Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review.

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016-12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice's prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally.

Examining Responsible Gambling Program Awareness and Engagement Trends and Relationships with Gambling Beliefs and Behaviors: A Three-Wave Study of Customers from a Major Gambling Operator.

A considerable body of literature has examined elements of responsible gambling (RG) programs in land-based gambling venues. The present pre-registered study examines GameSense RG program awareness and engagement trends and relationships with gambling beliefs and behaviors, at MGM's U.S.-based casino properties using three samples of MGM's loyalty program members. We used a repeated cross-sectional approach including observational data collected from one sample (N = 3748) shortly before the rollout of GameSense in 2017-2018, and from two samples collected 1 year (N = 4795) and 2 years (N = 3927) after the program's implementation. We found that awareness of the GameSense program increased between pre- and 1-year post-implementation, yet did not increase further at 2-years post-implementation. Bivariate analyses showed that respondents who were aware of more GameSense components had a better understanding of gambling concepts and used more RG strategies, whereas respondents who engaged with GameSense used more RG strategies than those who did not, but did not display a better understanding of gambling concepts. The relationship between GameSense awareness and self-reported use of RG strategies remained significant in multivariate analyses with covariates. Moderation analyses indicated that a positive effect of overall GameSense engagement on gambling literacy was only found for respondents who had attended a regional property, as compared to respondents who attended Las Vegas or metropolitan properties. All effect sizes were weak, which suggests that practical impacts of the program currently are limited. Our findings have implications for research on land-based RG programs and we provide recommendations for enhancing such programs.

Who holds a shared responsibility view of minimizing gambling harm? Results from a multiwave survey of casino gamblers.

Objective: Academics, gambling regulators, and the gambling industry increasingly espouse a shared responsibility view of preventing gambling harm, considering individual gamblers and external stakeholders (e.g., gambling industry employees, government regulators, and public health workers) to be jointly responsible for this task. This study is the third in a series exploring gamblers' beliefs about responsibility for preventing gambling harm. Method: A sample of 4,336 subscribers to MGM Resorts International (MGM)'s loyalty card program as of January 2020 completed a web-based survey. Results: We observed that 58.1% of participants only held individual gamblers responsible for helping prevent gambling harm. However, two factors increased the likelihood of holding a shared responsibility viewpoint and assigning responsibility to casinos for reducing gambling harm: (a) scoring positive on the Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS) or an Expanded Problem Gambling Screen (EPGS) and (b) being aware of GameSense, an onsite responsible gambling education program. Those who screened positive on the BBGS or EPGS also were more likely than their counterparts to deny personal responsibility for minimizing gambling harm to individual gamblers; that is, they were more likely to hold a purely external responsibility viewpoint. A meta-analytic year-over-year comparison revealed that compared to being aware of GameSense, screening positive for problem gambling was more strongly associated with assigning responsibility to casinos for minimizing gambling harm. Conclusions: We discuss these findings in the context of self-determination theory and suggest implications for health promotion and best practices for message design in responsible gambling programs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A Comparison of Two GameSense Implementation Approaches: How Program Awareness and Engagement Relate to Gambling Beliefs and Behaviors.

Despite the size and scope of responsible gambling (RG) programs in the U.S., relatively few studies have evaluated these programs. Using survey data from 4795 subscribers to a casino loyalty program, we examined respondents' awareness of and engagement with the GameSense RG program, and gambling beliefs and behaviors. We compared how differences in the implementation structure and visibility of the GameSense program (i.e., state-regulated with a standalone, branded GameSense center vs. corporate-integrated as part of loyalty program desks) was associated with GameSense awareness and engagement, perceptions of gambling operator RG practices, three Positive Play subscales (i.e., behavior, personal responsibility, and gambling literacy), understanding of gambling concepts, and use of RG strategies. More respondents who had visited the property with a state-regulated, branded center were aware of GameSense (36.5%), compared to respondents who visited other properties (7.4%). Perceptions of the operator's RG practices were generally high for all respondents. Multivariate analyses revealed no relationship between GameSense awareness and gambling belief or behavior outcomes, yet showed that respondents who picked up a GameSense brochure used slightly more RG strategies. Our findings suggest that the visibility of an RG program might influence program awareness and engagement but not certain RG-related behavioral outcomes.

Gamblers' beliefs about responsibility for minimizing gambling harm: Associations with problem gambling screening and gambling involvement.

Increasingly, gambling stakeholders communicate that minimizing gambling harm is a shared societal responsibility. Individual gamblers' beliefs about responsibility for minimizing gambling harm are worthy of study because these beliefs might influence gambling behavior. In this study, using a sample of casino loyalty program subscribers (N = 4,795), we observed that respondents who had a positive result on a brief gambling disorder screen were more likely than those who screened negative to hold seven stakeholder groups (i.e., scientists, clinicians, casino employees, government regulators, public health officials, casino industry lobbyists, public safety officials) responsible for helping to minimize gambling harm. The sum of stakeholder groups held responsible for minimizing gambling harm, along with beliefs that casinos share responsibility for encouraging responsible gambling behavior, predicted gambling disorder screening status after controlling for established problem gambling risk factors. These results replicated our previous study using a mostly independent sample. Contrary to our expectations, beliefs about responsibility for mitigating gambling harm were mostly unrelated to measures of gambling involvement. These results provided additional support for the notion that those who are at risk for gambling harm are especially likely to hold others responsible for minimizing such harm. However, they call into question the role of gambling involvement in this relationship.

Examining the structural relationships among gambling motivation, passion, and consequences of internet sports betting.

The rise in popularity of Internet gambling has led to new gambling controversies among researchers and policymakers alike. Opponents frequently point to the negative impacts of problem gambling, while advocates tend to view this form of gambling as relatively harmless and convenient entertainment for the vast majority of participants. Interestingly, in making their points, both sides cite empirical arguments about passion for the gambling act-with opponents arguing that Internet gambling enables unhealthy obsessions, and advocates pointing to the apparent intensive interest of large numbers of Internet players. As it turns out, both sides may have a point. In this paper, we examine whether types of passion were related to types of motivation and consequences. The data were collected through a sample from an online gambling website in South Korea. We rely upon Rousseau et al.'s (J Gambl Stud 18(1):45-66, 2002) seminal work on positive and negative aspects of passion, and in the process we develop a framework for understanding positive and negative consequences of this form of gambling. The results reveal that intrinsic gambling motivations (e.g., gambling for excitement) is related to harmonious passion, which in turn results in positive consequences. Meanwhile, extrinsic gambling motivations (e.g., money) is related to obsessive passion, which in turn results in negative consequences.