Content uploaded by Hyoun S (Andrew) Kim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hyoun S (Andrew) Kim on May 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [134.117.120.30]
On: 02 May 2014, At: 07:12
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Gambling Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigs20
Limit your time, gamble responsibly:
setting a time limit (via pop-up
message) on an electronic gaming
machine reduces time on device
Hyoun S. Kima, Michael J. A. Wohla, Melissa J. Stewartb, Travis
Sztainerta & Sally M. Gainsburyc
a Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
b Dalhousie University, Life Sciences Centre, Halifax, Canada
c Centre for Gambling Education & Research, Southern Cross
University, Lismore, Australia
Published online: 30 Apr 2014.
To cite this article: Hyoun S. Kim, Michael J. A. Wohl, Melissa J. Stewart, Travis Sztainert & Sally
M. Gainsbury (2014): Limit your time, gamble responsibly: setting a time limit (via pop-up message)
on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device, International Gambling Studies, DOI:
10.1080/14459795.2014.910244
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2014.910244
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents,
and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published
Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open
Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party
website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed
or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles are normally published under a Creative
Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. However,
authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial
License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Taylor & Francis and Routledge
Open Select articles are currently published under a license to publish, which is based
upon the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License, but
allows for text and data mining of work. Authors also have the option of publishing
an Open Select article under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open
Select article to confirm conditions of access and use.
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Limit your time, gamble responsibly: setting a time limit (via pop-up
message) on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device
Hyoun S. Kim
a
, Michael J. A. Wohl
a
*, Melissa J. Stewart
b
, Travis Sztainert
a
and
Sally M. Gainsbury
c
a
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada;
b
Dalhousie University, Life Sciences Centre, Halifax,
Canada;
c
Centre for Gambling Education & Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore,
Australia
(Received 28 June 2013; accepted 24 March 2014)
In the current study, we assessed whether undergraduate electronic gaming machine
(EGM) gamblers would be more apt to set a time limit and spend less time gambling
when asked to consider setting an explicit time limit prior to their gambling session. To
this end, participants (N¼43) were randomly assigned to a time limit pop-up
condition or control condition, both of which involved gambling on an EGM in a
virtual reality (VR) casino. In the time limit pop-up condition, participants were asked
(via pop-up message) to consider setting a time limit on play and entering that limit in
an available text box prior to commencing play. In the no time limit pop-up condition,
participants engaged in play immediately upon accessing the EGM in the VR casino (i.
e. they were not exposed to a time limit pop-up message). As predicted, participants
who were explicitly asked to consider setting a time limit on their EGM play were
significantly more likely to do so and spent less time gambling than those who were not
given such instructions. The results provide preliminary support for the contention that
setting a time limit on EGM play is an effective responsible gambling strategy.
Keywords: responsible gambling; time limit; electronic gambling machines; virtual
reality; gambling disorder; pathological gambling
For many people, gambling is an enjoyable form of entertainment, partly due to the
excitement associated with betting money on an uncertain outcome (see Wulfert, Franco,
Williams, Roland, & Maxson, 2008). However, the same features that make gambling fun
and exciting can also propel some gamblers to spend excessive amounts of time and money
gambling, resulting in serious psychological, financial and interpersonal harms to the
gambler (see Fong, 2005; Newman & Thompson, 2007; Potenza, Kosten, & Rounsaville,
2001; Squires, Sztainert, Gillen, Caouette, & Wohl, 2012). Intuitively, one way to avoid
excessive gambling (and thus reduce the harms associated with gambling) is to set a
monetary limit on play before a gambling session is initiated. That is, gamblers determine
how much moneythey can afford to lose before their gambling session and set this amount as
the most they are willing to lose. When gamblers reach this monetary loss limit, they would
then discontinue play. Indeed, a growing body of research has provided empirical evidence
suggesting that monetary limit setting and adherence to such limits has a prophylactic effect
(e.g. Stewart & Wohl, 2013; Wohl, Gainsbury, Stewart, & Sztainert, 2013).
However, setting a monetary limit is not the only strategy available to avoid excessive
gambling. For example, gamblers may also choose to limit the amount of time they spend
q2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis
This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original wo rk
is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named
author(s) have been asserted.
*Corresponding author. Email: michael_wohl@carleton.ca
International Gambling Studies, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2014.910244
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
gambling by determining how much time they can afford to spend in a particular gambling
session. Compared to monetary limits, gamblers are less likely to set time limits on their
gambling when unprompted (Auer & Griffiths, 2013; Lalande & Ladouceur, 2011;
McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd, 2006). Perhaps as a consequence, a paucity of research has
examined the effects of setting an explicit time limit during a gambling session to regulate
gambling behaviours. The lack of attention paid to time limit setting is surprising, given
that monetary loss is positively associated with time spent gambling – clearly, the odds are
not in the gambler’s favour.
The current research assessed the effectiveness of setting a time limit during a session
of electronic gaming machine (EGM) play on reducing time spent gambling and, in turn,
regulating gambling behaviour. To do so, participants were either exposed to a pop-up
message on the screen of the EGM that explicitly asked them to consider setting a time
limit prior to EGM play, or not exposed to such a pop-up message prior to gambling.
Pre-commitment to reduce harms associated with EGMs
Of all types of gambling, EGMs appear to have the strongest association with disordered
gambling (Breen, 2005; Smith & Wynne, 2004), in part due to their technological aspects.
For example, the visual and audio stimulation inherent to EGMs (e.g. flickering lights,
stimulating sounds) can facilitate a state of dissociation, which has been associated with
problematic gambling (Diskin & Hodgins, 2001; Noseworthy & Finlay, 2009; Stewart &
Wohl, 2013). Indeed, EGM gamblers develop symptoms of disordered gambling four
times faster than people who take part in other forms of gambling activities (Breen &
Zimmerman, 2002) and are over-represented in the treatment system (Morgan, Kofoed,
Buchkoski, & Carr, 1996; Wiebe & Cox, 2001).
To help minimize the harm associated with EGMs, theorists, researchers and
policymakers have turned their collective attention to pre-commitment (for a review, see
Ladouceur, Blaszczynski, & Lalande, 2012). Within a gambling context, pre-commitment
occurs when the gambler sets an affordable monetary and/or time limit on play prior to
initiating a gambling session. The rationale is that if a gambler sets a limit in a ‘cold’ or
non-emotionally arousing state they will set a limit that is within their means and thus be
more apt to adhere to that limit and reduce excessive gambling. Although fewer gamblers
have been found to set time limits compared to monetary limits, a minority of gamblers do
report setting a time limit prior to play (Auer & Griffiths, 2013; Schellinck & Schrans,
2007). For example, in a sample of 5000 online gamblers who set voluntary limits, Auer
and Griffiths (2013) found that the vast majority of gamblers elected to set monetary limits
(85%) compared to time limits (15%). Similarly, Schellinck and Schrans (2007) found that
while 12.2% of gamblers set monetary limits, only 1.2% of gamblers set a time limit prior
to engaging in a gambling session. Moreover, Blaszczynski, Gainsbury, and Karlov (in
press) noted that, although half the gamblers were aware of a time limit feature embedded
in an EGM modified with an array of responsible gambling (RG) features, only 5.8% of
gamblers elected to set a time limit.
One reason why people might not a set time limit to the same extent as a monetary
limit is that gamblers perceive more RG utility in setting a monetary limit. For example,
Turner, Wiebe, Falkowski-Ham, Kelly, and Skinner (2005) found that 6% of the general
public believed responsible gambling entailed setting a time limit prior to play, while
45.7% of the same sample believed responsible gambling to entail limiting monetary
expenditure. Interestingly, gamblers also perceive the RG utility of setting a monetary
limit to be greater than time limits. For example, whereas 70% of gamblers perceived a
2H.S. Kim et al.
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
monetary limit to be a useful RG strategy, only 51% felt similarly about setting a time limit
on their gambling (see Griffiths, Wood, & Parke, 2009).
In sum, the extant literature suggests that gamblers rarely set time limits. This is
problematic as recent studies suggest that a time limit may be particularly effective in
regulating gambling behaviour, specifically EGM play (Polatschek, Wadden, & Gwynn,
2013). This may relate to gamblers’ reported tendency to lose track of time whilst playing
EGMs (see Diskin & Hodgins, 2001). Setting a time limit may result in the gambler
devoting cognitive energy to tracking their time on device, which may in turn facilitate
responsible gambling. In this light, it appears important to create responsible gambling
tools that provide EGM gamblers with an opportunity to set a time limit prior to gambling.
One such tool that may provide an avenue which increases the use of a time limit prior to
engaging in EGM play is pop-up messages.
Pop-up messages as a vehicle for pre-commitment
Pop-up messages have increasingly been the focus of research aimed at promoting
responsible EGM play (e.g. Cloutier, Ladouceur, & Se
´vigny, 2006; Floyd, Whelan, &
Meyers, 2006; Monaghan, 2008; Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010; Schellink & Schrans,
2002; Stewart & Wohl, 2013). This is because, among other reasons, they interrupt a
gambling session and capture the gambler’s attention, thereby providing the opportunity to
effectively convey responsible gambling information. Indeed, with focus on the embedded
responsible gambling message, there is more opportunity for comprehension of the target
message, and thus greater potential to influence an individual’s behaviour (see Bailey,
Konstan, & Carlis, 2001).
Pop-up messages have been used to inform gamblers about how EGMs work (in order
to undermine erroneous cognitions regarding EGM functioning) and the problems that can
develop as a result of excessive play (see Cloutier et al., 2006; Floyd et al., 2006;
Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2007). For example, Monaghan and Blaszczynski (2007)
assessed whether a pop-up message on an EGM was more effective at conveying a
responsible gambling message regarding the odds of winning than a static message placed
on the left of the screen. Results revealed that gamblers remembered more of the message,
and did so more accurately, when it was presented via a pop-up message. It was argued
that presenting responsible gambling messages via pop-up messages captured gamblers’
attention, thus allowing them to accurately remember the message.
Unfortunately, much of the research on pop-up messages has focused on conveying
information about the probabilities of success at gambling and the random nature of
gambling outcomes, even though it is known that this information does not always lead to
responsible gambling behaviours (see Hing, 2003,2004; Williams & Connolly, 2006). To
address this issue, Stewart and Wohl (2013) tested the effectiveness of a pop-up message
that (a) conveyed the importance of pre-commitment (i.e. monetary limit setting and
adherence), and (b) included a text box where gamblers could explicitly set a monetary
limit on their play, to determine whether pop-up messages could directly influence
gambling behaviour. Results revealed that all gamblers who were asked to set a monetary
limit prior to EGM play did so. One potential reason this pop-up message was effective is
because indicating a limit on play turns a potentially vague concept into a concrete plan.
Indeed, Parush, Wohl, Mitchell, and Kim (2013) found that gamblers often report that they
set a vague limit on their play; that is, the limit set is not well formulated (e.g. ‘I am willing
to lose around $50’). By indicating a monetary limit via a pop-up message prior to EGM
play, a potentially vague limit becomes concrete, thus facilitating responsible gambling.
International Gambling Studies 3
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Based on the supposition that time limit pre-commitment has the same responsible
gambling benefits as monetary pre-commitment, some gambling jurisdictions in Canada
(e.g. Alberta and Nova Scotia) have incorporated a time limit pre-commitment tool into
their EGMs (see Polatschek et al., 2013; Wynne, 2009). However, empirical research on
the effects of time limit pre-commitment tools to regulate gambling behaviours has been
mixed. For example, Ladouceur and Se
´vigny (2009) found that pre-committing to a time
limit was not effective in controlling the amount of time spent gambling. In their study,
82% of participants stated that pre-committing to a time limit was not useful in helping
them adhere to their time limits. However, these gamblers did not generate their own time
limit. Instead, they were given a predetermined list of time limit options (15, 30, 45 and
60 minutes). When gamblers are given the freedom to choose their own time limit, they
may be more apt to adhere to their limit. Moreover, Polatschek and colleagues (2013)
suggested that a self-selected time limit might be the most effective avenue to facilitate
responsible gambling. Providing additional empirical evidence for this contention, Auer
and Griffiths (2013) showed that gamblers who set a voluntary time limit gambled for
shorter durations and spent less money than gamblers who did not set a time limit on their
play. Moreover, Blaszczynski et al. (in press) found that the vast majority of gamblers who
used a time limit feature embedded within an EGM reported spending less time gambling.
Thus, time limit settings may be an important responsible gambling tool that allows
gamblers to avoid excessive play and the harms associated with EGMs.
Unfortunately, the causal role played by a time limit tool in facilitating responsible
gambling is not yet known, due to methodological limitations in the extant research. In
studies by Auer and Griffiths (2013) as well as Blaszczynski et al. (in press), all gamblers
were exposed to the time limit tool. In Auer and Griffiths (2013), voluntary time limit
setting behaviour by a subsample of online gamblers within a mandatory limit setting
framework was tracked for subsequent data analyses. In Blaszczynski et al. (in press), data
was collected from gamblers who played a particular EGM that had a time limit tool as an
option. As such, it was not possible to assess whether the presence of the time limit tool
itself affected responsible gambling or whether individual differences influenced time
limit setting as well as time on device.
The present research was designed to extend the work of Auer and Griffiths (2013)as
well as Blaszczynski et al. (in press) by experimentally manipulating (with random
assignment) the presence of a time limit pop-up message tool among EGM gamblers.
Specifically, the current research examined whether providing an opportunity to set a time
limit prior to play (i.e. commit to a time limit, compared to not making such a suggestion)
via a pop-up message resulted in (a) a greater likelihood that a time limit would be set, and
(b) a shorter duration of EGM gambling. In doing this, we were able to capitalize on the
strengths of the experimental method to assess the causal role that the presence of a time
limit tool plays (compared to the absence of such a tool) in promoting responsible
gambling behaviour. In many respects, the experimental method is the best way of
gathering scientific information (i.e. information that is empirical, reliable, systematic and
verifiable) because research conducted under controlled conditions eliminates the
influence of extraneous variables (Davis & Rose, 2000).
Importantly, as the aim of responsible gambling strategies is to reduce the incidence of
disordered gambling (i.e. prevention; Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004), the
current research focused on assessing the responsible gambling utility of a time limit pop-
up tool among non-problem and low risk gamblers (for a similar rationale, see Wohl,
Christie, Matheson, & Anisman, 2010; Wohl et al., 2013). It was hypothesized that asking
non-problem or low-risk gamblers to consider setting a time limit on their play would
4H.S. Kim et al.
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
facilitate the setting of an explicit time limit, compared to participants who were not asked
to do so. Additionally, it was hypothesized that asking these gamblers to set an explicit
time limit prior to EGM play would result in less time spent gambling compared to
participants who were not provided with an opportunity to set a time limit.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 43 non-problem and low-risk EGM gamblers (17 males, 26
females) recruited from a large Canadian university. Their symptoms of gambling
problems and preferred game were known prior to the study because the nine-item
Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) from the Canadian Problem Gambling Index
(CPGI; Ferris & Wynne, 2001), as well as an assessment of preferred gambling activity,
was distributed to a broad range of undergraduate courses at the onset of the academic
year. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 53 years (M¼21.40, SD ¼6.10). All
participants were compensated $30 for their participation ($20 to gamble with and an
additional $10 for their time and effort).
Procedure
All participants were informed that the study involved EGM gambling in a Virtual Reality
(VR) casino and that they had the opportunity to win money depending on the outcome of
the game. Participants who agreed to participate in the study were then randomly assigned
to one of two conditions: a time-limit pop-up condition or no time limit pop-up condition
(control). Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were greeted by the experimenter and
provided with details of the nature of the study. Once informed consent was obtained,
participants were guided to a nearby computer in order to engage in EGM play in the VR
casino.
All participants were informed that they would be given 80 credits (equivalent to $20)
to gamble with, and that the odds of winning in the VR casino were the same as in an actual
casino. Importantly, participants were informed they could gamble for as long as they
wished to do so and would have an opportunity to trade in any remaining credits for cash at
the end of the session. Participants were then asked to put on a VR headset (Z800 3D
Visor, eMagin Corporation, Fishkill, New York) that allowed participants to gamble in the
VR casino.
In the time-limit pop-up condition, prior to engaging in EGM play, participants were
informed that a pop-up message would appear when they accessed an EGM in the VR
casino. They were told that the pop-up message would ask them to consider setting a time
limit on their play (in minutes). Importantly, participants were also informed that they
were free to choose any time limit (including setting no limit at all) and that they could
stop gambling at any time, irrespective of the time limit they may have set. Participants
were instructed to indicate their chosen time limit in a text box provided in the pop-up
message. Participants were neither reminded when they reached their limit nor led to
believe that such a reminder would be given. In the no time limit pop-up condition,
participants did not receive a pop-up message and were informed that they were free to
gamble for as long as they wished to do so. At the end of the experimental session,
participants in the no-time limit condition were asked to report whether they had set a time
limit prior to EGM play and, if applicable, the duration of the limit set.
International Gambling Studies 5
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Unbeknown to the participants, all spins on the EGM were predetermined; hence, all
participants experienced the same sequence of losses and wins. Specifically, participants
initially experienced a small series of wins, followed by a series of losses. Then,
participants ‘floated’ between 40 and 60 credits until they decided to quit. Once
participants decided they no longer wanted to gamble, they were asked to complete a
questionnaire booklet which included, among other items, a demographics questionnaire
and a question inquiring as to whether participants set a time limit during their current
EGM session. Following completion of these questionnaires, participants were debriefed
and compensated for their participation in the study.
Measures
Problem gambling symptomatology
The nine-item PGSI from the CPGI (Ferris & Wynne, 2001) was used to assess the
presence and severity of gambling problems among participants. The PGSI contains five
items that assess problem gambling behaviour (e.g. ‘Have you bet more than you could
really afford to lose?’) and four items addressing the consequences of gambling (e.g. ‘Has
gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?’). Participants
were asked to rate items on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never)to3(Almost
Always).
Time limit setting
We assessed whether (a) participants set a limit on the amount of time on the EGM and (b)
if they did so, what that time limit was. Among participants in the time limit pop-up
message condition, this information was gleaned from the response they provided in the
pop-up message text box. For participants in the no time limit pop-up condition, a time
limit questionnaire item was provided to them after they finished gambling. Specifically,
participants were asked ‘Did you set a limit on the amount of time you wanted to spend
gambling?’ A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response option was provided. If participants answered ‘yes’
they were asked to indicate the time limit that was set.
Time spent on machine
The amount of time participants spent gambling on the EGM was recorded using a
standard stopwatch.
Results
Preliminary analysis
In order to confirm random assignment and equivalency of groups by experimental
condition, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether
there were any systematic, pre-existing differences in gambling symptomatology among
participants assigned to the time limit pop-up condition vs. no time limit pop-up condition.
Results revealed that participants in the time limit pop-up condition (M¼.35, SD ¼.67)
and no time limit pop-up condition (M¼.43, SD ¼.73) did not significantly differ in
level of gambling symptomatology, F(1, 42) ¼.16, p¼.70. As such, we collapsed
across this variable for all subsequent analyses.
6H.S. Kim et al.
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Main analyses
First, we examined whether there was a difference in time limit setting between participants
in the time limit pop-up condition and those in the no time limit pop-up condition.
As predicted, 20 of the 20 participants (100%) in the time limit pop-up condition set a time
limit compared to only 1 of the 23 (4.35%) in the no time limit pop-up condition, x
2
(1) ¼
39.17, p,.001. Due to the low number of participants who set a limit in the no time limit
pop-up condition, a proper statistical comparison of the specific time limit set between
conditions could not be conducted. Similarly, we were not able to statistically examine
differences in adherence to limits across the conditions.
Next, we tested whether the time limit pop-up manipulation influenced time spent on
the EGM. To this end, a between-groups ANOVA was conducted on the amount of time
participants engaged in EGM play. This analysis revealed that participants who were
explicitly asked to set a time limit prior to engaging in play gambled for significantly less
time (M¼5.00 minutes, SD ¼4.20) than those who were not explicitly asked to set a
time limit (M¼9.48, SD ¼8.70), F(1, 42) ¼4.42, p¼.041, h
2
¼.10 (see Figure 1).
Moreover, over half the participants (11 of 20) in the time limit pop-up condition gambled
for less time than their indicated limit.
Discussion
The seeds of disordered gambling are often found in a failure to set and adhere to limits
placed on gambling. The current study assessed whether asking gamblers to explicitly set a
time limit prior to a session of EGM play (via a pop-up message) increased the incidence
of time limit setting and decreased the time gamblers’ spent on EGMs. It was hypothesized
that gamblers who were explicitly asked to set a time limit prior to EGM play would set a
limit, and thus gamble less than those who were not explicitly asked to do so. Results
provide support for this hypothesis – participants who were given the option to set a time
limit prior to play (as a result of a pop-up message that provided them with an opportunity
to do so) were significantly more likely to do so and gambled for significantly less time
than participants who received no such instruction. In addition to spending less time on
EGMs, the majority of participants in the time limit condition gambled for less time than
their indicated limit, suggesting that the act of setting a time limit itself may be an
important responsible gambling strategy.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Time limit pop-up condition No time limit pop-up condition
Time spent gambling (in min.)
Po
p
-u
p
condition
Figure 1. Amount of time (in minutes) spent gambling on the EGM by condition.
International Gambling Studies 7
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
The current research extends existing knowledge on the responsible gambling effects
of pre-commitment to the domain of time limits. Although past research suggests that
gamblers are not likely to set a time limit prior to EGM play (Schrans, Grace, &
Schellinck, 2004), the current study suggests that if asked to consider setting a time limit
prior to EGM play, gamblers will do so. All participants exposed to a pop-up message that
provided them with the option of setting a limit on the amount of time they wished to
spend gambling chose to set such a limit. Furthermore, results suggest that setting time
limits is an effective way to help gamblers reduce the amount of time they spend on
EGMs. This is consistent with previous research in gambling venues showing that
although few gamblers elect to set a time limit, those who do so find this to be an effective
method to control their gambling (Blaszczynski et al., in press).
One possible explanation for why setting a time limit resulted in significantly less time
spent gambling may relate to the fact that asking gamblers to explicitly set a time limit acts
as a form of public commitment. Past research suggests that publicly committing to a goal
increases the likelihood of reaching the goal (Hollenbeck, Williams, & Klein, 1989; Moyers
et al., 2007; Mussell et al., 2000) and this public commitment strategy has been successfully
applied in other domains of health research, such as weight loss (Nyer & Dellande, 2010).
Applied to the domain of gambling, having gamblers explicitly set a time limit may help
them externalize their limit and increase the likelihood that gamblers will play responsibly.
Lastly, we caution that not all pop-up messages are created equal and thus there may be
variance in their effectiveness as responsible gambling tools. Parush and colleagues
(2013), for example, argued that responsible gambling-oriented pop-up messages typically
do not conform to basic Human Computer Interactions (HCI) principles, guidelines and
heuristics, which undermines the end-users’ desire to interact or use the tool. Providing
support for their contention, Warren, Parush, Wohl, and Kim (in press) created an HCI-
inspired responsible gambling tool and found that (compared to a standard responsible
gambling tool, which typically violates HCI-principles) monetary limit setting and
adherence was enhanced. Moreover, gamblers enjoyed using the HCI-inspired pop-up
message tool more than the standard tool (i.e. they felt the HCI-inspired pop-up message
tool was easy to use and did not undermine their gambling enjoyment). There is no reason
to believe that these results would not extend to a time limit pop-up message if designed
with such principles.
Implications
On theoretical grounds, limiting the amount of time spent gambling has been recognized as
an important responsible gambling strategy by the gambling industry (Currie, Hodgins,
Wang, El-Guebaly, & Wynne, 2008; Moore, Thomas, Kyrios, & Bates, 2012; Responsible
Gambling Council, 2006) and the general public (Turner et al., 2005). Moreover, while some
gambling activities may benefit from setting a monetary limit, others may benefit more from
a time limit (Currie et al., 2008; see Weinstock, Ledgerwood, & Petry, 2007). Indeed, a time
limit may be particularly important when engaging in gambling activities in which gamblers
report a tendency to lose track of time (e.g. EGMs; Diskin & Hodgins, 2001;Stewart&
Wohl, 2013). The current results provide preliminary evidence for such a supposition.
The observed findings appear to have immediate applied significance in providing
policymakers with an understanding of the responsible gambling utility of a time limit
tool, especially a tool that uses a pop-up message to engage gamblers to set an explicit time
limit prior to EGM play. Specifically, based on the results reported herein, we suggest that
the incorporation of time limit tools (such as a time limit pop-up message) on EGMs may
8H.S. Kim et al.
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
be effective in assisting gamblers in reducing the time they spend on EGMs. Moreover, the
reported results provide preliminary empirical support for the responsible gambling
policies of Canadian jurisdictions (e.g. Alberta and Nova Scotia) that have included a time
limit tool in their responsible gambling system.
Moreover, results of the current research demonstrated that although gamblers do not
typically set a time limit on their play (see Blaszczynski et al., in press; Manitoba Gaming
Control Commission, 2009), they do so when provided with explicit direction, which
reduces the time spent gambling. In this light, it may be prudent that gambling
jurisdictions offer a time limit tool, especially one that uses a pop-up message to instruct
the gambler to set an explicit time limit on their gambling. However, akin to the gamblers
in the current study, we argue that the gambler should have the choice to set a time limit
(i.e. voluntary pre-commitment). In accordance with Rose, Lucas, Jang, and Kim (2008),
voluntary pre-commitment (as opposed to mandatory pre-commitment) provides gamblers
with choice, which allows for greater investment in their decision-making behaviours.
Limitations
Some limitations of the current research should be noted. First, participants were recruited
from the student population at a large Canadian university, which may limit the
generalizability to ecologically valid environments, such ascasinos. University student EGM
gamblers may not be representative of EGM gamblers in general (Gainsbury &
Blaszczynski, 2011; Gainsbury, Russell, & Blaszczynski, 2014). Notwithstanding, the
between-group effects of the time limit setting manipulation should extend beyond the
restricted sample. That is, there is nothing inherent to the manipulation that would be
particularly appealing to a university sample of EGM gamblers. However, future research
should examine whether the effects of time limit setting observed in the current paper
generalizes to other EGM populations. Indeed, the average time participants spent on the
EGM in the current study (M¼7.40 minutes) is likely to be less than gamblers would spend
engaged in EGM play in an actual gambling venue (see Ladouceur & Se
´vigny, 2009;Schrans
et al., 2004). The short observed duration of play might be indicative of a low tolerance for
gambling in a laboratory setting – a possibility in need of empirical attention. Importantly,
the relatively short duration of play cannot account for the reported between-condition
differences. Specifically, individual differences in tolerance for gambling in a laboratory
should be eliminated by random assignment between conditions. Thus, the observed
between-condition effect should only be the result of the experimental manipulation. It
should be noted that the standard deviations for the average time participants spent on the
EGM in both the experimental and control conditions were large. When such a situation is
present, a medium to large effect size is needed to achieve statistical significance with a small
sample (Cohen, 1988). In the current study, a medium effect size was observed with a small
sample (d¼.10 with an N¼43; see Cohen, 1988), which increases our confidence in the
present findings. Nonetheless, the large standard deviations provide grounds for caution
when interpreting the findings and suggest a need for replication.
Third, due to demand characteristics, participants might have felt some pressure to set a
time limit in the time limit condition, which might have driven some of the observed effect.
This possibility was likely reduced through the use of a non-direct means of setting and
reporting the time limit to avoid direct reporting to the experimenter. In addition, the manner
in which participants set their time limit via pop-up messages mimics that which may be
experienced in vivo, thus providing greater confidence in our findings. However, future
studies should be replicated in a real gambling setting to provide greater ecological validity.
International Gambling Studies 9
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Fourth, some participants in the time limit condition might have expected a reminder
when their limit was reached. If this were the case, they might have yielded the responsibility
to monitor their time spent playing to the EGM (i.e. exceeding one limit might have been the
result of a diffusion of responsibility for monitoring time on device). Of the nine participants
who exceeded their limit in the time limit condition, some might have benefited from an
additional pop-up message that reminded them of their limit when reached.
Fifth, the control condition (i.e. participants who were not exposed to a time limit tool)
did not receive any form of intervention. As such, we cannot determine whether the results
found in the current study are due to the time limit feature itself or simply the presence of a
novel or ‘different experience’ as a result of exposure to a pop-up message on an EGM
screen. That is, the presence of a pop-up message may alter the gamblers’ experience (e.g.
reducing their desire to gamble). Note, however, that Parush and colleagues (2013)
showed that the presence of a pop-up message does not undermine the amount of
enjoyment or craving gamblers experience whilst playing.
Fifth, participants were exposed to a single machine and a single (time limit tool)
intervention. As such, the current experiment cannot speak to the relative responsible
gambling impact of a time limit tool when other responsible gambling tools (e.g. a
monetary limit tool) are at the gambler’s disposal (cf. Wohl et al., 2013). Lastly, because
the current study focused on the use of the pop-up message tool as a prevention initiative
and not as an intervention tool, only non-problem and low-risk EGM gamblers were
recruited. Future research should examine whether the effects of a time-limit pop-up
message tool reported herein generalizes to disordered gamblers.
Conclusions
In recent years, responsible gambling tools have been introduced to facilitate responsible
gambling on EGM machines (Wynne, 2009). In the current research, the effectiveness of one
such tool – a time limit pop-up message – in promoting responsible EGM play was assessed.
Results provided support for the hypothesis that having gamblers set an explicit time limit will
result in the setting of a time limit as well as reduced time on device. Given the high rates of
disordered gambling among EGM gamblers (see Breen, 2005; Smith & Wynne, 2004), it is
important to design and empirically assess responsible gambling tools that may help EGM
gamblers set and adhere to time limits in order to encourage responsible gambling. As such,
the current research makes animportant contribution to the emerging literature examining the
effectiveness of strategies aimed at promoting responsible EGM play.
Funding
This research was supported in part by an Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC)
research grant (#370154) to the second author and third authors.
Notes on contributors
Hyoun S. Kim is a masters student at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. His research focuses on
the antecedents and consequences of disordered gambling. Specific attention is paid to facilitating
responsible gambling as well as treatment seeking.
Michael J. A. Wohl is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Carleton University, Ottawa,
Canada. The majority of his work examines means to promote responsible gambling. In addition, his
work has focused on stress and coping responses, non-rational thought and craving as predictors of
continued gambling behaviour. He has published over 60 peer-reviewed papers and is the receipt of
Carleton’s Research Achievement Award. Recently, he was awarded an infrastructure grant from the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation to build a state-of-the-art Casino Laboratory. The Carleton
University Gambling Lab contains card tables, slot machines and an interactive virtual reality casino.
10 H.S. Kim et al.
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Melissa J. Stewart is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Canada. Her research focuses on examining the role of outcome expectancies and gambling motives
on problematic gambling behaviour, as well as assessing the effectiveness strategies aimed at
promoting responsible slot machine play.
Travis Sztainert is a PhD candidate at Carleton University who examines the antecedents and
consequences of problem gambling behaviour. Specifically, he examines gambling as a behavioural
addiction, and his main area of focus concerns the subjective experience of craving often reported by
problem gamblers. Other research he has conducted includes examining how to facilitate better care
for those who may develop gambling problems, as well as identifying responsible gambling tools
that may aid in preventing problem gambling. He has also conducted research examining barriers to
treatment-seeking among problem gamblers.
Sally Gainsbury is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Gambling Education and
Research, Southern Cross University, and the Associate Editor of International Gambling Studies.
She is a clinical psychologist with several years of research experience and is the principal
investigator on several gambling research grants. She has authored many papers, book chapters,
reports and presentations on gambling. She is a board member of the International Society of
Addiction Journal Editors and International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
References
Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online
gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies,29,
647–660.
Bailey, B. P., Konstan, J. A., & Carlis, J. V. (2001). The effects of interruptions on task performance,
annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. Proceedings of the IFIP TC.13 international
conference on human–computer interaction (pp. 593 – 601), Tokyo, Japan.
Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S., & Karlov, L. (in press). Blue Gum gaming machine: An evaluation
of responsible gambling features. Journal of Gambling Studies. Advance online publication
published online March 22, 2013 doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9378-5
Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible
gambling: The reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies,20, 301– 317.
Breen, R. B. (2005). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers: A replication.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,2, 44–49.
Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers.
Journal of Gambling Studies,18, 31–43.
Cloutier, M., Ladouceur, R., & Se
´vigny, S. (2006). Responsible gambling tools: Pop-up messages
and pauses on video lottery terminals. The Journal of Psychology,140, 434 – 438.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., El-Guebaly, N., & Wynne, H. (2008). In pursuit of
empirically based responsible gambling limits. International Gambling Studies,8, 207– 227.
Davis, A., & Rose, D. (2000). The experimental method in psychology. Research Methods in
Psychology,2, 42–58.
Diskin, K. M., & Hodgins, D. C. (2001). Narrowed focus and dissociative experiences in a
community sample of experienced video lottery gamblers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science/Revue canadienne des Sciences du comportement,33, 58 – 64.
Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: User’s manual. Toronto,
ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Floyd, K., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (2006). Use of warning messages to modify gambling
beliefs and behavior in a laboratory investigation. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,20,
69–74.
Fong, T. W. (2005). The biopsychosocial consequences of pathological gambling. Psychiatry
(Edgmont),2, 22–30.
Gainsbury, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2011). The appropriateness of using laboratories and student
participants in gambling research. Journal of Gambling Studies,27, 83– 97.
International Gambling Studies 11
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Gainsbury, S., Russell, A., & Blaszczynski, A. (2014). Are psychology university student gamblers
representative of non-university students and general gamblers? A comparative analysis.
Journal of Gambling Studies,30, 11–25.
Griffiths, M. D., Wood, R. T., & Parke, J. (2009). Social responsibility tools in online gambling: A
survey of attitudes and behavior among internet gamblers. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,12,
413–421.
Hing, N. (2003). An assessment of member awareness, perceived adequacy, and perceived
effectiveness of responsible gambling strategies in Sydney clubs. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from
http://epubs.scu.edu.au/
Hing, N. (2004). The efficacy of responsible gambling measures in NSW clubs: The gambler’s
perspective. Gambling Research,16, 32–46.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the
antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 18 – 23.
Ladouceur, R., Blaszczynski, A., & Lalande, D. R. (2012). Pre-commitment in gambling: A review
of the empirical evidence. International Gambling Studies,12, 215– 230.
Ladouceur, R., & Se
´vigny, S. (2009). Electronic gambling machines: Influence of a clock, a cash
display, and a precommitment on gambling time. Journal of Gambling Issues,23, 31 – 41.
Lalande, D. R., & Ladouceur, R. (2011). Can cybernetics inspire gambling research? A limit-based
conceptualization of self-control. International Gambling Studies,11, 237– 252.
Manitoba Gaming Control Commission. (2009). Limit - setting campaign evaluation report.
Retrieved from http://www.mgcc.mb.ca/forms/limits_report.pdf
McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd. (2006). Australian National Survey of Gambler Precommitment
Behaviour. Gambling Research Australia, Melbourne, Victoria.
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.
Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2007). Recall of electronic gaming machine signs: A static
versus a dynamic mode of presentation. Journal of Gambling Issues,20, 253 – 267.
Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Impact of mode of display and message content of
responsible gambling signs for electronic gaming machines on regular gamblers. Journal of
Gambling Studies,26, 67–88.
Moore, S. M., Thomas, A. C., Kyrios, M., & Bates, G. (2012). The self-regulation of gambling.
Journal of Gambling Studies,28, 405–420.
Morgan, T., Kofoed, L., Buchkoski, J., & Carr, R. D. (1996). Video lottery gambling: Effects on
pathological gamblers seeking treatment in South Dakota. Journal of Gambling Studies,12,
451–460.
Moyers, T. B., Martin, T., Christopher, P. J., Houck, J. M., Tonigan, J. S., & Amrhein, P. C. (2007).
Client language as a mediator of motivational interviewing efficacy: Where is the evidence?
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,31, 40s–47s.
Mussell, M. P., Mitchell, J. E., Crosby, R. D., Fulkerson, J. A., Hoberman, H. M., & Romano, J. L.
(2000). Commitment to treatment goals in prediction of group cognitive-behavioral therapy
treatment outcome for women with bulimia nervosa. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology,68, 432–437.
Newman, S. C., & Thompson, A. H. (2007). The association between pathological gambling and
attempted suicide: Findings from a national survey in Canada. The Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry,52, 605–612.
Noseworthy, T. J., & Finlay, K. (2009). A comparison of ambient casino sound and music: Effects on
dissociation and on perceptions of elapsed time while playing slot machines. Journal of
Gambling Studies,25, 331–342.
Nyer, P. U., & Dellande, S. (2010). Public commitment as a motivator for weight loss. Psychology &
Marketing,27(1), 1–12.
Parush, A., Wohl, M. J. A., Mitchell, K., & Kim, H. S. (2013). Facilitating responsible gambling
through persuasive technology: Using human-computer interaction principles to better money
limit tools [Research Report]. Guelph, ON: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
Polatschek, A., Wadden, L., & Gwynn, M. (2013, November). My-Play: Nova Scotia’s experience
with a responsible gambling system for VLT’s. In N. Grinblat (Chair). Responsible gambling
technology. Symposium conducted at the 23rd Annual Conference on National Association for
Gambling Studies, Sydney, Australia.
12 H.S. Kim et al.
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
Potenza, M. N., Kosten, T. R., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2001). Pathological gambling. Jama,286,
141–144.
Responsible Gambling Council. (2006). Electronic gaming machines and problem gambling. Report
prepared for the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gambling Authority. Retrieved from http://www.resp
onsiblegambling.org/docs/research-reports/electronic-gaming-machines-and-problem-gambl
ing.pdf?sfvrsn¼10
Rose, I. N., Lucas, A. F., Jang, D., & Kim, J. (2008). Gambling and the law w: Regulators punt on
proposed internet gaming regulations. Gaming Law Review,12(1), 1 – 4.
Schellink, T., & Schrans, T. (2002). Atlantic Lottery corporation video lottery responsible gaming
feature research: Final report. Halifax, NS: Focal Research Consultants.
Schellinck, T., & Schrans, T. (2007). The Nova Scotia player tracking data analysis. Focal Research
Consultants Ltd. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation.
Schrans, T., Grace, J., & Schellinck, T. (2004). 2003 NS VL responsible gaming features evaluation:
Final report. Report prepared by Focal Research Consultants Ltd. for the Nova Scotia Gaming
Corporation, Halifax, Nova Scotia, October 2004.
Smith, G. J., & Wynne, H. J. (2004). VLT gambling in Alberta: A preliminary analysis. Alberta Gaming
Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/algri/2004/
143062.pdf
Squires, E. C., Sztainert, T., Gillen, N. R., Caouette, J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2012). The problem with
self-forgiveness: Forgiving the self deters readiness to change among gamblers. Journal of
Gambling Studies,28, 337–350.
Stewart, M. J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2013). Pop-up messages, dissociation, and craving: How monetary
limit reminders facilitate adherence in a session of slot machine gambling. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors,27, 268–273.
Turner, N. E., Wiebe, J., Falkowski-Ham, A., Kelly, J., & Skinner, W. (2005). Public awareness of
responsible gambling and gambling behaviours in Ontario. International Gambling Studies,5,
95–112.
Warren, K., Parush, A., Wohl, M. J. A., & Kim, H. S. (in press). Embedded disruption in online slot
machines facilitates responsible gambling. Proceedings of Persuasive 2014, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.
Weinstock, J., Ledgerwood, D. M., & Petry, N. M. (2007). Association between posttreatment
gambling behavior and harm in pathological gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,21,
185–193.
Wiebe, J., & Cox, B. J. (2001). A profile of Canadian adults seeking treatment for gambling
problems and comparisons with adults entering an alcohol treatment program. Canadian Journal
of Psychiatry,46, 418–421.
Williams, D. J., & Connolly, R. (2006). Does learning about the mathematics of gambling change
gambling behavior? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,20, 62– 68.
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.
Wohl, M. J. A., Gainsbury, S., Stewart, M. J., & Sztainert, T. (2013). Facilitating responsible
gambling: The relative effectiveness of education-based animation and monetary limit setting
pop-up messages among electronic gaming machine players. Journal of Gambling Studies,29,
703–717.
Wulfert, E., Franco, C., Williams, K., Roland, B., & Maxson, J. H. (2008). The role of money in the
excitement of gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,22, 380 – 390.
Wynne, H. (2009). Evaluating VLT responsible gaming features in Alberta: Phase II final report.
Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission. Retrieved from https://aglc.ca/pdf/gaming/news_
releases/VLT_responsible_features_phase2_report.pdf
International Gambling Studies 13
Downloaded by [134.117.120.30] at 07:12 02 May 2014
