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

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.

KEYWORDS:

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

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The provincial government argued that the main limit-setting feature had only been used by 1% of patrons and was reducing gambling participation and revenue (revenue did indeed increase by $10 m post removal; King, 2020).

2. Delfabbro (2011) or Maxetag trial addressed an issue raised by an anonymous reviewer: the ability of players to set flexible limits at the start of each session to allow players to set stricter limits when they felt more vulnerable. This trial had a low uptake and did not find any evidence that allowing more flexible day-to-day limits had any advantages over longer-term limits in relation to its effect on behaviour.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Paul H. Delfabbro

Paul H. Delfabbro graduated from the University of Adelaide with a PhD in psychology. He has published extensively in several areas, including the psychology of gambling, child protection and child welfare and applied cognition. He has over 320 publications in these areas including over 230 national and international refereed journal articles.

Daniel L King

King Daniel is a senior lecturer in the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University. He has over 130 refereed papers in behavioural addictions and has been a regular consultant for the World Health Organization (WHO) in relation to the measurement and classification of gaming and Internet-related disorders.