Content uploaded by Michael Wohl
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Wohl on Jun 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Pop-Up Messages, Dissociation, and Craving: How
Monetary Limit Reminders Facilitate Adherence in a
Session of Slot Machine Gambling
Melissa J. Stewart and Michael J. A. Wohl
Online First Publication, September 17, 2012. doi: 10.1037/a0029882
CITATION
Stewart, M. J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2012, September 17). Pop-Up Messages, Dissociation, and
Craving: How Monetary Limit Reminders Facilitate Adherence in a Session of Slot Machine
Gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1037/a0029882
BRIEF REPORT
Pop-Up Messages, Dissociation, and Craving: How Monetary Limit
Reminders Facilitate Adherence in a Session of Slot Machine Gambling
Melissa J. Stewart and Michael J. A. Wohl
Carleton University
A failure to set and adhere to monetary limits has been implicated in the development of problematic
gambling. A randomized controlled experiment (N⫽59) with 2 conditions (i.e., monetary limit pop-up
reminder vs. no monetary limit pop-up reminder) was conducted to assess the value of monetary limit pop-up
messages in increasing adherence to self-proclaimed monetary limits. The current research also examined
dissociation as a potential mechanism by which gambling symptomatology may undermine adherence to
monetary limits. Results revealed that participants who received a monetary limit pop-up reminder were
significantly more likely to adhere to monetary limits than participants who did not. As predicted, dissociation
mediated the relationship between gambling symptomatology and adherence to monetary limits, but only
among those who did not receive a monetary limit pop-up reminder. Importantly, the forced stop in play
created by the pop-up message did not heighten craving to continue gambling. The efficacy of monetary limit
pop-up messages as a tool to facilitate responsible gambling is discussed.
Keywords: monetary limits, pop-up messages, slot machine gambling
When gambling, many people set limits on the amount of money
they wish to spend in a given session, but then exceed those limits.
This is especially true as symptoms of problem gambling increase
(Nower & Blaszczynski, 2010;Wohl, Christie, Matheson, & Anis-
man, 2010). To decrease excessive play among gamblers in gen-
eral and problem gamblers specifically, it is important to design
tools that encourage responsible gambling. To this end, the current
research examined the utility of pop-up messages that initially
asked gamblers to set a monetary limit on slot machine play and
subsequently informed gamblers when that limit had been reached
on gamblers’ willingness to stay within that limit.
Monetary Limits, Responsible Gambling, and the
Efficacy of Pop-Up Messages
Monetary limit setting is a key strategy for properly regulating
gambling behavior (Brown & Newby-Clark, 2005;Gollwitzer,
Fujita, & Oettingen, 2004). This is because setting a monetary
limit helps people decrease their gambling expenditures (Omni-
facts Bristol Research, 2007), but not at the expense of their
enjoyment (Manitoba Gaming Control Commission, 2009). As
such, initiatives have been undertaken to educate the public on
responsible gambling strategies that include monetary limit setting
prior to engaging in slot machine play (see Responsible Gambling
Council, 2006).
Unfortunately, despite the fact that most gamblers understand
the importance of setting monetary limits prior to play, many
gamblers exceed these limits (Wohl et al., 2008,2010). Further,
problem gamblers are less likely than recreational and at-risk
gamblers to report both setting and adhering to monetary limits
(Nower & Blaszczynski, 2010). Failure to set and stay within
preset monetary limits may be due, in part, to the manner in which
information regarding limit setting is conveyed to gamblers. Spe-
cifically, previous research (e.g., Hing, 2004;Manitoba Gaming
Control Commission, 2009) has used signs and posters on, or in
close proximity to, slot machines to educate gamblers on the
importance of setting monetary limits when they gamble. Although
awareness of such signage is relatively high, many gamblers report
failing to read the content of the signs and posters, especially
problem gamblers who deny they have a gambling problem (Hing,
2004;Hing & Mattinson, 2005).
According to Bailey, Konstan, and Carlis (2001), intermittent,
dynamic messages that interrupt a task do a particularly good job
capturing attentional focus. Such focus is important in the gam-
bling context because gamblers (and problem gamblers in partic-
ular) lose track of the amount of money spent (Wynne, 1994).
These dynamic messages are colloquially referred to as “pop-up
messages,” and when applied to slot machines, they “create a
Melissa J. Stewart and Michael J. A. Wohl, Department of Psychology,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Melissa J. Stewart is now at the Department of Psychology, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
This research was supported in part by a Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Masters fellowship and Ontario Prob-
lem Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC) fellowship to Melissa J. Stewart and
a research grant from OPGRC (#2345) to Michael J. A. Wohl.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael
J. A. Wohl, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel
By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6. E-mail: michael_wohl@
carleton.ca
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors © 2012 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 26, No. 4, 000 0893-164X/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029882
1
break in play and potentially encourage players to actively decide
to continue or discontinue their gambling session” (Monaghan,
2008, p. 216). We hypothesized that a pop-up message that re-
minds gamblers when they have reached their preset monetary
limit might be an effective way to decrease the incidence of
exceeding limits, particularly among those with increased gam-
bling symptomatology.
Mechanisms Impacting the Efficacy of Monetary Limit
Pop-Up Messages
The present study also assessed a possible mechanism by which
a pop-up message might moderate the effect of gambling symp-
tomatology on limit adherence: reduced dissociation. Further, we
examined a potential mechanism that might undermine the utility
of a pop-up message to promote monetary limit adherence: in-
creased craving to gamble.
Dissociation. When people engage in an addictive behavior,
they often lose track of time and space (Jacobs, 1988). Such
dissociation occurs readily among people who play slot machines
(see Grant & Kim, 2003) and is particularly common among
problem gamblers (Diskin & Hodgins, 1999,2001) who become
oblivious to their surroundings and expenditures (Wynne, 1994).
Thus, dissociation may help explain why problem gamblers are
particularly apt to exceed the monetary limits they set prior to
gambling. As slot machine pop-up messages increase awareness of
the here and now (Monaghan, 2008), they may be effective in
breaking the intense focus on slot machine play. In this light, it was
predicted that increased gambling symptomatology would be as-
sociated with increased experiences of dissociation, thus leading to
a failure to adhere to preset monetary limits. However, it was
predicted that this association would break down in the presence of
a monetary limit pop-up reminder. Thus, the current research
tested a moderated-mediation model (see Figure 1).
Craving to gamble. Symptoms of problem gambling are of-
ten accompanied by an overwhelming craving to gamble (Young
& Wohl, 2009), which has been found to facilitate and maintain
gambling (Young, Wohl, Matheson, Baumann, & Anisman, 2008).
Thus, craving is a factor that might help explain why some
gamblers continue to gamble past their preset monetary limit
despite adverse consequences. Assessment of craving is also im-
portant because, according to the cognitive processing model,
blocking or preventing an addictive behavior for a period of time
leads to craving in addicted people (Tiffany, 1990). Because
pop-up messages block play (albeit temporarily), they might inad-
vertently heightening craving to gamble. If pop-up messages
heighten craving, their utility as a responsible gambling feature
would be suspect. It was predicted that, given the limited duration
of the pop-up message, craving to gamble would not be associated
with a failure to adhere to preset monetary limits.
Method
Participants
Fifty-nine university students (43 males and 16 females) from a
large Eastern Canadian university participated in the current study.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 32 years (M⫽20.76, SD ⫽
3.04). Their symptoms of gambling problems were known prior to
the study because the 10-item gambling checklist from the Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text
rev.; DSM–IV–TR;American Psychiatric Association, 2000) was
distributed to a broad range of undergraduate courses at the onset
of the academic year. University records indicated that 2,384
students were enrolled in these courses. We obtained checklist data
from 1,584 students, which provided a measure of symptoms of
gambling pathology over the past 12 months.
1
From this pool
of potential participants, we recruited randomly within each level
of gambling symptomatology. All the people contacted agreed to
participate in the present study.
Based on the screening measure of gambling problems, partic-
ipants consisted of 17 (28.8%) recreational gamblers (no DSM–
IV–TR symptoms), 26 (44.2%) subthreshold pathological gamblers
(1 to 4 DSM–IV–TR symptoms), and 16 (23.8%) pathological
gamblers (5 or more DSM–IV–TR symptoms; for a discussion of
DSM–IV–TR classification see Cox, Enns, & Michaud, 2004).
People with varying degrees of gambling problems were recruited
so that symptomatology could be used as a continuous predictor of
monetary limit adherence.
Procedure and Measures
Participants engaged in slot machine play in a virtual reality
(VR) casino environment. Upon entering the laboratory, partici-
pants were escorted to a computer terminal and asked to put on a
head-mounted display that enabled them to view the VR environ-
ment. Participants were informed that the odds of success were set
to mimic that of the local casino. All participants were given $20
(the equivalent of 80 credits) with which to gamble and were
informed that they could leave the laboratory at any time and keep
any money they still possessed. Once participants approached a
slot machine, they were prompted to insert their money. Although
1
Given that a period of approximately six months elapsed between
administration of the prescreening measure and the experiment, we read-
ministered the DSM-IV-TR checklist for pathological gambling (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000) to participants upon arrival at the labora-
tory. A comparison of the two administrations revealed no difference in
level of gambling symptomatology for any participant.
Dissociation
Gambling
Symptomatology
Adherence to
Monetary Limits
Pop-up
or
No Pop-up
Reminder
Figure 1. Moderated-mediation model tested to determine whether the
significant mediated effect of gambling symptomatology on adherence to
monetary limits, via experiences of dissociation, was moderated by con-
dition (pop-up reminder vs. no pop-up reminder).
2STEWART AND WOHL
participants were instructed to insert the full $20, they were told
that they did not need to play with this full amount. In fact, a
pop-up message appeared that asked participants how many of
their 80 credits they were willing to lose. Once indicated, play on
the slot machine began.
Unbeknown to participants, the outcome of each spin was pre-
programmed such that all participants experienced the same se-
quence of wins and losses. In the pop-up reminder condition (n⫽
29), when participants hit their preset monetary limit, a pop-up
message appeared that informed them of such and asked if they
would like to continue gambling or not (e.g., “You have reached
your preset limit of 20 credits. You still have 60 credits in the slot
machine. Do you want to continue gambling?”). They were given
a “yes” or “no” reply option. Upon making their selection, all
participants received a second pop-up message that asked them to
contact the experimenter.
The experimenter then asked participants to complete a short
battery of questionnaires that included the dissociation and craving
measures. Jacobs’s (1988) four-item dissociation scale (anchored
at0⫽not at all and 4 ⫽all the time) was used to assess
participants’ experiences of dissociation during the session of slot
machine play (e.g., “In the previous gambling session, how much
did you feel like you were in a trance?”). The nine-item Gambling
Craving Scale (GACS; Young & Wohl, 2009) was used to assess
craving to gamble (e.g., “I need to gamble now”). Items were
anchored at 1 (strongly disagree)and7(strongly agree).
Upon finishing the questionnaire battery, participants in the
pop-up reminder condition who indicated that they wished to
continue gambling were permitted to do so.
2
All other participants
were informed that the study had reached its conclusion. In the no
pop-up reminder condition (n⫽30), participants gambled until
they decided to stop or had run out of credits and then completed
the same questionnaire battery.
3
All participants were compen-
sated $20 for their time, regardless of how much money they had
remaining at the end of the gambling session, and were then
debriefed.
Results
Descriptive statistics for all measured variables, as well as the
correlations between these variables by experimental condition,
are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
Predictors of Limit Adherence
There was no significant difference in the monetary limits set
prior to play between participants in the pop-up (M⫽38.52, SD ⫽
15.64) and no pop-up reminder condition (M⫽38.00, SD ⫽
17.70), F(1, 57) ⫽.01, p⫽.91. Importantly, however, participants
who received the monetary limit pop-up reminder adhered to their
limit (89.66%) more than those who did not (43.33%),
2
(1, N⫽
59) ⫽14.12, p⬍.001. Multiple logistic regression showed that as
gambling symptomatology and dissociation increased, the likeli-
hood that participants adhered to preset monetary limits decreased,
OR ⫽.74, Wald’s chi-square(1) ⫽5.13, p⫽.02 and OR ⫽.37,
Wald’s chi-square(1) ⫽5.14, p⫽.02, respectively. However,
craving to gamble did not predict adherence to preset monetary
limits, OR ⫽.70, Wald’s chi-square(1) ⫽1.12, p⫽.29.
Mediation Analysis
To determine whether the effect of gambling symptomatology
on adherence to preset monetary limits was mediated by the extent
to which participants dissociated, a mediation analysis was con-
ducted. As dissociation, but not craving, predicted limit adherence,
only dissociation was a viable candidate for mediation (see Baron
& Kenny, 1986). To test for mediation, gambling symptomatology
and dissociation were regressed simultaneously on limit adher-
ence. The coefficients associated with both dissociation, B⫽
⫺.99, p⫽.02, and gambling symptomatology, B⫽⫺.30, p⫽.02,
remained significant predictors of limit adherence. Importantly,
Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping technique showed that
the indirect effect of gambling symptomatology on limit adher-
ence, via experiences of dissociation, was estimated to lie between
⫺.38 and ⫺.02 with 95% confidence, thus establishing mediation.
It was also of interest to examine whether the pop-up
manipulation-adherence relationship was mediated by dissocia-
tion. However, because the independent variable (pop-up manip-
ulation) did not predict the proposed mediator (dissociation), B⫽
.14, p⫽.55, there was no basis for mediation (Baron & Kenny,
1986).
Moderated-Mediation Analysis
A moderated-mediation analysis was then conducted to test
whether the pop-up reminder manipulation moderated the media-
tion model in which gambling symptomatology reduced limit
adherence via dissociation (see Preacher & Hayes, 2008). As
predicted, for participants who were not reminded when their limit
was reached, dissociation mediated the relationship between gam-
bling symptomatology and limit adherence—the conditional indi-
rect effect, ⫺.83 and ⫺.01 with 95% confidence, was significantly
2
Of the 29 participants in the pop-up reminder condition, three indicated
that they wanted to continue gambling upon receiving the pop-up message
that informed them they had reached their preset monetary limit. At the end
of their respective sessions, one of these participants gambled until (s)he
had no remaining credits (initially set a credit limit of 60), whereas the
other two participants gambled until they had 40 (initially set a credit limit
of 60) and 28 (initially set a credit limit of 40) credits remaining.
3
Of the 29 participants in the no pop-up reminder condition, four
gambled until they had no remaining credits. In contrast, only one partic-
ipant in the pop-up reminder condition gambled until no credits remained.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Credit Limit, Credits Remaining at End
of Gambling Session, Gambling Symptomatology, Dissociation,
and Craving to Gamble in the Pop-Up and No Pop-Up
Reminder Condition
Pop-up
reminder
No pop-up
reminder
MSDMSD
Credit limit 38.52 15.64 38.00 17.70
Credits remaining 34.31 14.03 36.87 23.44
Gambling symptomatology 2.41 2.51 2.77 2.58
Dissociation 1.41 .74 1.27 1.07
Craving 3.01 1.03 3.40 1.24
Note. There were no significant differences between the pop-up reminder
and no pop-up reminder conditions on the above variables of interest (i.e., all
ps⬎.05).
3
MONETARY LIMITS & SLOT MACHINE GAMBLING
different from zero. However, this was not the case among partic-
ipants who received a pop-up reminder. Specifically, dissociation
no longer mediated the gambling symptomatology-adherence re-
lationship—the conditional indirect effect, ⫺.32 and .18 with 95%
confidence, was not significantly different from zero. Because
mediation was present only for those in the no pop-up reminder
condition, evidence for our hypothesized moderated-mediation
model was established.
Discussion
Although no gambler wants to lose money, spending more
money than one can afford often occurs because of a failure to set
and stay within preset monetary limits. Failure to adhere to mon-
etary limits is not benign as it is associated with gambling prob-
lems (see Walker et al., 2006). The current research examined
possible mechanisms that might impact the relationship between
gambling symptomatology and failure to adhere to monetary lim-
its. It was predicted and found that dissociation, but not craving,
mediated this relationship. When a gambler intensely focuses on
and becomes absorbed in play (i.e., they dissociate), time and
space are not easily tracked (see Diskin & Hodgins, 1999,2001;
Jacobs, 1988;Wynne, 1994). As such, when a preset monetary
limit is reached, the gambler might not be aware. Thus, exceeding
monetary limits might not be a conscious decision (e.g., “I think I
will just continue playing for a while longer”) but an unfortunate
consequence of dissociation.
The present study also examined the hypothesis that the ob-
served mediation model would be qualified by whether or not
participants received a monetary limit pop-up reminder. As pre-
dicted, mediation by dissociation was only present when partici-
pants were not reminded of their preset monetary limit. When
presented with a monetary limit pop-up reminder, the relationships
among gambling symptomatology, dissociation, and adherence to
monetary limits were not observed. One explanation for this lack
of association in the monetary limit pop-up reminder condition is
that the presence of the pop-up reminder stopped participants from
experiencing dissociation. Indeed, participants who received a
monetary limit pop-up reminder reported less dissociation than
those who did not receive this pop-up reminder. Thus, it is likely
that the presentation of a monetary limit pop-up reminder during
slot machine play breaks the intense focus on play that epitomizes
dissociation. Importantly, the pop-up reminder did not influence
craving to gamble; in fact, craving was not associated with limit
adherence failure. Thus, concern that pop-up messages might
inadvertently increase craving to gamble and adherence failure
was not founded.
The current research has important implications for the preven-
tion of problematic gambling among slot machine players. Mon-
etary limit pop-up messages appear capable of breaking the intense
focus and extreme absorption commonly experienced by gamblers,
especially as their level of problem gambling severity increase.
This finding provides empirical support for the claim that pop-up
messages disrupt cognitive processes that facilitate dissociation
(Ladouceur & Sévigny, 2003). As these dissociative experiences
are associated with problematic gambling (e.g., Diskin & Hodgins,
1999,2001;Jacobs, 1988;Wynne, 1994), monetary limit pop-up
reminders may be particularly effective in helping those who have
the most problems with gambling adhere to their preset monetary
limits. It is important to note, however, that the direct relationship
between gambling symptomatology and adherence to monetary
limits remained significant in the moderated-mediation model.
Thus, dissociation does not overwhelm this direct relationship but
instead is one mechanism that impacts the relationship between
gambling symptomatology and adherence to monetary limits.
Some limitations of the current research should be noted. First,
the sample was comprised of young adult gamblers enrolled in
first-year undergraduate courses at a large university and, as such,
results of the study may not generalize to other populations. That
said, previous research conducted in our laboratory (e.g., Young &
Wohl, 2009;Wohl et al., 2010) has not found differences on
measures of dissociation or craving between young adults from a
university setting and community gamblers. Second, although par-
ticipants believed the outcome of each spin had monetary reper-
cussion, they did not gamble with their own money in a real
casino. This fact, however, cannot explain between group differ-
ences observed in the moderated-mediation model. Third, the
current research did not assess the relative effectiveness of limit-
specific pop-up messages to other types of pop-up messages (e.g.,
a pop-up that simply educates gamblers about the randomness of
outcomes). Future research should compare and contrast pop-up
message type in order to fully understand the impact of monetary
limit pop-up messages on adherence to monetary limits. Fourth,
participants in the pop-up reminder condition who chose to con-
tinue gambling beyond their preset monetary limit were asked to
complete a questionnaire battery before they were allowed to
gamble again. As such, their play following completion might
Table 2
Correlations Between Adherence to Limits, Gambling Symptomatology, Dissociation, and
Craving to Gamble in the Pop-Up Reminder Condition (Below the Diagonal) and No Pop-Up
Reminder Condition (Above the Diagonal)
123456
1. Adhere to limit
a
— .02 .49
ⴱⴱ
⫺.42
ⴱ
⫺.58
ⴱⴱ
⫺.35
ⴱ
2. Credit limit ⫺.33
ⴱ
—⫺.07 .47
ⴱⴱ
.12 .15
3. Credits remaining .29 .34
ⴱ
—⫺.22 ⫺.47
ⴱⴱ
⫺.40
ⴱ
4. Gambling symptomatology ⫺.54
ⴱⴱ
.12 ⫺.23 — .56
ⴱⴱ
.59
ⴱⴱ
5. Dissociation ⫺.16 .05 ⫺.31
ⴱ
.14 — .70
ⴱⴱ
6. Craving ⫺.38
ⴱ
⫺.05 ⫺.37
ⴱ
.30
ⴱ
.27 —
a
Yes ⫽1; No ⫽0.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
4STEWART AND WOHL
have been altered from play that might have resulted had we not
asked them to complete the questionnaires. We decided to com-
promise potential downstream gambling for these gamblers to
ensure memory bias in their report of dissociation— our central
mediator—was minimized. A final caveat is that the current study
occurred in a laboratory setting rather than an actual gambling
venue, thus compromising ecological validity. That said, when
appropriate factors are introduced into a laboratory setting (e.g.,
the chance to win or lose money), participants report that their
experience is similar to gambling in a real casino (see Leary &
Dickerson, 1985). Further, the VR casino used in the current study
provided gamblers with a highly realistic environment within
which to gamble. Moreover, online gambling is becoming norma-
tive for young adults (McBride & Derevensky, 2009), and the VR
casino used in the current study is similar, if not more realistic,
than the online casinos this population is using with increasing
frequency. Despite these advantages, it is important that future
research assessing the effectiveness of monetary limit pop-up
messages be conducted in actual gambling venues in order to
increase ecological validity.
There is little doubt that spending more money gambling than
one can afford contributes to gambling problems (see Walker et
al., 2006). In light of the financial harm often associated with
problematic gambling, it is increasingly important to design re-
sponsible gambling initiatives that encourage gamblers generally
and problem gamblers in particular to set and stay within preset
limits on the amount of money they can afford to spend gambling.
The current research provides preliminary support for the effec-
tiveness of monetary limit pop-up reminders as a responsible
gambling strategy that can be used to encourage gamblers to play
within their preset monetary limits, especially as symptoms of
problem gambling increase.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bailey, B., Konstan, J., & Carlis, J. (2001). The effects of interruptions on
task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface.InM.
Hirose (Ed.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC-13 International Conference
on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 593– 601). Tokyo, Japan: IOS
Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Brown, A., & Newby-Clark, I. R. (2005). Self-regulation and problem
gambling.Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research
Centre, Guelph, ON. Retrieved from http://www.gamblingresearch.org/
download.php?docid⫽7045
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Michaud, V. (2004). Comparisons between the
South Oaks gambling screen and a DSM-IV-based interview in a com-
munity survey of problem gambling. The Canadian Journal of Psychi-
atry, 49, 258 –264.
Diskin, K. M., & Hodgins, D. C. (1999). Narrowing of attention and
dissociation in pathological video lottery gamblers. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 15, 17–28.
Diskin, K. M., & Hodgins, D. C. (2001). Narrowed focus and dissociative
experiences in a community sample of experienced video lottery gam-
blers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 58 – 64. doi:
10.1037/h0087128
Gollwitzer, P. M., Fujita, K., & Oettingen, G. (2004). Planning and the
implementation of goals. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory and application (pp.
211–228). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Grant, J. E., & Kim, S. W. (2003). Dissociative symptoms in pathological
gambling. Psychopathology, 36, 200 –203. doi:10.1159/000072790
Hing, N. (2004). The efficacy of responsible gambling measures in NSW
clubs: The gambler’s perspective. Gambling Research, 16, 32– 47.
Hing, N., & Mattinson, A. (2005). Evaluation of the NSW ClubSafe
responsible gambling program: Opportunities and challenges for New
Zealand clubs. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3,
61– 69.
Jacobs, D. F. (1988). Evidence for a common dissociative-like reaction
among addicts. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 27–37. doi:10.1007/
BF01043526
Ladouceur, R., & S
´evigny, S. (2003). Interactive messages on video lottery
terminals and persistence in gambling. Journal of the National Associ-
ation for Gambling Studies, 15, 45–50.
Leary, K., & Dickerson, M. G. (1985). Levels of arousal in high and low
frequency gamblers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 635– 640.
Manitoba Gaming Control Commission. (2009). Limit-setting campaign:
Evaluation report. Winnipeg, MB: Author. Retrieved from http://www
.mgcc.mb.ca/forms/limits_report.pdf
McBride, J., & Derevensky, J. (2009). Internet gambling behaviour in a
sample of online gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, 7, 149 –167. doi:10.1007/s11469-008-9169-x
Monaghan, S. (2008). Review of pop-up messages on electronic gaming
machines as a proposed responsible gambling strategy. International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 214 –222. doi:10.1007/
s11469-007-9133-1
Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Gambling motivations, money-
limiting strategies, and precommitment preferences of problem versus
non-problem gamblers, Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 361–372.
doi:10.1007/s10899-009-9170-8
Omnifacts Bristol Research. (2007). Nova Scotia player card research
project: Stage III research report. Report prepared for the Government
of Nova Scotia. Retrieved from http://www.nsgc.ca/images/uploads/
Omnifacts%20Bristol%20Research%20Report.pdf
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple me-
diator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 – 891. doi:10.3758/
BRM.40.3.879
Responsible Gambling Council. (2006). Electronic gaming machines and
problem gambling. Report prepared for the Saskatchewan Liquor and
Gaming Authority. Retrieved from http://www.responsiblegambling
.org/docs/research-reports/electronic-gaming-machines-and-problem-
gambling.pdf?sfvrsn⫽10
Tiffany, S. T. (1990). A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use
behaviour: Role of automatic and non-automatic processes. Psycholog-
ical Review, 97, 147–168. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.147
Walker, M., Toneatto, T., Potenza, M. N., Ladouceur, R., Hodgins, D. C.,
el-Guebaly, N.,...Blaszczynski, A. (2006). A framework for reporting
outcomes in problem gambling treatment research: The Banff, Alberta
Consensus, Addiction, 101, 504 –511. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005
.01341.x
Wohl, M. J. A., Christie, K., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010).
Animation-based education as a gambling prevention tool: Correcting
erroneous cognitions and reducing the frequency of exceeding limits
among slot players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 469 – 486. doi:
10.1007/s10899-009-9155-7
Wohl, M. J. A., Lyon, M., Donnelly, C. L., Young, M. M., Matheson, K.,
& Anisman, H. (2008). Episodic cessation of gambling: A numerically
aided phenomenological assessment of why gamblers stop playing in a
given session. International Gambling Studies, 8, 249 –263. doi:
10.1080/14459790802405855
5
MONETARY LIMITS & SLOT MACHINE GAMBLING
Wynne, H. (1994). A description of problem gamblers in Alberta: A
secondary analysis of the gambling and problem gambling in Alberta
study. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission.
Young, M. M., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2009). The gambling craving scale:
Psychometric validation and behavioral outcomes. Psychology of Addic-
tive Behaviors, 23, 512–522. doi:10.1037/a0015043
Young, M. M., Wohl, M. J. A., Matheson, K., Baumann, S., & Anisman,
H. (2008). The desire to gamble: The influence of outcomes on the
priming effects of a gambling episode. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24,
275–293. doi:10.1007/s10899-008-9093-9
Received October 22, 2011
Revision received July 23, 2012
Accepted July 24, 2012 䡲
6STEWART AND WOHL
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
