Different framing of gambling risk information influences people’s understanding of their chances of winning

View Open Access Article View Snapshot Back to Search Results

snapshot summaries

Author(s): Newall, Philip W. S. ; Walasek, Lukasz ; Ludvig, Elliot A.

Journal: Addiction

Year Published: 2020

Date Added: March 12, 2020

In Great Britain, online gambling games must display warning information about people’s chances of winning. Different ways of framing the information can influence people’s understanding. In this study, adults who played online games were shown either return-to-player or house-edge warning labels. Both labels communicated the same information about the chance of winning. Experiment 1 tested if different labels with varying payout sizes influenced what people thought about their chances of winning. Participants who saw the return-to-player labels consistently thought their chances of winning were higher than participants who saw house-edge labels. Experiment 2 explored how the two warning labels were understood. More participants correctly understood the house-edge label than the return-to-player label. Thus, house-edge warning labels could better help people to understand their gambling risks and chances of winning.

Citation: Newall, P. W. S., Walasek, L., & Ludvig, E. A. (2020). Equivalent gambling warning labels are perceived differently. Addiction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14954

Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14954

Keywords: Electronic Gambling Machines (EGMs) ; warnings

Topics: Game Types ; Information for Operators ; Slots and VLTs

Conceptual Framework Factors: Environment - Responsible Gambling ; Gambling Environment

Study Design: Experimental: RCT (randomized controlled trial)

Geographic Coverage: United Kingdom

Study Population: Adults who were aged 18 or older and had experience playing online gambling games (n = 399 for experiment 1; n = 407 for experiment 2)

Sampling Procedure: The researchers used convenience sampling to recruit participants through an online crowdsourcing panel (Proliﬁc Academic)

Study Funding:

This study was supported by the Behavioural Science Global Research Priorities fund from the University of Warwick.