Three Contrasting Accounts of Electronic Gambling Machine Related Harm: Impacts on Community Views Towards Gambling Policy and Responsibility

Abstract

AbstractThis study investigated whether there was community support for prominent gambling harm reduction policies, as well as perceived responsibility for electronic gambling machine (EGM) related harm in an Australian sample (n = 906). Using a randomised experimental design, we also explored whether these outcomes were influenced by three alternative explanations for EGM-related harm: a brain-based account of gambling addiction, an account that highlighted the intentional design of the gambling environment focused on the “losses disguised as wins” (LDWs), and a media release advocating against further government intervention in the gambling sector. We observed clear majority support for most policies presented, including mandatory pre-commitment, self-exclusion, and a $1 limit on EGM bets. A substantial majority of participants agreed that individuals, governments, and industry should be held responsible for EGM-related harm. Participants presented with the explanation of LDWs attributed greater responsibility for gambling-related harm to industry and government, less agreement that electronic gambling machines are fair, and more agreement that EGMs are likely to mislead or deceive consumers. There was some limited evidence of greater support for policy intervention in this group, including a blanket ban of EGMs, clinical treatment funded by gambling taxes, mass media campaigns, and mandatory pre-commitment for EGMs. We found no evidence that a brain-based account of gambling addiction substantially undermined support for policy intervention. We predicted that the information about LDWs and the brain-based account of EGM related harm would soften attributions of personal responsibility for gambling harm. Our results did not support either of these predictions.