The value of voluntary vs. mandatory responsible gambling limit-setting systems: A review of the evidence

Paul H. Delfabbro, Daniel L. King

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Pre-commitment and limit-setting schemes have been widely discussed as potentially useful responsible gambling tools to minimize the financial harm associated with excessive gambling. Such systems allow gamblers to set time or monetary limits and can be implemented in a voluntary or mandatory form. Previous reviews have suggested that these technologies, particularly when applied as voluntary systems, appear to have little empirical support because of low uptake rates and limitations in research studies. Using evidence drawn from peer-reviewed and online literature, we examine developments over the last decade. We provide an updated appraisal of pre-commitment technology that encompasses more recent trials. We also include studies of online limit setting and the studies of mandatory limits in Norway. The present analysis finds general support for the conclusions of previous reviews and confirms the potential benefits of mandatory systems. It also highlights some potential selective uses for voluntary systems while also noting potential risks associated with implementing mandatory global limits.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages17
JournalInternational Gambling Studies
Early online dateDec 2020
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - Dec 2020

Keywords

  • harm-minimisation
  • limit-setting
  • mandatory
  • Pre-commitment
  • problem gambling
  • voluntary

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The value of voluntary vs. mandatory responsible gambling limit-setting systems: A review of the evidence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this