Content uploaded by Alun Jackson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alun Jackson on Aug 11, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Influence of Pre-Commitment and Associated
Player-Card Technologies on Decision Making: Design,
Research and Implementation Issues
Sharen Nisbet
1
&Alun Jackson
2
&Darren R. Christensen
3
Published online: 15 July 2015
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract This paper describes player knowledge, attitudes and practices associated with the
use of cashless and card based gambling technologies in Australia and considers their influence
on player decision making. The experience of gaming venues who have implemented these
technologies is similarly considered. Factors that could maximise adoption success and deliver
positive outcomes for these venues and their customers are explored. The evidence that
unfolded during the two-stage qualitative study of these issues is presented with an emphasis
on the implications of the findings for policy makers. Where appropriate, factors that might
encourage partial and full use of these systems among players are highlighted. Finally, design,
research and implementation issues related to mandatory and voluntary to use cashless and card
based gambling schemes are discussed.
Keywords Gambling.Electronic gamingmachines .Pre-commitment.Cashless and cardbased
gambling .Decision making .Technology adoption
The functionality and likely consequences of the use of cashless and card based gambling
technologies (CCBGTs) have been considered and debated by Australian gambling industry
stakeholders for more than a decade (Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous
Workers Union 2003; Casey 2003; Independent Gambling Authority 2005; Independent
Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal 2004). During this time the industry, ostensibly representing
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240
DOI 10.1007/s11469-015-9574-x
*Sharen Nisbet
sharen.nisbet@scu.edu.au
Alun Jackson
aluncj@unimelb.edu.au
Darren R. Christensen
Darren.christensen@uleth.ca
1
School of Business & Tourism, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
2
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC 3010, Australia
3
University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada
the rights of players, shifted from advocating the widespread introduction of cashless payment
technologies, on the basis of their harm minimisation potential (Aristocrat Technologies
Australia Pty Limited 2003; Australasian Gaming Machine Manufacturers Association 2003;
ClubsNSW 2003), to opposing mandated adoption (Clubs Australia, 2011a,b; Clubs Australia
and the Australian Hotels Association 2011). Conversely, public policy has shifted from a
rejection (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal 2004) to acceptance of CCBGTs based
on their potential to support player decision making and thus reduce harm (Productivity
Commission 2010).
While there are many possible functions that can be assigned to CCBGTs, the three primary
uses in Australian venues include marketing, cashless play and pre-commitment. Most
popularly used for marketing, these cards enable players to participate in loyalty schemes that
reward player turnover. Venues benefit from this use by gaining a rich set of detailed data
about the play activity of their customers. Perhaps next most popular is the cashless function
which, although not widely adopted and offered by venues is established in several large clubs
in both NSWand Queensland (QLD) and in small hotels in Adelaide, South Australia. Despite
being an opt-in function required by the relevant legislation, there is ‘relatively little interest in
pre-commitment’among cashless card adopters (Productivity Commission 2010, p. C.8).
This pre-commitment component involves EGM players setting limits on their losses
before they start to play. While this commitment can be made and met in myriad ways
including the popular techniques of budgeting and willpower (McDonnell-Phillips 2006),
the degree to which players adhere to non-technological commitments has been questioned
on the basis that these commitments are non-binding.
While these alternative EGM payment options are represented on only a small number of
machines relative to those that accept cash, they have unarguably changed the nature of the
player experience. The dimensions and consequences of that change at the time this study
commenced were, however, largely unknown. This paper, then, describes a two-phase study
that examined cashless and card-based gambling (CCBG) in New South Wales (NSW),
Australia. It focuses on the impact of emerging electronic gaming machine (EGM) payment
technologies on two key stakeholder groups, players and gambling organisations.
Change Agents, Diffusion Theory and Organisational Success
Changes in gambling behaviour that occur as a consequence of player’s use of CCBGTs, and
the primary and secondary impacts or consequences of that use on venues were investigated in
Study One. The purpose of this study was to understand the role that gaming venue employees
play in gambler’s new technology adoption. The second was to explore the dimensions of
customer use of cashless cards to provide explanations for variations in usage behaviour that
could provide some tentative, early theories of player involvement. Thus, a small sample of
staff (n=14) from two large venues were interviewed about the process of recruiting and
supporting new cashless card users. Each venue that volunteered their staff to this study had
around 300 EGMs and 30,000 members, and had introduced the same proprietary card-based
gambling system 4 years earlier.
These employees were asked to describe changes in player behaviour they perceived since
the introduction of the system and to reflect on the impact of that introduction on the venue and
the players. The development and results of these studies were informed by the technology
adoption and use literature.
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240 229
Three traditional and connected schools exist for studying technology adoption and use:
diffusion, its derivative adoption, and domestication or technological determinism (Wajcman
2002). Adoption research has developed largely to demonstrate factors or characteristics of the
technology that affect its success, using intention or usage as a dependent variable (Venkatesh
et al. 2003). While empirically tested and widely applied, many of these models are largely
based on projected, rather than actual, use.
Diffusion models encompass elements of adoption research, mapping or predicting
technology uptake over a period of time (Rogers 2003). Diffusion theory is useful in
considerations of who might change their behaviour and when, although the extent and
consequences of that behaviour change are not often explicated. The diffusion of technolo-
gies literature, which often includes observations about the rate and relative success of the
adoption of significant public health and environmental initiatives (for example contracep-
tion, vaccinations and clean water programs), suggests that key persons, or change agents,
are critical in encouraging adoption, training users, and following up to ensure continued and
full use of an innovation (Rogers 2003).
Consistent with the inductive and grounded methodological basis of Study One, a typology
of change agent involvement in cashless and card based technology adoption was developed
during stage two of this investigation. Evidence from the employees who contributed to this
study suggests that they play this change agent role to varying degrees and, consequently, the
player adoption outcomes are variable. The results supported the findings of Rogers (2003)to
indicate, however, that change agents are critical to ensuring that organisations meet their
adoption outcomes.
As the literature was further explored in relation to the emergent findings it was revealed
that these staff must be able to: recognise and respond to customer needs; reflect on the effect
of customer adoption of cashless mechanisms on their role and responsibilities; and have a
deep understanding of the consequences of card use for the venue as well as its customers. This
research found that, while most venue employees have highly effective customer service skills,
the ability to reflect upon and rationalise use in relation to players and the wider organisational
and community benefits are higher order communication skills that require venues to invest in
staff training and development. The goals of the organisation also need to be clearly stated and,
where venues support harm reduction and responsible gambling initiatives, these should be
consistent with a goal of good corporate citizenship.
The benefits of such a commitment and investment will be realised by venues as effective
and responsive staff who readily observe and respond to the needs of all gamblers. This
response could include, but is not limited to, supporting patrons in their decision making
around appropriate and effective limit setting, assisting patrons exhibiting problematic usage
behaviours to seek help from counsellors, providing exclusion advice and support where
appropriate, and reporting unintended and unanticipated consequences of use during trial
and evaluation stages.
Employee respondents were also asked to articulate perceived changes in within-session
player behaviours that have the potential to affect ongoing use of cashless cards. Of particular
interest were those behaviours exhibited by card users that may have a protective function,
enhancing decision making and facilitating responsible play. Participants thought that cashless
cards allowed players to end a session at a time of their choosing. Removing the card from the
machine transfers credits to the player account, which can be collected at the cashier, or
retained for play at a later date. Importantly, this allows the player to act on an impulse to end
the session without having to wait for a machine attendant. In a study of ticket in –ticket out
230 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240
EGM payment technologies in similarly large venues with ticket redemption machines it was
similarly concluded that the ability to quickly end a session had a potentially protective
function (Carter 2006).
The specific functionality of the card also played a role. The ability to ‘bank’winnings to
the player account and to readily check the balance of that account appeared protective and
informational. Incremental transfers of value from the account to the machine were also useful
in this way.
Player Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Associated with Their Use
of Cashless Payment Systems
The second, consecutive study sought to describe player behaviours associated with the use of
cashless gambling cards from the perspective of players. In-depth, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with 30 Australian cashless player card users (n=26) and non-users (n=4)
from two gaming venues in order to explore their experiences.
Gaming employees had a critical role to play in relation to the recruitment of players,
recommending participation to those present on the gaming floor at the time the interviews
took place. At one venue, the loyalty manager assumed this responsibility while at the other,
the duty managers took this on. The player loyalty manager had advised several patrons in the
preceding weeks that the research would be taking place, and had sought an initial expression
of interest from players that was followed up on the day. At the second venue, players were
recruited ‘cold’from the gaming floor by various shift supervisors.
These players chose the location of the interview within the venue, which was largely a
choice between the lounge/dining area adjacent to the gaming floor or, if reluctant to
move away, at the gaming machine. Approximately five players chose the latter option.
While this added some complexity due to background noise and privacy, it had the
distinct advantage of allowing players to demonstrate behaviours, such as loading and
downloading money and checking the card balance, as the interview proceeded. Light
(2006) suggests evoking or ‘explicating’the experience as a way of encouraging participants to
visualise an activity and this was therefore a useful way to increase understanding of the
concepts being discussed.
Transcripts of each 90 min interview were imported into NVivo and analysed using the
pragmatic, pattern seeking technique of discourse analysis (Alvesson 2003;Light2006; Potter
and Wetherall 1987). The philosophy of discourse analysis is to ‘show rather than tell’(Light,
p. 186). Like most interpretive techniques this can reveal shared and idiosyncratic experiences
(Ponterotto 2005) which leads to context specific and not readily generalisable results.
Nonetheless, the findings were broadly consistent with findings from other subsequent
Australian card-based studies. Confluence is particularly evident in relation to the perceived
usefulness of the cashless function of these technologies and low uptake of opt-in responsible
gambling features, typically less than one per cent of card users.
The question of whether card users differentially perceive and consequently manage their
money was also framed for inclusion in this study. This is relevant to developing understand-
ing of pre-commitment behaviours generally. Most players asked to reflect on this question
said there was no change in the way they perceived their money as a consequence of card use.
However, an analysis of the behaviour described during the interviews suggests greater
complexity in their attitudes.
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240 231
The language used by participants provided some initial insight. Many players spoke, for
example, of the money on their card as their ‘gambling money’or of not having to ‘go to your
wallet and use your own money’. In this way several players were able to justify assigning most
of their winnings to future gambling, and this was facilitated by the cashless account-based
function of the card. These cognitions were not, however, exclusive to cashless card players as
many participants did differentiate between ‘the money we came with’and any winnings,
regarding these as money you ‘canplaywith.’For example, ‘if it’smyowncashIwillplay
some’said one player, adding ‘but if its cash that I have won, I will put some back in again.’In
the same way, many players also spoke of cash, held in a wallet or purse, as their ‘own’money
as distinct from money held on the card.
Overall, it appears that play with an account card or tickets assists players to gamble more
responsibly as compared to players using cash. Some cashless players won’t - or will try not to
-play with money in their purse or wallet, and might regularly draw down any winnings from
their card and place it there for safe guarding. Cashing out frequently is also a way for many
gamblers to keep track of time and money spent (Schellinck et al. 2010), and encouraging
gamblers to keep rather than reinvest their winnings seems a way to encourage the responsible
use of EGMs.
Some ticket-using players behave similarly, holding tickets in a pocket or wallet until
leaving the gaming floor and using a cashback terminal to convert their tickets to cash at the
end of a session. These players perceive cash in a wallet or on a ticket as more inaccessible
than the stored value on their card. However, almost as many players indicated that cash in a
wallet or purse was there to be spent, regardless of any pre-commitment made prior to entering
the venue. Player perceptions of gambling money, then, seem to be shaped by a complex set of
values, attitudes and play behaviours that are only partially mediated by its form and
designated function.
An alternative explanation for differences in ability to control expenditure by players using
different currency substitutes on the gaming floor might also relate to the attractiveness of
innovative EGM characteristics to these different player groups. That is, those players most
likely to adopt and use cashless cards are, perhaps, more likely to be attracted to more exciting
game features such as free spins and faster reel spin speeds. Other studies that have examined
the impact of both technological and non-technological limit setting strategies (e.g., willpower,
only taking a set amount of cash to the venue) on player behaviour have found a faster rate of
play for problem and at risk players (Schellinck et al. 2010; Schottler Consulting 2011).
Encouraging use of card -based responsible gambling features among the existing population
of card holders and users seems, therefore, a logical and promising course of action in that it
directs efforts at a potentially receptive population of users.
Notably, the users in this study represented a much larger proportion of each venue’s
gambling turnover, were frequent gamblers, were specifically targeted during the adoption
campaigns run at each venue on this basis, had a long association with the venue, and already
held and used loyalty cards. This fits the finding of Nielsen (2007)intheirNSWproblem
gambling prevalence study showing a positive relationship between frequency of play and
loyalty card adoption. While players in this study said they played with the card inserted in the
machine more often than moderate and low risk groups it was also found that problem
gamblers had a lower take up of rewards or loyalty cards overall.
This combination of factors means that cashless player accounts are especially attractive to
these players described above; many gamblers do not, however, share these characteristics.
Further research investigating the barriers to adoption amongst players who are resistant to use
232 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240
is required to ensure that the widest possible number of gamblers will trial then use the system
as intended. Adoption campaigns can be designed based these findings.
Such measures aim to reduce the harms of problem gambling by encouraging all players to
make rational and conscious decisions about their gambling. Further, it is argued that pre-
commitment, particularly where mandatory, could hinder the progression of EGM players
from no-risk and at-risk categories to problem gambling status.
Perhaps as a consequence of this voluntariness none of the users of the system investigated
in NSW were aware, at the time the study commenced, of the availability of limit and time
setting features and they were not used.
When study participants were asked about the likelihood that they would use these features
the findings were mixed, with many respondents indicating that it seemed like a good idea or,
more wholly, suggesting that as they did not have a problem with their gambling then there
was no need for limits to be set around their own gambling behaviour. To a large extent this is
consistent with the high level of support shown in various national surveys for pre-
commitment that range from 65 to 83 % (Creagh 2011; Essential Media 2011; Ogilvy
Ogilvy Illumination 2012; Schottler Consulting 2011). The idea that limit setting and the
availability of session information is a good idea for ‘other people’seems to be the basis for
this level of support.
While all gamblers are the target of a voluntary, state-wide pre-commitment scheme
described in the National Gambling Reform Act 2012 it is likely that the degree of adoption
and use will differ amongst groups of players. As the technology adoption scholars Venkatesh
et al. (2012, p. 159) have highlighted:
‘While in general, voluntariness can be perceived as a continuum from absolutely
mandatory to absolutely voluntary, consumers have no organizational mandate and thus,
most consumer behaviors are completely voluntary …’
The intended consequences of adoption for each group of consumers should, therefore, be
carefully mapped early in the design, with a view to ensuring that the advantages and
disadvantages of use are equitable. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that problem
gamblers will be rehabilitated by participation in a state-wide scheme. In all likelihood many
of these gamblers will not engage with the responsible gambling features. A further issue, as
highlighted by Schull (2012), is that card use advantages venues by allowing the collection and
collation of play data that can then be used to entice players into further expenditure. It is
possible that many at-risk players are targeted under these schemes.
Conversely, these same at-risk gamblers could benefit from participation by gaining
increased awareness of their expenditure and other risky within-session behaviours and
appropriately moderate these, perhaps with targeted interventions from staff and referrals to
counsellors, although these interventions are not required according to the legislation.
Counselling and treatment service providers and gambling venues and their staff are key users
of the system. They should be intimately involved in its design and be afforded opportunities
to provide feedback throughout the trial and implementation phases. These users will recruit
players, encourage full and considered use and, potentially, could intervene where at-risk or
problematic play is suspected.
Where a mandatory to use card based system was in place existing self-exclusion schemes
could be refined to better deliver benefits to all stakeholders including gamblers and venues.
Criticisms of many of these programs vary according to how they are operationalised within
each jurisdiction but broadly include: deterring participation by gamblers on the basis of
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240 233
privacy concerns; a lack of flexibility in the choice and number of venues from which a
gambler can exclude; difficulties for venues and their staff in monitoring and enforcing
breaches; and inflexibility regarding the duration of the exclusion period (Hing et al. 2009;
Peller et al. 2008; Responsible Gambling Responsible Gambling Council 2008; Tremblay
et al. 2008).
Design, Research and Implementation Issues Related to a National Cashless
and Card Based Gambling Scheme
Legislation passed in 2012 by the Australian Federal Government required that all gaming
machines be part of a state-wide pre-commitment system by 2018, albeit with several
exemptions. One of the first provisions of the legislation was for a trial of pre-commitment
technology, initially slated for clubs in the ACT (Panichi 2013). A change of Government in
August 2013 has now led to the introduction of legislation to repeal these reforms such that the
requirement that venues introduce pre-commitment is unlikely to proceed (Cannae 2013).
There are, nevertheless, compelling operational reasons for venues to introduce card based
technologies although the vagaries of their implementation and adoption will require careful
consideration. While the findings of many of the recent studies of CCBGTs are broadly
similar, there exist key differences in the EGM environment between jurisdictions that will
likely affect the rate and consequences of the diffusion of these technologies. One Australia
state’s system, for example, has no cashless EGMs and, in that jurisdiction, machines do not
accept notes. These venues also have an effective limit of 36 EGMs, and are thus much smaller
in this regard than the large clubs in other Australian states that permit CCBGTs. These key
contextual differences limit the universality of these study’s findings even within Australia,
and hint at some of the difficulties associated with any proposal to implement and evaluate the
effectiveness of, a standard mandatory CCBG scheme across eight Australian jurisdictions.
Another issue related to system design and implementation stems from an acknowledge-
ment of the marked growth in the availability and use of mobile and contactless payment
systems in Australia (International Quality and Productivity Centre 2012). However, banking
system innovations do not necessarily reflect the latest innovation (Merrett 2012). The
implication of this lag is that the failed Federal Government push for a universal card
based system the magnetic stripe technology proposed is already out dated and, as
acknowledged in several reviews, is not best practice (Parliamentary Joint Select
CommitteeonGamblingReform2011; Productivity Commission 2010). Gambling con-
sumers are likely to notice this and demand more innovative technologies that match their
non-EGM payment experiences.
While a universal Australian CCBG scheme is now unlikely venues will, probably,
continue to incrementally adopt these technologies as they look to leverage the resultant play
data and player benefits. In addition to its value to venues looking to segment players for
loyalty programs this data could be de-identified and made available to researchers. This
research could further understanding of the effect of use of these technologies on player
behaviour.
Assuming the privacy issues can be appropriately addressed this data could also be used to
extend the functionality of the system without adversely impacting the usage experience of the
majority of players. For example, harm minimisation messages could be tailored to player
segments and delivered dynamically within play. When a player excludes for a period greater
234 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240
than 24 hours, a voucher could be printed with a referral to a counselling service near to the
gambler’s home in addition to a 24 hour telephone helpline. This simple, tailored intervention
could be a way of increasing the number of gamblers seeking help for their behaviour,
although close monitoring of the response of gamblers during the trial phase would be
required. More controversially, where players are displaying multiple behaviours consistent
with problematic or at-risk gambling such as making several withdrawals from ATMs, crying
after losing, and putting wins back into machines, trained venue staff could be permitted to
review selected data on the basis of a possible intervention (Delfabbro et al. 2012). This
is a technique used by Host Responsibility Co-ordinators at SkyCity casino in Adelaide,
which significantly increases their ability to co-operatively and sensitively manage player
interventions (Hing et al. 2009).
Gainsbury (2011) has similarly highlighted the great value inherent in player account data.
Researchers, operators and regulators could all benefit from the prudent and considered
analysis of the data that is collected and stored as a consequence of use of cashless card based
systems and, as noted earlier, many astute gambling venue operators seeking to maximise the
marketing potential of these systems currently do. Although an analysis of this data is not
without issue including player consent (despite the ease of de-identification), a key benefit in
terms of the effort to improve the efficacy of responsible gambling interventions is an ability to
tailor interventions to particular individuals, groups or sub-groups of players. Where behavioural
research is being undertaken this can have the advantage of allowing establishment of a control
and intervention group from which actual changes in behaviour can be evaluated.
Limitations and Future Implications
Limitations related to the method used for each study reported in this paper include the
theoretical and purposive sampling methods although, it should be noted, these are sampling
strategies consistent with most qualitative and mixed method research approaches (Corbin and
Strauss 2008; Glesne and Peshkin 1992; Silverman 2005). It is also possible that the timing of
each period of data collection, which commenced in the late morning and went through to
early evening, was a factor in the high number of female participants.
Similarly, while the interpretive analysis technique used to generate the results is useful in
that it can provide a rich and deep understanding of a situation, it is bounded by the time the
data for this project was gathered and analysed and the political, social and organisational
perceptions of cashless payment technologies. Given the political context of discussions on
card-based pre-commitment systems that existed at the time of these studies there was
probably a much greater awareness of the issues than there would normally have been; the
downside is that public discourse around the issue was narrowly framed.
The link between loyalty programs and cashless card use has not been explored in the
research in any detail. These concepts are closely related due to both programs being
accessible via the (same) card; and the willingness of participants in this study to frequently
discuss their loyalty program participation in lieu of their cashless card use. This was also
evidenced by the desire of both managers to have a proposed, but ultimately unsuccessful
quantitative analysis include supplementary card-based schemes related to their loyalty/credit
card programs.
A further issue likely to impact the future of CCBGTs is the migration of players from land
based to online gaming environments. While it is difficult to ascertain how many Australian
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240 235
players supplement or have replaced their venue based gaming with an online experience, the
evidence suggests the numbers are increasing (Gainsbury, published online 2015, Apr 11). The
NSW Prevalence Survey also found a small but non-significant increase in internet gambling
between the 2006 and 2011 surveys from one to two per cent (Ogilvy Illumination 2012).
Competition from online gaming is of concern to the Australian industry and the fact that the
now abandoned mandatory card use proposal did not extend to online gambling or betting was
cited as evidence of the card use scheme’s likely ineffectiveness in reducing problem gambling
rates (Clubs Australia, 2011a).
The Scandinavian experience shows that it is possible to design and implement a CCBG
scheme that applies to both online and internet gambling (RGC for the Advancement of Best
Practices 2009), while Laplante et al. (2013) have shown the value of collecting and analysing
online play data in order to more accurately pinpoint problematic activity.
Consequences of Use
Consequences of use, while considered in this paper, are difficult to measure because users are
not aware of [all of] the effects of adoption (Rogers 2003). Rogers (2003) suggests that the
responses of change agents, (in this study the employees of venues and the organisation)
will not adequately represent the consequences of use. Nonetheless, it was felt that
operations staff may be able to illuminate some the effects of use, and that these
observations will be useful in this exploratory context. It was contended that these staff
have an affinity with and understanding of gamblers due to the service environment in
which they work and play, which differs to that traditional role of the change agent as
outsider or government/industry employee.
Consequences are also ‘often confounded with other effects’(Rogers 2003 p.442). There
has also been a suggestion that to understand technology use and its consequences requires an
untangling of cause and effect –consequences need to be exclusively an outcome of the
technology. Being mindful of the original reason for introducing the innovation is paramount
to classifying these phenomena (Rogers 2003).
In NSW the cashless component of the card was introduced by venues to increase
profitability through a lowering of overheads associated with cash handling (Nisbet 2005b)
and this research has confirmed that these technologies do indeed achieve this aim. Strong
resistance from the gambling industry toward a mandatory card use scheme casts doubt,
however, over this finding, suggesting differential costs and benefits related to the implemen-
tation of these schemes. It has been noted in the literature that the size of a venue and age of the
existing infrastructure are key factors affecting the cost to venues of investing in card- based
technologies. The industry also claims that players are resistant to these technologies, wary
of the privacy implications, and not likely to benefit in any meaningful way from their
mandatory use.
Yet, there are many benefits to venues from the adoption of such a scheme, not least the
ability to demonstrate good corporate citizenship. The possibility of increasing customer
loyalty to a venue as a consequence of introducing these technologies is also very real.
Each of these claims needs to be carefully assessed not only in the context of the impact on
venues of the existing proposal but also with an eye to changes in the form and function of
payment technologies that are occurring in the community today, and which will no doubt
impact venues in the future.
236 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240
Future research should consider these issues and also be confirmatory. Ideally, this would
involve a comparison of cashless, ticketed and cash-based EGM payment types facilitated by
an analysis of gaming machine play data as generated by existing loyalty card users. For this
analysis gaming machine play data can be extracted and de-identified. While the sample of
players would only comprise those who have signed up to the loyalty program and play the
gaming machines with their card inserted, it would nonetheless highlight within session
behaviour and answer some of the persistent questions regarding the differential effects of
adoption and use of non-cash technologies in gambling venues.
Conclusion
The possibility that new gambling technologies such as cards might be of assistance in
meeting public health goals has only recently begun to be explored. This paper has added
to the emergent knowledge around the likely contribution of new technology to changes
in gambling behaviour by uniquely examining the adoption and diffusion of cashless and
card-based gaming machine payment systems from the organisational and player perspec-
tive. While the findings of this exploratory, qualitative work have highlighted the myriad
ways in which players perceive and manage their gambling money and the many positive
and negative consequences of that use, it is bounded by the research context and method
used.
Nonetheless, the findings support some general principals of human behaviour and tech-
nology use. Despite the difficulties associated with encouraging players to adopt the card, as
evidenced by low rates of adoption, of those who do adopt, the response appears largely
positive and it is, therefore, repeated. That is, behaviour is a function of its consequence.
Understanding actual play behaviour and intended and unintended consequences of card use is
critical, therefore, to ensuring an efficient, universally available scheme: one that is well-
designed, has maximum player benefit, and contains the cost to industry while not inhibiting
innovation.
Consistent with the findings of other jurisdictions these new technologies are perceived as
easy to use and useful. Players contributing to this research did not believe that cashless card
use impacted key aspects of their play including individual expenditure, machine choice,
session length, or breaks in play relative to their prior non-cashless card use although,
somewhat contradictorily, several respondents spoke compellingly about the card’s influence
on their ability to manage their gambling money. This could be because of the ability to
sequester money to the player account, a consequence of the card reader displaying values as
dollars rather than credits, or the ability to transfer small amounts to the machine and easily end
a session. Each of these aspects appears influential in this respect although further research is
required to confirm these effects.
While the technologically based pre-commitment system scheduled for introduction in
Australia by 2018 appeared to have wide, though conditional, support from a range of
gambling industry stakeholders, the impost upon venues and the perceived infringement of
personal liberties led to a strong and co-ordinated anti-precommitment. This political discus-
sion distorted the issue, from how to offer technologies that inform and support individual
decision making, to how to protect commercial interests from policy decisions that will likely
erode profits. Headed by Clubs Australia and supported by the casino industry and Australian
Hotels Association, this lobbying effort led to an inability to hold a trial of the technology –a
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240 237
key component of the Act - and to the announcement from the current Federal Government to
repeal the Act in mid-2014 (Cannae 2013;Panichi2013).
Finally, it would be naive to assume that the moderate levels of adoption and use likely
to be achieved under a jurisdictionally-based scheme will provide adequate levels of
protection to at-risk and problem gamblers. Cashless gaming machine payment technologies
have the potential to improve the control players have over their gambling, however
additional measures are required to ensure that the benefits are use are appropriately
distributed.
It has also been noted that the benefits of voluntary use are marginal compared to other
universal responsible gambling measures such as limitations on the maximum bet size and
jackpot restrictions (Blaszczynski and Gainsbury 2011;Nisbet2005a). It has also been
submitted that ‘… only a full mandatory system …would have the capacity to impose
genuine controls on people’s expenditure …’ (Delfabbro 2011, p. 10). Consequently, a
whole of system approach should be pursued with gambling counselling and treatment
providers co-opted at the design and implementation stages. Venue staff should be appro-
priately trained in the use of pre-commitment technologies, encouraged to report unintended
and unanticipated use, and empowered, via participation in well-designed training pro-
grams, to continue to interact with gamblers and respond to suspected problematic gam-
bling behaviours in appropriate ways.
Acknowledgments The studies that informed this paper were approved by the University Human Research
Ethics Committee (ECN-05-119). No industry funding was provided for this research.
References
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to interviews in
organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13–33.
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited. (2003). Review Of gambling harm minimisation measures:
Pre-commitment or smart cards that enable limits to be set (pp. 20). Sydney.
Australasian Gaming Machine Manufacturers Association. (2003). Review of gambling harm minimisation
measures by the independent pricing and regulatory tribunal of New South Wales (pp. 129). Crows Nest.
Australian Liquor Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers Union. (2003). Submission to IPART.
Blaszczynski, A., & Gainsbury, S. (2011). Submission to the joint select committee on gambling reform inquiry
into precommitments scheme. Retrieved from inquiry into pre-commitments scheme website: https://senate.
aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=e7eb9a88-abfc-4886-83c8-e89b62eadf80.
Cannae, S. (2013). Government wants to dump pokie restrictions. Lateline. Retrieved from Lateline website:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3906145.htm.
Carter, C. (2006). Ticket in ticket Out trial and the impact on problem gamblers. Office of liquor, gaming and
racing. Sydney: NSW Government.
Casey, A. (2003). 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.
Clubs Australia. (2011a). Janelle, why won’t you stand up for our community? Lane Cove: IMMIJ Printing.
Clubs Australia. (2011b). Parliamentary joint select committeeon gambling reform inquiry into pre-commitments
scheme. Clubs Australia Submission. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia Joint Committee website:
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=8c989a3d-5dd4-4e26-8053-
0190b451915f.
Clubs Australia & the Australian Hotels Association. (2011). It’s Un-Australian. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2012, from
www.its-unaustralian.com.au.
ClubsNSW. (2003). Submission to the independent pricing and regulatory tribunal of New South Wales (pp. 54):
ClubsNSW.
238 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creagh, S. (2011). Almost 75 % suppport gambling pre-commitment rules: Poll. The Conversation. from
http://theconversation.edu.au/almost-75-support-gambling-pre-commitment-rules-poll-2559.
Delfabbro, P. (2011). Submission to the joint select committee on gambling reform. Submissions Received by the
Committee, (No. 2). https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=6d951651-
3b17-4ab0-a463-1e0bd876b038.
Delfabbro, P., Borgas, M., & King, D. (2012). Venue staff knowledge of their patrons’gambling and problem
gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28(2), 155–169.
Essential Media. (2011). Mandatory pre-commitment trial. Essential Report. from http://www.essentialmedia.
com.au/?s=pre-commitment.
Gainsbury, S. (2011). Player account-based gambling: potentials for behaviour-based research methodologies.
International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 153–171.
Gainsbury, S. (2015). Online gambling addiction: the relationship between internet gambling and disordered
gambling. Current Addiction Reports. doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0057-8.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Longman.
Hing, N., Nisbet, S. L., & Nuske, E. (2009). Assisting problem gamblers in South Australian gambling venues.
Lismore: Centre for Gambling Education & Research, Southern Cross University.
Independent Gambling Authority. (2005). Inquiry into smartcard technology. Adelaide: The Government of
South Australia.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. (2004). Gambling: Promoting a culture of responsibility.Sydney:
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.
International Quality and Productivity Centre. (2012). Driving innovation and collaboration in the mobile
payments ecosystem. Retrieved 20 March, 2013, from http://www.payments-australia.com.au/Event.aspx?
id=773950.
Laplante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Gray, H. M. (2013). Breadth and depth involvement: understanding internet
gambling involvement and its relationship to gambling problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. doi:
10.1037/a0033810.
Light, A. (2006). Adding method to meaning: a technique for exploring peoples’experience with technology.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 175–188.
McDonnell-Phillips. (2006). Analysis of gambler pre-commitment behaviour: Gambling Research Australia -
Dept of Justice.
Merrett, R. (2012). Banks slow with payment tech innovation. Computerworld. 14 June. Retrieved 26 March,
2013, from http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/427625/banks_slow_payment_tech_innovation_
mhits_ceo/.
Nielsen, AC. (2007). Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in NSW—A community survey 2006. In
NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing and Department of the Arts Sport and Recreation (Ed.). Sydney:
NSW Government.
Nisbet, S. L. (2005a). Alternative gaming machine payment methods in Australia: current knowledge and future
implications. International Gambling Studies, 5(2), 229–252.
Nisbet, S. L. (2005b). Responsible gambling features of card based technologies. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 3(2), 54–63.
Ogilvy Illumination. (2012). Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in New South Wales. Sydney.
Panichi, J. (2013). The lobby group that got much more bang for its buck. Inside Story. Retrieved from Inside
Story website: http://inside.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck/.
Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform. (2011). The design and implementation of a
mandatory pre-commitment system for electronic gaming machines. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Peller, A., LaPlante, D., & Shaffer, H. (2008). Parameters for safer gambling behavior: examining the empirical
research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(4), 519–534.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and
philosophy of science. Journal o f Counse ling Psy chology, 52(2), 126–136.
Potter, J., & Wetherall, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling report. Canberra: AGPS.
Responsible Gambling Council. (2008). From enforcement to assistance: Evolving best practices in self
exclusion. Toronto: Responsible Gambling Council.
RGC for the Advancement of Best Practices. (2009). Play information and management system.Toronto:
Responsible Gambling Council.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Schellinck, T., Schrans, T., Chen, C., & Chambers, E. (2010). Evaluating the impact of the BMy-Play^system in
Nova Scotia. Halifax: Focal Research Consultants.
Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240 239
Schottler Consulting. (2011). Factors that influence gambler adherence to pre-commitment. Brisbane: Gambling
Research Australia - Dept of Justice.
Schull, N. D. (2012). Addiction by Design. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tremblay, N., Boutin, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2008). Improved self-exclusion program: preliminary results.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(4), 505–518.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology:
toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157.
Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing technological change: the challenge to social theory. Current Sociology, 50(3),
347–363. doi:10.1177/0011392102050003004.
240 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2016) 14:228–240
