Not always as advertised: Different effects from viewing safer gambling (harm prevention) adverts on gambling urges.

Public concern around gambling advertising in the UK has been met not by government action but by industry self-regulations, such as a forthcoming voluntary ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship in Premier League soccer. "Safer gambling" (harm prevention) adverts are one recent example, and are TV commercials which inform viewers about gambling-related harm. The present work is the first independent evaluation of safer gambling adverts by both gambling operators and a charity called GambleAware. In an online experiment, we observed the change in participants' (N = 2,741) Gambling Urge Scale (GUS) scores after viewing either: a conventional financial inducement gambling advert, a gambling operator's safer gambling advert, an advert from the GambleAware "bet regret" campaign, an advert from the GambleAware "stigma reduction" campaign, or a control advert that was not about gambling. Relative to a neutral control advert, GUS scores increased after viewing a financial inducement or an operator's safer gambling advert. In comparison to the neutral control condition, GUS score changes were similar after viewing a bet regret advert, but showed a significant decrease after viewing a stigma reduction advert. Those at higher risk of harm reported larger decreases in GUS after watching a bet regret or stigma reduction advert. Overall, this study introduced a novel experimental paradigm for evaluating safer gambling adverts, uncovered a potential downside from gambling operators' safer gambling adverts, and revealed variation in the potential effectiveness of charity-delivered safer gambling adverts.

Health, Wellbeing, and Social Interaction: An International and Demographic Analysis of Perceived Life Changes and the Positives and Negatives of the COVID-19 Lockdown.

Research suggests that people's experiences of COVID-19 lockdowns have been detrimental to their lives and wellbeing. The current research compared the experiences and perceptions on health, wellbeing and social interaction of 300 UK adults and 450 adults in California. Individuals reported whether aspects of their life had changed for the better, worse, or not at all during lockdown in April 2020, and what the "best" and "worst" things about lockdown were. There were more similarities than differences in the regional comparison of perceptions of changes in specific aspects of 'health and wellbeing' and 'social interaction'. Both regions reported the same number and nature of best and worst things about lockdown. Overarching themes of 'health, self and wellbeing', 'being with others', and 'concerns with daily living' were identified. Although reports of life changes and the positives and negatives of lockdown were similar across different demographic groups, some differences were present by age, sex, relationship, and family-status. Incorporating knowledge of unified and positive experiences of lockdown can be useful in informing future lockdown restrictions and supporting the population when restrictions are lifted.

The Gamblification of Investing: How a New Generation of Investors Is Being Born to Lose.

Investing and gambling share key features, in that both involve risk, the coming together of two or more people, and both are voluntary activities. However, investing is generally a much better way than gambling for the average person to make long-run profits. This paper reviews evidence on two types of "gamblified" investment products where this advantage does not hold for investing: high-frequency stock trading and high-risk derivatives. This review defines a gamblified investment product as one that leads most investors to lose, that attracts people at risk of experiencing gambling-related harm, and that utilizes product design principles from gambling (either by encouraging a high frequency of use or by providing the allure of big lottery-like wins). The gamblification of investing produces novel challenges for the regulation of both financial markets and gambling.

Impact of the "when the fun stops, stop" gambling message on online gambling behaviour: a randomised, online experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Safer gambling messages are a common freedom-preserving method of protecting individuals from gambling-related harm. Yet, there is little independent and rigorous evidence assessing the effectiveness of safer gambling messages. In our study, we aimed to test the effect of the historically most commonly-used UK safer gambling message on concurrent gambling behaviour of people who gamble in the UK. METHODS: In this study, three preregistered, incentivised, and randomised online experiments, testing the UK's "when the fun stops, stop" message, were carried out via the crowdsourcing platform Prolific. Adults based in the UK who had previously participated in the gambling activities relevant to each experiment were eligible to participate. Experiments 1 and 3 involved bets on real soccer events, and experiment 2 used a commercially available online roulette game. Safer gambling message presence was varied between participants in each experiment. In experiment 2, exposed participants could be shown either a yellow or a black-and-white version of the safer gambling message. Participants were provided with a monetary endowment with which they were allowed to bet. Any of this money not bet was afterwards paid to participants as a bonus, in addition to the payouts from any winning bets. In experiment 2 participants had the opportunity to re-wager any winnings from the roulette game. The primary outcome in experiment 1 was participants' decisions to accept (or reject) a series of football bets, which varied in their specificity (and payoffs), and the primary outcomes of experiments 2 and 3 were the proportion of available funds bet, which were defined as the total amount of money bet by a participant out of the total that could have been bet. FINDINGS: Participants for all three experiments were recruited between May 17, 2019, and Oct 17, 2020. Of the 506 participants in experiment 1, 41·3% of available bets were made by the 254 participants in the gambling message condition, which was not significantly different (p=0·15, odds ratio 1·22 [95% CI 0·93 to 1·61]) to the 37·8% of available bets made by the 252 participants in the control condition. In experiment 2, the only credible difference between conditions was that the 501 participants in the condition with the yellow version of the gambling message bet 3·64% (95% Bayesian credibility interval 0·00% to 7·27%) more of available funds left over than the 499 participants in the control condition. There were no credible differences between the bets made by the 500 participants in the black-and-white gambling message condition and the other conditions. In experiment 3, there were no credible differences between the 502 participants in the gambling message condition and the 501 participants in the control condition, with the largest effect being a 5·87% (95% Bayesian credibility interval -1·44% to 13·20%) increase in the probability of betting everything in the gambling message condition. INTERPRETATION: In our study, no evidence was found for a protective effect of the most common UK safer gambling message. Alternative interventions should be considered as part of an evidence-based public health approach to reducing gambling-related harm. FUNDING: University of Warwick, British Academy and Leverhume, Swiss National Science Foundation.

A speed-of-play limit reduces gambling expenditure in an online roulette game: Results of an online experiment.

UK online casino games are presently not subject to any limitations on speed-of-play or stakes. One recent policy proposal is to ensure that no online casino game can be played faster than its in-person equivalent. Another policy proposal is to limit the maximum stakes on online casino games to £2, to match the current stake limit on electronic gambling machines. This research experimentally investigated the speed-of-play proposal subject to a £2 stake limit, in an online experiment using incentivized payouts based on £4 endowments and a commercial online roulette game, which was slowed-down in one condition to enforce a speed-of-play limit of one spin every 60 seconds. UK residents, aged 18 years and over and with experience in playing online roulette (N = 1,002), were recruited from an online crowdsourcing panel. In the slowed-down condition there was a credible reduction in the amount gambled. This effect occurred via a credible reduction in the mean number of spins which outweighed any potential increases in bet sizes. Speed-of-play limits may be effective in reducing gambling expenditure for online roulette.

Persistence is futile: Chasing of past performance in repeated investment choices.

When deciding where to invest, individuals choose mutual funds based on recent past performance, despite standard mandated disclaimers that "past performance does not guarantee future results." Investors would receive better long-term returns by choosing funds with lower fees. We explored the impact of fees and past performance on realistic mutual fund selections across three preregistered repeated-choice experiments (N = 1,600), while manipulating the presence of disclaimers between participants. Participants persistently chased past performance despite the opportunity to learn about the futility of this strategy during 60 repeated decisions with feedback. The standard regulatory-mandated disclaimer did not help most participants, compared to giving no advice at all, and was even counter-productive for participants with low levels of financial literacy. An alternative disclaimer that explicitly highlighted the advantages of fee minimization reliably helped participants. We show how individuals who lack both financial literacy and prior investment experience are the most susceptible to making poor mutual fund choices and can benefit the most from behavioral interventions such as the new disclaimer tested here. We discuss how these results generalize into real-world investment decisions, and how to design more efficient disclaimers that can be used beyond investment choices. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The seductive allure of technical language and its effect on covid-19 vaccine beliefs and intentions.

Previous research has demonstrated a 'seductive allure' of technical or reductive language such that bad (e.g., circular) explanations are judged better when irrelevant technical terms are included. We aimed to explore if such an effect was observable in relation to a covid-19 vaccinations and if this subsequently affected behavioural intentions to take up a covid-19 vaccine. Using a between subjects design we presented participants (N = 996) with one of four possible types of vignette that explained how covid-19 vaccination and herd immunity works. The explanations varied along two factors: (1) Quality, explanations were either good or bad (i.e., tautological); (2) Language, explanations either contained unnecessary technical language or did not. We measured participants' evaluation of the explanations and intentions to vaccinate. We demonstrate a 'seductive allure' effect of technical language on bad vaccine explanations. However, an opposite 'repellent disdain' effect occurred for good explanations which were rated worse when they contained technical language. Moreover, we show that evaluations of explanations influence intentions to vaccinate. We suggest that misinformation that includes technical language could be more detrimental to vaccination rates. Importantly, however, clear explanatory public health information that omits technical language will be more effective in increasing intentions to vaccinate.

Cognitive Predictors of Precautionary Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The attempts to mitigate the unprecedented health, economic, and social disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are largely dependent on establishing compliance to behavioral guidelines and rules that reduce the risk of infection. Here, by conducting an online survey that tested participants' knowledge about the disease and measured demographic, attitudinal, and cognitive variables, we identify predictors of self-reported social distancing and hygiene behavior. To investigate the cognitive processes underlying health-prevention behavior in the pandemic, we co-opted the dual-process model of thinking to measure participants' propensities for automatic and intuitive thinking vs. controlled and reflective thinking. Self-reports of 17 precautionary behaviors, including regular hand washing, social distancing, and wearing a face mask, served as a dependent measure. The results of hierarchical regressions showed that age, risk-taking propensity, and concern about the pandemic predicted adoption of precautionary behavior. Variance in cognitive processes also predicted precautionary behavior: participants with higher scores for controlled thinking (measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test) reported less adherence to specific guidelines, as did respondents with a poor understanding of the infection and transmission mechanism of the COVID-19 virus. The predictive power of this model was comparable to an approach (Theory of Planned Behavior) based on attitudes to health behavior. Given these results, we propose the inclusion of measures of cognitive reflection and mental model variables in predictive models of compliance, and future studies of precautionary behavior to establish how cognitive variables are linked with people's information processing and social norms.

Are People Experiencing the 'Pains of Imprisonment' During the COVID-19 Lockdown?

BACKGROUND: By the end of March 2020, more than a fifth of the world's population was in various degrees of "lockdown" in order to slow the spread of COVID-19. This enforced confinement led some to liken lockdown to imprisonment. We directly compared individual's experiences of lockdown with prisoners' experiences of imprisonment in order to determine whether psychological parallels can be drawn between these two forms of confinement. METHODS: Online surveys of adults in lockdown in the UK (N = 300) and California (N = 450) were conducted 4 and 5 weeks into lockdown in each region, respectively. The UK data was then compared to Souza and Dhami's (2010) sample of 267 medium security prisoners in England, and the Californian data was compared to Dhami et al.'s (2007) sample of 307 medium security Federal prisoners in California. We measured the effects of Group (Lockdown v. Prison) on five categories of dependent variables (i.e., activity, social contact, thoughts, feelings, and rule-breaking), controlling for demographic differences between the groups. RESULTS: In both regions, people in lockdown thought significantly less often about missing their freedom, as well as missing their family and friends living elsewhere than did first-time prisoners. However, people in lockdown in both regions were also significantly less engaged in a range of daily activities than were first-time prisoners. Additionally, in both regions, people in lockdown reported feeling more hopeless than first-time prisoners. CONCLUSION: Although Governments introducing lockdown policies do not intend to punish their citizens as courts do when sending convicted offenders to prison, such policies can have unintended adverse consequences. Psychological parallels can be drawn between the two forms of confinement.

Task complexity moderates the influence of descriptions in decisions from experience.

Decisions-makers often have access to a combination of descriptive and experiential information, but limited research so far has explored decisions made using both. Three experiments explore the relationship between task complexity and the influence of descriptions. We show that in simple experience-based decision-making tasks, providing congruent descriptions has little influence on task performance in comparison to experience alone without descriptions, since learning via experience is relatively easy. In more complex tasks, which are slower and more demanding to learn experientially, descriptions have stronger influence and help participants identify their preferred choices. However, when the task gets too complex to be concisely described, the influence of descriptions is reduced hence showing a non-monotonic pattern of influence of descriptions according to task complexity. We also propose a cognitive model that incorporates descriptive information into the traditional reinforcement learning framework, with the impact of descriptions moderated by task complexity. This model fits the observed behavior better than previous models and replicates the observed non-monotonic relationship between impact of descriptions and task complexity. This research has implications for the development of effective warning labels that rely on simple descriptive information to trigger safer behavior in complex environments.