Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec 1;7(4):1056-1067.
doi: 10.1556/2006.7.2018.106. Epub 2018 Nov 12.

The effect of loss-limit reminders on gambling behavior: A real-world study of Norwegian gamblers

Michael Auer  1 , Niklas Hopfgartner  1 , Mark D Griffiths  2
Affiliations

The effect of loss-limit reminders on gambling behavior: A real-world study of Norwegian gamblers

Michael Auer et al. J Behav Addict. .

Abstract

Background: Over the past two decades, problem gambling has become a public health issue and research from many countries indicates that a small but significant minority of individuals are problem gamblers. In Norway, the prevalence of problem gambling among adults is estimated to be just less than 1%. To help minimize the harm from gambling, the Norwegian government's gambling operator (Norsk Tipping) has introduced several responsible gambling initiatives to help protect players from developing gambling problems (e.g., limit-setting tools, voluntary self-exclusion, personalized feedback, etc.).

Aim: The aim of this study was to determine whether the receiving of personalized feedback exceeding 80% of a personally set monetary personal limit had an effect on subsequent playing behavior compared to those gamblers who did not receive personalized feedback.

Methods: Out of 54,002 players, a total of 7,884 players (14.5%) received at least one piece of feedback that they had exceeded 80% of their personal global monthly loss limit between January and March 2017.

Results: Using a matched-pairs design, results showed that those gamblers receiving personalized feedback in relation to limit-setting showed significant reductions in the amount of money gambled.

Conclusion: The findings of this study will be of great value to many stakeholder groups including researchers in the gambling studies field, the gambling industry, regulators, and policymakers.

Keywords: gambling; limit-setting; personalized feedback; problem gambling; responsible gambling tools; social responsibility.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Abbott M. W., Volberg R. A., Rönnberg S. (2004). Comparing the New Zealand and Swedish national surveys of gambling and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 237–258. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGS.0000040278.08853.c0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Afifi T. O., LaPlante D. A., Taillieu T. L., Dowd D., Shaffer H. J. (2014). Gambling involvement: Considering frequency of play and the moderating effects of gender and age. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12(3), 283–294. doi: 10.1007/s11469-013-9452-3 - DOI
    1. 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(4), 647–660. doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9332-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Auer M., Griffiths M. D. (2014). An empirical investigation of theoretical loss and gambling intensity. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(4), 879–887. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9376-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Auer M., Griffiths M. D. (2015a). Testing normative and self-appraisal feedback in an online slot-machine pop-up in a real-world setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 339. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00339 - DOI - PMC - PubMed