum bet Reduce the number of betting lines Advocate time limits on machines Criticisms of large (linked) jackpots Criticisms of the win rate on machines Advocacy of cashless gaming Need for warnings and information on machines Reduce music and noise of machines

5 11 6 9 4 7 6 16 1 7 2

74 (13.7%)

Support for Counselling

Role of counselling in helping gambling problems

5 5 (0.9%)

Total No. Of Comments

541 100%

General Concern for Problem Gambling Themes 1 and 2 reflected general concern for problem gambling, as discussed below. Theme 1: Concern for Problem Gambling and Those Affected As shown in Table 1, 35 comments reflected concern for problem gamblers and those affected. Ten reflected general concerns about problem gambling in the community and amongst club patrons, with some commenting on its pervasiveness, that ‘it is…easy to see the problem gambler and there are many of them’, that ‘the incidence of dangerously irresponsible gambling is…far greater than the general population realise and the real costs far higher’, that ‘gambling is a very serious problem today’ and that ‘poker machines are a disease worse than smoking or drinking’. Fourteen people, viewing problem gambling as an addiction, felt that responsible gambling measures would have marginal effect because ‘gambling addictions, like alcohol or drug

Hing, N.

57

addictions, are personal’. As one expressed, ‘it is a terrible addiction. It’s everywhere. There is NO responsible gambling for an addict’, and another that ‘I really don’t see how you can educate impulsive, addicted gamblers to practice responsible gambling’. Another took a more personal perspective, that ‘I come from a gambling background. It is addictive so choice has to come from the gambler’. Five people sympathised with problem gamblers, stating ‘I feel sorry for anybody who does have a gambling problem…surely they need help’ and ‘it’s a very sad thing’. Six respondents expressed concern about the impacts of gambling problems on others, because ‘it is tearing some families apart’, ‘it destroys families, not just one person’, ‘children don’t deserve this’, and it has ‘huge social impacts’. Theme 2: Personal Experiences of Gambling Problems Twenty-four comments related to personal experiences of gambling problems, grouped into two sub-themes - respondents’ own experiences and those of significant others. Thirteen people related personal experiences of gambling problems, citing impacts such as stealing money (‘twice in the last two years’); gambling away their ‘nest egg’; incurring debt; feeling guilt and self-disappointment (‘I feel stupid. I am a responsible, sensible person that lost their mind on the poker machines. One day I will wake up to myself’); low self-esteem (‘I’ve let myself down; worse I’ve let my wife and children down’); depression (‘I’m a depressed and disappointed person’); illness (‘I got so ill one night I thought my heart was going to stop’); shortage of money for food; lying to family and friends (‘if my children ask I will have to say I have invested’); disruption to employment and family life, and threats to family relationships (‘I nearly lost my job and my family’). Others mentioned triggers for their excessive gambling. These included loss of a loved one, loneliness, drinking alcohol and meeting up with friends who gamble. While some blamed lack of self-control, others blamed poker machine promotions, the random nature of machines, major jackpots, and easy access to savings. Three people asked for help. One asked ‘tell me a better way to stay in touch with people. Better still help me to stop gambling’. Another pleaded to ‘please do something - please, please, please. At the moment I believe gambling stakeholders - government, clubs, casino - only pay lip service. They earn profit from our addiction’. Another simply asked ‘for someone to help me not gamble’. Eleven other people related others’ experiences with gambling problems. These included family members, with one relating that ‘my uncle used a double mortgage on his house, lost his marriage by stealing and gambling away my aunt’s money, became desperate and manipulative and lost the support of all the family’. Another said that her ex-husband’s gambling ‘caused the marriage break up, it cost me $30,000 to pay my friends back’, and another that a parent’s gambling ‘caused years of friction and problems for our family’. Others related tales of gambling problems amongst friends, such as one ‘who gambles away her pay, is always borrowing money from family and friends, makes all the excuses under the sun’. Others had observed disturbing incidences amongst club patrons, such as one ‘who attends Gamblers Anonymous and then goes to the club straight after it’s finished’, and another who ‘once saw a man playing the pokies and his five children and wife were behind a glass wall and looking at their father crying…that upset me a lot’. One respondent was a police officer who had ‘seen and been to a great deal of domestics where the problem is gambling-related’. Another explained that, ‘as a Lifeline counsellor in 1981,


58

I received hardly any calls about gambling problems. By…2000, such calls represented 80%’. The Individual’s Role in Dealing with Problem Gambling Two themes raised (Themes 3 and 4) relate to the role of individuals in ensuring they gamble responsibly. That is, gamblers themselves were seen as an important stakeholder in minimising and dealing with gambling problems. Theme 3: Individual Responsibility for Problem Gambling Sixty-nine comments related to personal responsibility for problem gambling. Forty-two respondents felt that responsible gambling stemmed from the individual, their own attitude, decisions and self-control. Some comments were that ‘you do know what you are doing and should accept your own problem’, ‘people make their own decisions and are responsible for what they choose’, ‘we all need to be more aware of OUR responsibilities in life and stop blaming others for our problems’, and ‘gambling is an individual concern; everyone should take responsibility for their own actions’. Twelve of these people explicitly stated it should not be an industry or government responsibility, stating ‘responsible gambling is the responsibility of the patron NOT the club’, ‘clubs, pubs and other establishments should not be expected to babysit for adults’, and ‘governments should not have to legislate laws for each and every individual’. One respondent was quite resentful, stating ‘I am sick and tired of…people who are irresponsible and do stupid acts…. It is about time people took responsibility for their own actions and stopped blaming others for their own stupidity and lack of restraint or personal control. We waste too much time and money on these fools’. Twenty-seven comments related to personal strategies to control gambling. Suggestions, usually drawn from personal experience, included only betting what you can afford to lose; taking limited cash to the venue; quitting after winning a certain amount; setting time limits; setting loss limits; playing only low denomination machines; leaving bank cards at home; instructing the doorman not to let them in again that day; setting a limit on bets per spin; going to the venue infrequently or only at set intervals (e.g. ‘once a fortnight’); only going when they have spare money; only playing with winnings; and buying the week’s groceries and paying all bills before gambling. As well as these ‘practical’ strategies, others noted self- discipline ‘as the only answer’; thinking of what else the money could buy (‘I always ask myself what could you buy with this money?’); thinking of gambling as ‘entertainment …and not for the purpose of winning money’; and expecting to lose and seeing winning as a bonus. Theme 4: Individual Motivations for Gambling Thirty-three respondents commented on individual motivations for gambling and links with problem and responsible gambling. Of these, 17 noted the fun and entertainment aspects of gambling, with one commenting ‘I believe responsible gambling mostly comes from being entertained with respect to losing money. Trying to win or break even presents problems’. Eight people explained they gambled for relaxation, such as one who stated ‘I do see many people around who are serious about their gambling, just as I see people like myself - having a relaxed time - not expecting to become rich - whiling away a few hours’. Five noted that many people gamble for escape and to relieve loneliness and boredom and

Hing, N.

59

that ‘playing the pokies enables people who are lonely to go somewhere social - without necessarily being social…it is also an opportunity to have some time out from their daily responsibilities’. A further three respondents said they enjoyed the social interaction from gambling – that ‘I go to the club for company. There is always someone to talk to. The gambling is secondary’ and that ‘gambling can be a way of getting people to become friends. And then they won’t play the machines. People need things to enjoy and meet others; this is why people play poker machines’. The Government’s Role in Dealing with Problem Gambling A second stakeholder identified as having a role in problem gambling was the government, as reflected in Theme 5. Theme 5: Government Priorities in Gambling Twenty-two respondents were highly critical of government policy on gambling, with 12 particularly criticising its reliance on gambling taxes, which prioritised revenue raising over social concerns. One noted ‘only a government can stop this. Ours has vested interest in allowing the problem to continue and indeed grow’ and another that ‘I sincerely feel that the government is doing absolutely nothing about the problem. They rely heavily on the taxes derived’. More bluntly, others commented that ‘state governments are hooked on gambling for revenue ‘ and ‘the government sux (sic). It only wants taxes’. Four respondents commented that this emphasis on revenue-raising has facilitated gambling’s expansion and accessibility, and were critical of the high community exposure to gambling. As one noted, ‘the social problems that gambling creates should not have to be addressed after the damage has been done. It should be done before it happens. This can only happen if governments limit the access to gambling, but they won’t do this because it will cost huge amounts of money’. Others considered the government as largely responsible for exacerbating problem gambling and for doing too little to address it via counselling services and community education. As one explained, ‘gambling…is more accessible than ever before. …governments willingly pursue the revenue that gambling creates…then put back a tiny percentage in counselling and advertising’. Six respondents commented on the government’s general irresponsibility, that ‘the government, like it always does with mismanagement, just doesn’t seem to know it is the baseline cause’ and ‘there is no such thing as responsible gambling; there should be a responsible government’. Gaming Venues’ Role in Dealing with Problem Gambling Ten themes related to gaming venues as stakeholders in problem gambling. Two of these (Themes 6 and 7) conveyed general concerns about gaming venue priorities and the easy access they provide to gambling, while the remainder (Themes 8-15) related to specific practices deterring or promoting responsible gambling.


60

Theme 6: Gaming Venue Priorities in Gambling Thirty-nine comments and four sub-themes emerged within the broad theme of gaming venue priorities. Of these, 14 respondents criticised hotels (that ‘problems have escalated immensely since poker machines have been introduced into hotels’; that ‘it lines the publican’s pocket’ while ‘at least the clubs have some redeeming features by way of donations to various good causes, together with subsidised facilities’); a general lack of control mechanisms in hotels (‘there are no controls at all. At least at my club I can ask the staff to restrict my gambling or even instruct the doorman not to let me back in if I leave’); significant inducements to gamble (‘the hotel areas are the ones that need to be looked at as you will receive free drinks and credits and they are open 24 hours’); and that poker machines had reduced the amenity and social interaction in pubs (‘I used to enjoy a drink and a game of pool at my local hotel but I resent being confronted with poker machines’). Eight comments criticised clubs. These included that clubs are interested only in profits (‘I don’t think any club cares - they are only interested in making money’); profits are spent largely on club expansion (‘new buildings built, little for the club member [sucker]’); they unduly encourage gambling (‘if the clubs were fair dinkum…they would not increase the size of the gambling machines, would not…increase bonus promotions…would provide other type of entertainment…would not use machines as revenue raising tool’); have little concern for their patrons’ well-being (‘one would be very naive to think that a club has a personal interest in limiting one’s losses’); and they have only introduced responsible gambling measures because ‘it has been made compulsory’. A further four respondents had similar criticisms for both clubs and hotels, that they are more interested in expansion than patrons’ wellbeing. As one said, ‘I think clubs and pubs are only interested in receiving profit for expansion [rather] than worried about the gambling members’. However, 13 positive comments were made about clubs, that respondents were generally pleased they have implemented responsible gambling practices, that ‘my club does its best to deter compulsive gambling’ and ‘it’s great that clubs are taking steps to promote responsible gambling’. Theme 7: Accessibility to Poker Machines Thirty-three comments related to poker machine accessibility in venues. Of these, ten advocated ‘dramatically’ reduced machine numbers such that ‘all clubs should be made to downsize the number of poker machines’, while five wanted them ‘banned altogether’ (‘yuk! Get rid of it all). A further 18 advocated shorter opening hours. Some favoured shutting down venues ‘for a few hours each day’ or their gambling facilities at certain intervals to ‘give a chance to the average gambler to gather their thoughts and bearings and perhaps think twice about becoming problem gamblers. Let’s face it, the more hours the clubs are open, the more chances there are of gambling’. Others saw shorter opening hours as a way to reduce gambling expenditure and therefore financial problems (‘people I have spoken to say they spent a lot less when the club closed at or before midnight’ and ‘nobody can afford to gamble, especially when the opportunity is given 24 hours a day’). It would also encourage gamblers to spend more time on other responsibilities, to ‘give patrons time to rest, shop, deal with home matters and family, see to children at home and time to rest and sort out and think about what they are doing and how much they spend…father figures, husbands, also would…take time out on home and family matters’.

Hing, N.

61

Theme 8: Responsible Gambling Signage and Information Responsible gambling signage and information in venues attracted 52 comments, with three sub-themes emerging. Nine praised the signage, as ‘a significant impact on the way people perceive gambling’, while one explained that ‘recently, I read a pamphlet at my club which explained how poker machines worked - it was the most effective literature I have read in terms of promoting responsible gambling’. However, 30 respondents felt the signage and information were ineffective, largely because ‘people take absolutely no notice’, especially problem gamblers who ‘don’t want to recognise they have a problem’. Others criticised the signs for being ‘non-confrontational and easily ignored’ and because they ‘become so familiar they have no effect. You can convince yourself they don’t apply to you’. Others saw problem gambling as an addiction, such that ‘notices will have little or no effect’. Thirteen respondents offered specific ways by which signage could be improved – placing large warning signs on each machine, responsible gambling information accompanying membership renewals, free responsible gambling seminars in clubs, case studies of problem gambling displayed in venues and their newsletters, multi-lingual signs, more prominent and attention-grabbing signs, and having brochures displayed instead of patrons having to request them. Some advocated more signage, while others advocated fewer but more effective signs that, for example, warn of ‘the effects it has on a lot of families’, ‘how it can ruin a person’, and that ‘10 minutes on a pokie machine could equal an 8 hour working day’. Others were critical that any impact of signs was overshadowed in the gaming environment, as ‘they contrast poorly against poker machines that are illuminated by bright flashing lights! The jackpot signs on poker machines are large and enticing’. Theme 9: The Physical Environment in Gambling Areas Forty-two comments related to the physical environment in gambling areas. Six respondents wanted more visible clocks, with one noting ‘the X Club seems to hide its clocks…where no one playing can see them’. Most of these six respondents favoured clocks on every machine, or having the machine screen display the time at regular intervals to ‘help remind one how late it is’. One considered that, ‘like PA systems, there should be a recorded message at intervals to alarm players of the time’. Seven respondents wanted brighter lighting in gambling areas. While some seemed motivated for comfort and aesthetic reasons (‘poker machine areas are usually so poorly lit and/or flashing with lights and noise, so smoke- filled and smelly, filled with haunted looking people’), two specifically noted windows help people remain aware of the passage of time, noting that ‘large clubs have become windowless, timeless gambling dens’ and that ‘a lot of clubs I go to don’t have windows, so you don’t know if it’s dark or light outside so you don’t know how long you’ve been playing’. Eight respondents wanted better segregation of gambling areas, putting gaming machines ‘out of sight, so out of mind’ so they are not as visible and enticing ‘which immediately puts people at ease and in the mood to gamble’. One commented that ‘children shouldn’t be behind glass and see their family gambling’. Others seemed to want better segregation so they could escape the sights and sounds of poker machines, with one pleading to ‘remove poker machines from view…so as you can enjoy a bit of peace and quiet without


62

listening to them. Musicals and loony tunes all the time’. Another complained that ‘it sucks that there’s not any place in the club where you can sit and relax and have a beer without pokies in your face’. Twelve comments favoured a broader range of facilities and services in clubs as ‘distractions to draw your attention away from the machines’, with many criticising clubs for putting ‘the main emphasis’ on gambling and for being little more than ‘gambling dens’ and ‘glorified casinos’. As one explained, ‘the very fact that poker machines are the only entertainment (means) people play them after dinner, etc, and I think this is why…there are such a lot of people gambling; they are sucked in’. Additional facilities advocated included ‘lounge facilities’, ‘recreation such as pool, gym, etc’, ‘areas to sit and watch sport’, ‘games room for parents and children’, and ‘bistros separate from gambling rooms’. These may overcome the problem of ‘nothing else to do here when I’m by myself’ and help to keep ‘people in a group entertained (so) their gambling time would be less’. In contrast, four people praised clubs for their range of facilities and services, such that ‘anyone can enjoy their club and never gamble’. One respondent thought that armchair-style chairs at machines encouraged people to stay, while four advocated banning smoking as a responsible gambling measure, observing that ‘a very large percentage of gamblers are smokers’ and that a ban ‘would probably go a long way in deterring people from just staying on and losing everything’. Theme 10: Access to Cash Forty-nine comments related to access to cash for gambling. Of these, 38 related to ATMs and EFTPOS. Twenty-two of these advocated removing ATMs and EFTPOS from gambling venues to ‘alleviate constant withdrawals when money is gone’, ‘so that what money you take with you is all you can lose’. Alternatively, ‘to make members leave the club and go to the nearest bank ATMs might help to change members’ minds’. Five others felt ATMs were too close to gambling areas. As one explained, ‘ATMs are not in the gambling area but I can reserve a machine for 3 minutes and go to the ATMs, withdraw cash and be back in 2 minutes’, and another that ‘the ATM is in the foyer just 10 metres from the gambling area. I see many people using the machine and going back into the gambling area’. Eleven comments suggested limiting ATM usage in various ways, including limiting withdrawal amounts (‘e.g. $200/ day/ account’); lowering the minimum withdrawal amount (‘$10-$20 not $40-$50, i.e. they are forced to draw too much’); limiting the number of daily withdrawals (‘a family member…was able to draw from the ATM seven times in one gambling session. I would like to see a limit on how frequently an ATM can be used’); and better controls so daily withdrawal limits could not be exceeded (‘the bank…allows the customer to go over their limit with the use of other institutions’ ATMs’). Seven comments were critical of cheque-cashing policies in clubs, with most wanting an outright ban as ‘club policy on cashing cheques…could lead to over gambling’. One respondent also pointed out that, unlike banks, her club does not require two signatures to cash cheques from joint accounts. She explained ‘my husband…sneaks to the club and cashes cheques deliberately to hurt me. I don’t think clubs should cash cheques, period. They are not banks. Banks need two signatures sometimes and, in this case with clubs, I would want my signature also on our cheques’.

Hing, N.

63

Four additional comments advocated cheque payment of winnings above a certain amount ($50 to $500). Another respondent had a novel suggestion for limiting access to cash, that ‘there should be small safes. When you win you should…put that money into the safe until you go home and you are not allowed to return to the gambling lounge’. Theme 11: Payouts and Change Procedures Twenty-four comments were provided about procedures for obtaining payouts and change. Five criticised change procedures, with some noting that long queues and understaffing encouraged people to put larger notes into machines. As one explained, ‘the queue at the cashier is always long to force you into putting $50 notes into the machines but you can’t get $50 out without calling an attendant’. Others noted their club routinely provides many $1 coins in change given for other purchases, with one commenting that ‘the club I attend seems to have an unspoken policy of never giving $2 coins in loose change at the bar or TAB. In my experience I have frequently received up to 4 single dollar coins in change’, while another thought that ‘customers are lured into playing poker machines with large amounts of $1 coins in their possession’. Nineteen comments were critical of delays in machine payouts to redeem credits and jackpots. This, they said, encouraged people to play off remaining credits or to play another machine while waiting for a jackpot to be paid. As one commented, ‘sometimes you can’t get your credit out of the machine - you have to call an attendant - who can wait half an hour for them to turn up! It is psychologically programmed to spend what credit is left rather than wait for coupon then cash desk, etc - very, very bad’. One complained that ‘at the X Club, they take so long to pay jackpots I put more money into other machines while I am waiting’, and another that ‘if you only have ten or twenty dollars you will keep playing until you’ve lost instead of waiting for the attendant’. Many respondents saw this as an intentional ‘go slow policy’, ‘so you gamble more’ and that ‘this is done deliberately’. This problem has been exacerbated by the removal of coin dispensers on many machines, which many respondents claimed the clubs now favour. One complained that this as ‘one of the tricks clubs use’ and another that ‘this forces me to either continue playing until (a) all the money is gone, or (b) there is enough money in the machine to warrant waiting for an attendant to issue a pay docket. Invariably this results in my walking away having lost’. Some respondents therefore advocated that ‘all machines should pay out automatically’. Theme 12: Gambling and Alcohol Consumption Five people offered comments on gambling while intoxicated. One noted that ‘no matter how intoxicated, I have never been refused alcohol while playing poker machines, nor been advised to stop gambling. Anywhere!’ Four others noted that intoxication can lead to excessive gambling, where ‘the more you drink the more you put in’. Another confessed that ‘I’m not proud of my gambling habit. I haven’t sought help for the reason that I keep telling myself that I can control the habit. However, with the help of a few beers all that goes clean out the door’. Theme 13: Self-Exclusion Self-exclusion attracted four comments. One respondent wanted procedures simplified, ‘as simple as obtaining a form - freely available and in view of front counter - filling it in and


64

signing it, enclosing your badge and depositing it in a box - this would spare people the embarrassment of having to confront management’. Another wanted family members to be able to have people excluded for gambling problems, ‘as they are the innocent sufferers’. Another thought that self-exclusion should be noted on the person’s driver’s license so they could not cash cheques or pawn goods, while another noted that self-exclusion ‘only works if you put your card in the machine’. Theme 14: Gaming Venue Promotions Gaming venue promotions received 18 criticisms. Nine noted that promotions are ‘a very big incentive’ for people to gamble while waiting for prize draws and ‘often keep the compulsive gambler longer in the club’. One explained that ‘some go for up to 2 hours and you have to stay at the pokies to win. I do not think this is responsible’. Another commented that ‘if the clubs didn’t advertise about winning a car on $20 in their promotions I would not be there - to win a prize you must be present…so you are there playing the machines’. The other nine respondents criticised that the style of promotions offered significant inducements to gamble, where ‘everything they do today (is) to get us to play’. One observed that ‘they have many promotions on in the pokie area - where members are encouraged to put their club card in a machine to be able to win. Free drinks are given to pokie players’. Many saw such promotions as very much against the spirit of responsible gambling, even though their club has implemented other responsible practices. For example, one noted that ‘while many clubs comply with the law and wish to be seen as being responsible they still offer a lot of incentives for people to play poker machines, tickets to win a lot of prizes, spin wheels for prizes. They also have a lot of promotions based on people being in the club in an atmosphere that encourages gambling’. Another commented that ‘they have promotions that require you to play the pokies to gain tickets in them. So as I see it, no place is promoting responsible gambling as the pokies is the way they make money’. Theme 15: Gambling Venue Staff Thirteen comments related to the role of staff in responsible conduct of gambling. Eleven advocated more intervention, such as ‘if a staff member notices that a person is on a machine for a long period of time, to discourage them or make them aware of the time they have spent’; suggesting to gamblers ‘they’ve had enough’ after a certain time; inviting such people in to discuss the extent of their gambling (‘supervisors and staff in all clubs know who the big gamblers are, but honestly does management ever care to invite these poor souls in for a friendly chat and tell them to cut back on their habit,? Not likely’); identifying problem gamblers and reporting them to supervisors (‘I do believe the employees of any club need to be very aware and consistently on the lookout for problem gamblers, particularly concerning poker machines; the cashiers in particular, if they notice people coming to the counter to break down big notes into smaller notes’); and banning problem gamblers whom staff have identified (‘I feel that there should be laws allowing supervision and action taken by the club to remove and ban patrons who exhibit signs of addiction to gambling’). Two respondents emphasised the need for staff training in responsible gambling, commenting that it ‘is vital’, and ‘staff should be put through a program that makes them aware of sighting a problem gambler and reporting it to a supervisor so they can be helped’.

Hing, N.

65

The Role Of Machine Design In Dealing With Problem Gambling Poker machine design attracted the most comments of the 17 themes identified. Various aspects of machines were criticised and suggestions made to better promote responsible gambling (Theme 16). Theme 16: Poker Machine Design Poker machine design attracted 74 comments, grouped into 11 sub-themes. Five criticised the rapid rate of play, either for not giving enough entertainment time for money spent (‘reels on new machines spin so fast - all over and done in a few seconds’ and ‘the machines sometimes are so tight that $50 will only last about 10 minutes. I think this practice is wrong’), or for not giving people ‘time to think’. Eleven advocated better and more prominent information on the odds of winning, either ‘on each machine’, or on ‘large signs at their (clubs’) front doors’, or for ‘clubs…(to) advise you how much your winnings and losses are monthly’. One explained that ‘if each machine had the odds of winning each prize maybe some machines may be avoided by those who need to be more careful with their money’. Another offered that knowledge about ‘the odds of winning and also the totals of money contributed compared to what has been paid out would allow people to make a better educated decision on whether to gamble’. Six criticised the ‘disappearance’ of machines that take coins, commenting that note acceptors ‘sure can gobble up the notes’ and make it difficult for gamblers to spend just a few dollars. As one explained, ‘most machines require a minimum of $5 to be inserted. Therefore immediately a casual gambler who may want to invest $1 has to up the minimum by 500% in order to play’. Some advocated for machines to take lower denomination notes (‘some …reject $5 notes which encourages gamblers to use higher denominations’), and that‘$50 notes and $100 notes should not be accepted by gambling machines as in other Australian states’. Nine comments advocated reducing the maximum bet on machines, with favoured limits being 50 cents, $1, and $3. One explained their reasoning as ‘I’ve seen people betting $5 or $10 a push and I strongly believe this encourages people (especially addicts) to keep chasing the big win’. Four respondents considered that multiple betting lines encourage high expenditure. As one recalled, ‘years ago pokies only paid on the centre line, there were 5, 10 and 20 cent machines and one container lasted a long time. Then they changed to three then five lines and we started losing more money. The real problems started when they started the 1 cent machines with 20 play lines multiplied by 2, 5, 10, 20, etc’. Another respondent mentioned the psychological allure of seeing winning combinations on adjacent lines, encouraging people to bet on multiple lines (‘I find it impossible to play only 5, 10 or 15 lines because you always see the wins appear on the lines you are not playing…some machines now play 25 lines. Where will it stop!’). Seven people wanted machines to impose a time limit on playing, through automatic shutdown after a certain amount of losses or a set time period. As one commented, ‘if a club adopts a fair dinkum approach to the problems of gambling…then adopt ideas such as restricting the amount patrons can invest by having a cut off point when losses hit a certain point - it is ridiculous to see fifty-dollar notes being inserted into cavernous hungry machines’. Another suggested a more ‘punitive’ approach whereby ‘there should be an


66

automatic shutdown on machines if you go over your time limit and whatever money is in the machine you lose because you weren’t responsible enough to take it out before your time limit was up’. Losses and playing time could be monitored through inserting membership cards which ‘should have a time limit built in to not allow you to gamble after a period of time’ or through the venue ‘monitor(ing) members’ cards…and after 3-4 hours (or less) tell them to get off machine, like on internet’. Six comments criticised linked jackpots as encouraging irresponsible gambling as ‘people see this as another way to win lots of money - they also think that if they are betting more on their machine, it will increase the chance of winning the linked prize’. One respondent considered that ‘huge jackpots (linking more than one club) should be banned’, but the others advocated smaller, but perhaps more frequent, jackpots (‘rather than huge link jackpots that are always paid out to those who bet large amounts there should be smaller payouts available to all players regardless of the amount gambled’). Sixteen comments related to the frequency and ‘legitimacy’ of wins. Two misunderstood how gaming machines work, perceiving the machines as ‘rigged’ or controlled by a central switch (‘it only needs a button to be pressed in the control room to govern any payouts’). Four thought gambling would be more entertaining with a more generous win rate and that this would discourage people from betting large amounts to chase a big win. That is, people need to spend large amounts in ‘the continual effort to win and have some pleasure’. As one explained, ‘you could once have a good time playing but now the machines take, take, take. Can’t they see this is where the problem has become worse? Instead of having a good time out, it has made it into gambling for something in return, not for a bit of fun’. Alternatively, three people favoured changing the odds of winning to make machines less attractive for either clubs or players. Two felt that wins should be displayed minus the amount bet. Others just felt the machines were too ‘tight’. One saw cashless gaming as a way to limit losses, whereby ‘clubs should introduce mandatory cards that patrons can charge/recharge with credits that have daily limits - say $100’. Seven respondents advocated more warnings on machines and better information displays, including regular on-screen warnings, displays in dollar amounts, and displays showing wins and losses and the percentage going to the government and club. Two noted that the music, noise and flashing lights on machines were too enticing as ‘it hypes people up’ and ‘people get sucked in by the bright flashing lights and the WIN signs’. The Role of Counselling in Dealing with Problem Gambling The final stakeholder group mentioned as having a role in addressing gambling problems was problem gambling counsellors, with related comments grouped into Theme 17. Theme 17: Support for Counselling Five comments were made about counselling for gambling problems, all supportive of its potential effectiveness. Some comments included that ‘more and more compulsory counselling is needed’, ‘counselling is definitely worthwhile’ and ‘I feel depression and maybe counselling/management training might also be very valuable to some people’.

Hing, N.

67

Discussion The qualitative comments summarised above are distinctive in that they give a voice to an often overlooked group in gambling research – the gamblers themselves. While the sentiments articulated largely speak for themselves through raising numerous concerns, criticisms and suggestions for change, some more general observations are now made about the results that reflect the status of problem gambling as an ongoing social issue that concerns club patrons. First, the volume and depth of comments received reflect the widespread and high level of interest and concern amongst club patrons about the issues of problem gambling and responsible gambling. That over one-third of respondents recorded their opinions is testament to this, and indeed some respondents even attached additional pages of comments to their completed questionnaires. Clearly, these people generally feel that the current situation warrants change and welcomed the opportunity to have their say. This reflects the existence of ‘expectational gaps’ (Jacoby, 1971; Ackerman, 1973; Post, 1978; Wartick and Mahon, 1994; Reichart, 2003) between what is, and what the respondents consider ought to be, organisational behaviour in relation to gambling. In turn, this has contributed to the development of problem gambling as a social issue by fuelling this stakeholder group’s desire for organisational change (Wartick and Mahon, 1994; Reichart, 2003).9 Second however, the diversity of suggestions for change reflect ongoing controversy over problem gambling, its causes, contributors and remedies. This contestability over the sources, causes and solutions to a problem is another of the defining characteristics of an ongoing social issue, and exists when there is lack of agreement over how to close the ‘expectational gaps’ that are present (Wartick and Mahon, 1994). Thus, while this disagreement remains, it appears that many patrons will judge gaming venues (and governments that regulate them) as socially irresponsible in their gambling operations for failing to act ‘appropriately’ on an issue of widespread concern. This judgement, in turn, may result in poor publicity, loss of public confidence, litigation and more stringent legislation, all typical outcomes of a poor assessment of corporate social responsibility by stakeholders (Waddock and Mahon, 1991). Third, the comments reflect controversy in three main dimensions identified as typically leading to an incongruent and unstable situation and outside pressure on the organisations concerned to be more socially responsible (Waddock and Mahon, 1991). Clearly, the qualitative data in this paper indicate that controversy still remains over the facts surrounding problem gambling (e.g. its causes and extent), goals to be achieved (e.g. whether governments and gambling venues seriously want to address problem gambling) and the means to achieve those goals (e.g. which measures are most effective in encouraging responsible gambling).10 Fourth, it is clear that most respondents consider problem gambling as a social or public health issue. While some comments reflected a view that problem gambling is a pathology

9 The role of numerous stakeholder groups in the emergence of problem gambling as a social issue in

Australia has been analysed in detail elsewhere (Hing, 2002). 10 These three dimensions and the challenges they pose in resolving the issue of problem gambling in

Australia have been analysed in detail elsewhere (Hing and Mackellar, 2004).


68

or addiction, most nominated a variety of environmental influences on the development and maintenance of gambling problems, particularly the design of poker machines and numerous organisational practices in use in gaming venues. This recognition that gambling problems do not result just from individual ‘weaknesses’ but are influenced by broader contextual factors provided the basis for the advocacy of certain changes by governments, gaming venues and poker machine designers. Finally, and consistent with the view of problem gambling as a social issue, most respondents clearly considered that addressing problem gambling and promoting responsible gambling are a shared responsibility. Consistent with the model of problem gambling developed by the Productivity Commission (1999), gamblers, gambling providers, governments, machine manufacturers, and counsellors were all identified as having an important role in reducing gambling problems in the community. Conclusion This paper has summarised and analysed over 25,000 words of ‘additional comments’ provided by respondents to a survey questionnaire on responsible gambling practices in NSW registered clubs. Three hundred and thirty-nine respondents provided 541 comments, which were grouped into 17 themes and 56 sub-themes. The themes related mainly to the priorities of governments and gambling venues, numbers of poker machines, venue opening hours, signage and information, the gambling environment, access to cash, payouts and change procedures, gambling by intoxicated people, self-exclusion, gambling promotions, staff training and intervention, poker machine design, problem gambling, controlled gambling, responsibility for gambling problems, and motivations for gambling. Of these comments, most were critical of governments and gambling venues in their focus on gambling, of some responsible gambling measures considered ineffective, of certain venue practices that entice people to gamble, and of many aspects of poker machine design. While there was a good deal of concern and sympathy about problem gambling, a sizeable minority of comments noted that responsible gambling starts with the individual. However, the vast majority of respondents considered that much more could be done by gambling venues and governments to encourage responsible gambling and to minimise gambling problems. While limited by sample size and selection, the results of this analysis indicate that, despite recent initiatives in responsible conduct of gambling, there remains a good deal of scepticism amongst club patrons about whether gaming venues are truly embracing responsible gambling and practising effective patron care. While many responsible gambling measures have been implemented, other venue practices are perceived as very much against the spirit of responsible gambling and warranting change. This continuing controversy and the ‘expectational gaps’ that remain continue to fuel problem gambling as a social issue in Australia. It is hoped that this paper has helped to articulate in some detail the opinions of one important stakeholder group – the gamblers - in this ongoing debate. References Ackerman, R.W. (1973). How Companies Respond to Social Demands. Harvard Business Review, 58, 88-98.

Hing, N.

69

Clubs NSW (2000). Registered Clubs Responsible Conduct of Gambling Code of Practice: Best Practice Guidelines. Clubs NSW: Sydney. Hing, N. (2002). The Emergence of Problem Gambling as a Corporate Social Issue in Australia. International Gambling Studies Journal, 2, 101-122. Hing, N. (2003). An Assessment of Member Awareness, Perceived Adequacy and Perceived Effectiveness of Responsible Gambling Strategies in Sydney Clubs. Report commissioned by the Casino Community Benefit Fund for the New South Wales Government. Southern Cross University: Lismore. Hing, N. (2004). The Efficacy of Responsible Gambling Measures in NSW Clubs: The Gamblers’ Perspective. Gambling Research, 16(1), 32-46. Hing, N. and Mackellar, J. (2004). Challenges in Responsible Provision of Gambling: Questions of Efficacy, Effectiveness And Efficiency. Gaming Research and Review, 8(1), pp. 43-58. Jacoby, N.H. (1971). What is a Social Problem? Centre Magazine, July/August, 35-40. Post, J.E. (1978). Corporate Behavior and Social Change, Reston Publishing: Reston VA. Productivity Commission (1999). Australia’s Gambling Industries: Report No. 10. Ausinfo: Canberra. Reichart, J. (2003). A Theoretical Exploration of Expectational Gaps in the Corporate Issue Construct. Corporate Reputation, 6,(1), 58-69. Waddock, S.A. and Mahon, J.F. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited: Dimensions of Efficacy, Effectiveness and Efficiency. Human Relations, 48(8), 951-973. Wartick, S.L. and Mahon, J.F. (1994). Toward a Substantive Definition of the Corporate Issue Construct. Business and Society, 33(3), 293-311. Financial assistance for this project was provided by the New South Wales Government from the Casino Community Benefit Fund.

Gambling Research, 17(1), p.70-71, Printed in Australia ©2005. National Association for Gambling Studies INVITATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS Gambling Research welcomes the submission of articles for publication. Manuscripts may be submitted in one of the following categories:

• Research Articles/ Literature Reviews • Book and Article Reviews • Case Notes

All submissions must comply with the instructions for contributors below and will be reviewed by the Journal’s Editorial Committee. Manuscripts must be submitted either electronically or as hard copy accompanied by diskette. Hard copy submissions should typed on one side of A4 paper, double-spaced. All submissions must follow the specifications of the American Psychological Association and should be forwarded to the following address: The Editors, Gambling Research National Association for Gambling Studies PO Box 5114 Alphington VIC 3078 Australia or electronically to: [email protected] Papers should be no more than 6,000 words and should be accompanied by an abstract of between 100 and 150 words, setting out the main findings of the paper. Sexist or racist language should not be used and jargon or highly specialised language should be avoided where possible. Statistics are acceptable but must be explained in simple terms. The full names of authors and their academic or other professional affiliations should be included. Also include the postal address, phone number, fax and email contact details for the primary author only. Do not include page numbers, headers, footers, formatted text or endnotes. Any diagrams, figures or tables must be in black and white only. Referencing The Harvard system of in text referencing is to be used. In the text, make reference to authors in the following manner: Lesieur (1998) suggests that… A recent study (Dickerson, 1992) …. General studies (Gazel, 1998; Frey, 1984)… If there are references to the same author in the same year, distinguish citations by adding a, b, c, etc to the reference eg. Cameron (1991a) argues that…

71

References should be collected at the end of the paper in alphabetical order by the first author’s surname, with full details of the publication, book or journal. The name of the publication in which the article appeared or the title of the book should be italicised. The references should be presented as follows: Blaszczynski, A.P., Walker, M., Sagris, A. & Dickerson, M. (1997). Psychological Aspects of Gambling Behaviour. Melbourne: Australian Psychological Society. Coman, G.J., Burrows, G.D. & Evans, B. (1997). Stress and anxiety as factors in the onset of problem gambling. Stress Medicine, 13, 235-244. Culleton, R.P. (1989). The prevalence rates of pathological gambling: a look at methods. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5, 22-41. Custer, R.L. (1982). An overview of compulsive gambling. In P.A. Carone, S.F. Yolles, S.N. Kieffer & L.W. Krinsky (Eds.) Addictive Disorders Update: Alcoholism/drug abuse/gambling (pp. 107-124). Human Sciences Press: New York. McMillen, J. (1993). Risky business: the political economy of Australian casino development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Queensland: Brisbane. O’Hara, J. (1988). A Mugs Game: A History of Gaming and Betting in Australia. New South Wales University Press: Sydney.

THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION’S GAMBLING … · Annamaria Sani, Tazio Carlevaro and Professor...

Documents

Transcript of THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION’S GAMBLING … · Annamaria Sani, Tazio Carlevaro and Professor...