Limit your time, gamble responsibly: setting a time limit (via pop-up message) on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device

Abstract

In the current study, we assessed whether undergraduate electronic gaming machine (EGM) gamblers would be more apt to set a time limit and spend less time gambling when asked to consider setting an explicit time limit prior to their gambling session. To this end, participants (N =  43) were randomly assigned to a time limit pop-up condition or control condition, both of which involved gambling on an EGM in a virtual reality (VR) casino. In the time limit pop-up condition, participants were asked (via pop-up message) to consider setting a time limit on play and entering that limit in an available text box prior to commencing play. In the no time limit pop-up condition, participants engaged in play immediately upon accessing the EGM in the VR casino (i.e. they were not exposed to a time limit pop-up message). As predicted, participants who were explicitly asked to consider setting a time limit on their EGM play were significantly more likely to do so and spent less time gambling than those who were not given such instructions. The results provide preliminary support for the contention that setting a time limit on EGM play is an effective responsible gambling strategy.

Keywords:

• responsible gambling
• time limit
• electronic gambling machines
• virtual reality
• gambling disorder
• pathological gambling

For many people, gambling is an enjoyable form of entertainment, partly due to the excitement associated with betting money on an uncertain outcome (see Wulfert, Franco, Williams, Roland, & Maxson, 2008). However, the same features that make gambling fun and exciting can also propel some gamblers to spend excessive amounts of time and money gambling, resulting in serious psychological, financial and interpersonal harms to the gambler (see Fong, 2005; Newman & Thompson, 2007; Potenza, Kosten, & Rounsaville, 2001; Squires, Sztainert, Gillen, Caouette, & Wohl, 2012). Intuitively, one way to avoid excessive gambling (and thus reduce the harms associated with gambling) is to set a monetary limit on play before a gambling session is initiated. That is, gamblers determine how much money they can afford to lose before their gambling session and set this amount as the most they are willing to lose. When gamblers reach this monetary loss limit, they would then discontinue play. Indeed, a growing body of research has provided empirical evidence suggesting that monetary limit setting and adherence to such limits has a prophylactic effect (e.g. Stewart & Wohl, 2013; Wohl, Gainsbury, Stewart, & Sztainert, 2013).

However, setting a monetary limit is not the only strategy available to avoid excessive gambling. For example, gamblers may also choose to limit the amount of time they spend gambling by determining how much time they can afford to spend in a particular gambling session. Compared to monetary limits, gamblers are less likely to set time limits on their gambling when unprompted (Auer & Griffiths, 2013; Lalande & Ladouceur, 2011; McDonnell-Phillips Pty Ltd, 2006). Perhaps as a consequence, a paucity of research has examined the effects of setting an explicit time limit during a gambling session to regulate gambling behaviours. The lack of attention paid to time limit setting is surprising, given that monetary loss is positively associated with time spent gambling – clearly, the odds are not in the gambler's favour.

The current research assessed the effectiveness of setting a time limit during a session of electronic gaming machine (EGM) play on reducing time spent gambling and, in turn, regulating gambling behaviour. To do so, participants were either exposed to a pop-up message on the screen of the EGM that explicitly asked them to consider setting a time limit prior to EGM play, or not exposed to such a pop-up message prior to gambling.

Pre-commitment to reduce harms associated with EGMs

Of all types of gambling, EGMs appear to have the strongest association with disordered gambling (Breen, 2005; Smith & Wynne, 2004), in part due to their technological aspects. For example, the visual and audio stimulation inherent to EGMs (e.g. flickering lights, stimulating sounds) can facilitate a state of dissociation, which has been associated with problematic gambling (Diskin & Hodgins, 2001; Noseworthy & Finlay, 2009; Stewart & Wohl, 2013). Indeed, EGM gamblers develop symptoms of disordered gambling four times faster than people who take part in other forms of gambling activities (Breen & Zimmerman, 2002) and are over-represented in the treatment system (Morgan, Kofoed, Buchkoski, & Carr, 1996; Wiebe & Cox, 2001).

To help minimize the harm associated with EGMs, theorists, researchers and policymakers have turned their collective attention to pre-commitment (for a review, see Ladouceur, Blaszczynski, & Lalande, 2012). Within a gambling context, pre-commitment occurs when the gambler sets an affordable monetary and/or time limit on play prior to initiating a gambling session. The rationale is that if a gambler sets a limit in a ‘cold’ or non-emotionally arousing state they will set a limit that is within their means and thus be more apt to adhere to that limit and reduce excessive gambling. Although fewer gamblers have been found to set time limits compared to monetary limits, a minority of gamblers do report setting a time limit prior to play (Auer & Griffiths, 2013; Schellinck & Schrans, 2007). For example, in a sample of 5000 online gamblers who set voluntary limits, Auer and Griffiths (2013) found that the vast majority of gamblers elected to set monetary limits (85%) compared to time limits (15%). Similarly, Schellinck and Schrans (2007) found that while 12.2% of gamblers set monetary limits, only 1.2% of gamblers set a time limit prior to engaging in a gambling session. Moreover, Blaszczynski, Gainsbury, and Karlov (in press) noted that, although half the gamblers were aware of a time limit feature embedded in an EGM modified with an array of responsible gambling (RG) features, only 5.8% of gamblers elected to set a time limit.

One reason why people might not a set time limit to the same extent as a monetary limit is that gamblers perceive more RG utility in setting a monetary limit. For example, Turner, Wiebe, Falkowski-Ham, Kelly, and Skinner (2005) found that 6% of the general public believed responsible gambling entailed setting a time limit prior to play, while 45.7% of the same sample believed responsible gambling to entail limiting monetary expenditure. Interestingly, gamblers also perceive the RG utility of setting a monetary limit to be greater than time limits. For example, whereas 70% of gamblers perceived a monetary limit to be a useful RG strategy, only 51% felt similarly about setting a time limit on their gambling (see Griffiths, Wood, & Parke, 2009).

In sum, the extant literature suggests that gamblers rarely set time limits. This is problematic as recent studies suggest that a time limit may be particularly effective in regulating gambling behaviour, specifically EGM play (Polatschek, Wadden, & Gwynn, 2013). This may relate to gamblers' reported tendency to lose track of time whilst playing EGMs (see Diskin & Hodgins, 2001). Setting a time limit may result in the gambler devoting cognitive energy to tracking their time on device, which may in turn facilitate responsible gambling. In this light, it appears important to create responsible gambling tools that provide EGM gamblers with an opportunity to set a time limit prior to gambling. One such tool that may provide an avenue which increases the use of a time limit prior to engaging in EGM play is pop-up messages.

Pop-up messages as a vehicle for pre-commitment

Pop-up messages have increasingly been the focus of research aimed at promoting responsible EGM play (e.g. Cloutier, Ladouceur, & Sévigny, 2006; Floyd, Whelan, & Meyers, 2006; Monaghan, 2008; Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010; Schellink & Schrans, 2002; Stewart & Wohl, 2013). This is because, among other reasons, they interrupt a gambling session and capture the gambler's attention, thereby providing the opportunity to effectively convey responsible gambling information. Indeed, with focus on the embedded responsible gambling message, there is more opportunity for comprehension of the target message, and thus greater potential to influence an individual's behaviour (see Bailey, Konstan, & Carlis, 2001).

Pop-up messages have been used to inform gamblers about how EGMs work (in order to undermine erroneous cognitions regarding EGM functioning) and the problems that can develop as a result of excessive play (see Cloutier et al., 2006; Floyd et al., 2006; Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2007). For example, Monaghan and Blaszczynski (2007) assessed whether a pop-up message on an EGM was more effective at conveying a responsible gambling message regarding the odds of winning than a static message placed on the left of the screen. Results revealed that gamblers remembered more of the message, and did so more accurately, when it was presented via a pop-up message. It was argued that presenting responsible gambling messages via pop-up messages captured gamblers' attention, thus allowing them to accurately remember the message.

Unfortunately, much of the research on pop-up messages has focused on conveying information about the probabilities of success at gambling and the random nature of gambling outcomes, even though it is known that this information does not always lead to responsible gambling behaviours (see Hing, 2003, 2004; Williams & Connolly, 2006). To address this issue, Stewart and Wohl (2013) tested the effectiveness of a pop-up message that (a) conveyed the importance of pre-commitment (i.e. monetary limit setting and adherence), and (b) included a text box where gamblers could explicitly set a monetary limit on their play, to determine whether pop-up messages could directly influence gambling behaviour. Results revealed that all gamblers who were asked to set a monetary limit prior to EGM play did so. One potential reason this pop-up message was effective is because indicating a limit on play turns a potentially vague concept into a concrete plan. Indeed, Parush, Wohl, Mitchell, and Kim (2013) found that gamblers often report that they set a vague limit on their play; that is, the limit set is not well formulated (e.g. ‘I am willing to lose around $50’). By indicating a monetary limit via a pop-up message prior to EGM play, a potentially vague limit becomes concrete, thus facilitating responsible gambling.

Based on the supposition that time limit pre-commitment has the same responsible gambling benefits as monetary pre-commitment, some gambling jurisdictions in Canada (e.g. Alberta and Nova Scotia) have incorporated a time limit pre-commitment tool into their EGMs (see Polatschek et al., 2013; Wynne, 2009). However, empirical research on the effects of time limit pre-commitment tools to regulate gambling behaviours has been mixed. For example, Ladouceur and Sévigny (2009) found that pre-committing to a time limit was not effective in controlling the amount of time spent gambling. In their study, 82% of participants stated that pre-committing to a time limit was not useful in helping them adhere to their time limits. However, these gamblers did not generate their own time limit. Instead, they were given a predetermined list of time limit options (15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes). When gamblers are given the freedom to choose their own time limit, they may be more apt to adhere to their limit. Moreover, Polatschek and colleagues (2013) suggested that a self-selected time limit might be the most effective avenue to facilitate responsible gambling. Providing additional empirical evidence for this contention, Auer and Griffiths (2013) showed that gamblers who set a voluntary time limit gambled for shorter durations and spent less money than gamblers who did not set a time limit on their play. Moreover, Blaszczynski et al. (in press) found that the vast majority of gamblers who used a time limit feature embedded within an EGM reported spending less time gambling. Thus, time limit settings may be an important responsible gambling tool that allows gamblers to avoid excessive play and the harms associated with EGMs.

Unfortunately, the causal role played by a time limit tool in facilitating responsible gambling is not yet known, due to methodological limitations in the extant research. In studies by Auer and Griffiths (2013) as well as Blaszczynski et al. (in press), all gamblers were exposed to the time limit tool. In Auer and Griffiths (2013), voluntary time limit setting behaviour by a subsample of online gamblers within a mandatory limit setting framework was tracked for subsequent data analyses. In Blaszczynski et al. (in press), data was collected from gamblers who played a particular EGM that had a time limit tool as an option. As such, it was not possible to assess whether the presence of the time limit tool itself affected responsible gambling or whether individual differences influenced time limit setting as well as time on device.

The present research was designed to extend the work of Auer and Griffiths (2013) as well as Blaszczynski et al. (in press) by experimentally manipulating (with random assignment) the presence of a time limit pop-up message tool among EGM gamblers. Specifically, the current research examined whether providing an opportunity to set a time limit prior to play (i.e. commit to a time limit, compared to not making such a suggestion) via a pop-up message resulted in (a) a greater likelihood that a time limit would be set, and (b) a shorter duration of EGM gambling. In doing this, we were able to capitalize on the strengths of the experimental method to assess the causal role that the presence of a time limit tool plays (compared to the absence of such a tool) in promoting responsible gambling behaviour. In many respects, the experimental method is the best way of gathering scientific information (i.e. information that is empirical, reliable, systematic and verifiable) because research conducted under controlled conditions eliminates the influence of extraneous variables (Davis & Rose, 2000).

Importantly, as the aim of responsible gambling strategies is to reduce the incidence of disordered gambling (i.e. prevention; Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004), the current research focused on assessing the responsible gambling utility of a time limit pop-up tool among non-problem and low risk gamblers (for a similar rationale, see Wohl, Christie, Matheson, & Anisman, 2010; Wohl et al., 2013). It was hypothesized that asking non-problem or low-risk gamblers to consider setting a time limit on their play would facilitate the setting of an explicit time limit, compared to participants who were not asked to do so. Additionally, it was hypothesized that asking these gamblers to set an explicit time limit prior to EGM play would result in less time spent gambling compared to participants who were not provided with an opportunity to set a time limit.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 43 non-problem and low-risk EGM gamblers (17 males, 26 females) recruited from a large Canadian university. Their symptoms of gambling problems and preferred game were known prior to the study because the nine-item Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) from the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI; Ferris & Wynne, 2001), as well as an assessment of preferred gambling activity, was distributed to a broad range of undergraduate courses at the onset of the academic year. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 53 years (M =  21.40, SD  =  6.10). All participants were compensated $30 for their participation ($20 to gamble with and an additional $10 for their time and effort).

Procedure

All participants were informed that the study involved EGM gambling in a Virtual Reality (VR) casino and that they had the opportunity to win money depending on the outcome of the game. Participants who agreed to participate in the study were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a time-limit pop-up condition or no time limit pop-up condition (control). Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were greeted by the experimenter and provided with details of the nature of the study. Once informed consent was obtained, participants were guided to a nearby computer in order to engage in EGM play in the VR casino.

All participants were informed that they would be given 80 credits (equivalent to $20) to gamble with, and that the odds of winning in the VR casino were the same as in an actual casino. Importantly, participants were informed they could gamble for as long as they wished to do so and would have an opportunity to trade in any remaining credits for cash at the end of the session. Participants were then asked to put on a VR headset (Z800 3D Visor, eMagin Corporation, Fishkill, New York) that allowed participants to gamble in the VR casino.

In the time-limit pop-up condition, prior to engaging in EGM play, participants were informed that a pop-up message would appear when they accessed an EGM in the VR casino. They were told that the pop-up message would ask them to consider setting a time limit on their play (in minutes). Importantly, participants were also informed that they were free to choose any time limit (including setting no limit at all) and that they could stop gambling at any time, irrespective of the time limit they may have set. Participants were instructed to indicate their chosen time limit in a text box provided in the pop-up message. Participants were neither reminded when they reached their limit nor led to believe that such a reminder would be given. In the no time limit pop-up condition, participants did not receive a pop-up message and were informed that they were free to gamble for as long as they wished to do so. At the end of the experimental session, participants in the no-time limit condition were asked to report whether they had set a time limit prior to EGM play and, if applicable, the duration of the limit set.

Unbeknown to the participants, all spins on the EGM were predetermined; hence, all participants experienced the same sequence of losses and wins. Specifically, participants initially experienced a small series of wins, followed by a series of losses. Then, participants ‘floated’ between 40 and 60 credits until they decided to quit. Once participants decided they no longer wanted to gamble, they were asked to complete a questionnaire booklet which included, among other items, a demographics questionnaire and a question inquiring as to whether participants set a time limit during their current EGM session. Following completion of these questionnaires, participants were debriefed and compensated for their participation in the study.

Measures

Problem gambling symptomatology

The nine-item PGSI from the CPGI (Ferris & Wynne, 2001) was used to assess the presence and severity of gambling problems among participants. The PGSI contains five items that assess problem gambling behaviour (e.g. ‘Have you bet more than you could really afford to lose?’) and four items addressing the consequences of gambling (e.g. ‘Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?’). Participants were asked to rate items on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 3 (Almost Always).

Time limit setting

We assessed whether (a) participants set a limit on the amount of time on the EGM and (b) if they did so, what that time limit was. Among participants in the time limit pop-up message condition, this information was gleaned from the response they provided in the pop-up message text box. For participants in the no time limit pop-up condition, a time limit questionnaire item was provided to them after they finished gambling. Specifically, participants were asked ‘Did you set a limit on the amount of time you wanted to spend gambling?’ A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response option was provided. If participants answered ‘yes’ they were asked to indicate the time limit that was set.

Time spent on machine

The amount of time participants spent gambling on the EGM was recorded using a standard stopwatch.

Results

Preliminary analysis

In order to confirm random assignment and equivalency of groups by experimental condition, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether there were any systematic, pre-existing differences in gambling symptomatology among participants assigned to the time limit pop-up condition vs. no time limit pop-up condition. Results revealed that participants in the time limit pop-up condition (M =  .35, SD  =  .67) and no time limit pop-up condition (M = .43, SD  = .73) did not significantly differ in level of gambling symptomatology, F(1, 42)  =  .16, p =  .70. As such, we collapsed across this variable for all subsequent analyses.

Main analyses

First, we examined whether there was a difference in time limit setting between participants in the time limit pop-up condition and those in the no time limit pop-up condition. As predicted, 20 of the 20 participants (100%) in the time limit pop-up condition set a time limit compared to only 1 of the 23 (4.35%) in the no time limit pop-up condition, χ² (1)  =  39.17, p  <  .001. Due to the low number of participants who set a limit in the no time limit pop-up condition, a proper statistical comparison of the specific time limit set between conditions could not be conducted. Similarly, we were not able to statistically examine differences in adherence to limits across the conditions.

Next, we tested whether the time limit pop-up manipulation influenced time spent on the EGM. To this end, a between-groups ANOVA was conducted on the amount of time participants engaged in EGM play. This analysis revealed that participants who were explicitly asked to set a time limit prior to engaging in play gambled for significantly less time (M =  5.00 minutes, SD  =  4.20) than those who were not explicitly asked to set a time limit (M =  9.48, SD  =  8.70), F(1, 42)  =  4.42, p =  .041, η² =  .10 (see Figure 1). Moreover, over half the participants (11 of 20) in the time limit pop-up condition gambled for less time than their indicated limit.

Figure 1 Amount of time (in minutes) spent gambling on the EGM by condition.

Discussion

The seeds of disordered gambling are often found in a failure to set and adhere to limits placed on gambling. The current study assessed whether asking gamblers to explicitly set a time limit prior to a session of EGM play (via a pop-up message) increased the incidence of time limit setting and decreased the time gamblers' spent on EGMs. It was hypothesized that gamblers who were explicitly asked to set a time limit prior to EGM play would set a limit, and thus gamble less than those who were not explicitly asked to do so. Results provide support for this hypothesis – participants who were given the option to set a time limit prior to play (as a result of a pop-up message that provided them with an opportunity to do so) were significantly more likely to do so and gambled for significantly less time than participants who received no such instruction. In addition to spending less time on EGMs, the majority of participants in the time limit condition gambled for less time than their indicated limit, suggesting that the act of setting a time limit itself may be an important responsible gambling strategy.

The current research extends existing knowledge on the responsible gambling effects of pre-commitment to the domain of time limits. Although past research suggests that gamblers are not likely to set a time limit prior to EGM play (Schrans, Grace, & Schellinck, 2004), the current study suggests that if asked to consider setting a time limit prior to EGM play, gamblers will do so. All participants exposed to a pop-up message that provided them with the option of setting a limit on the amount of time they wished to spend gambling chose to set such a limit. Furthermore, results suggest that setting time limits is an effective way to help gamblers reduce the amount of time they spend on EGMs. This is consistent with previous research in gambling venues showing that although few gamblers elect to set a time limit, those who do so find this to be an effective method to control their gambling (Blaszczynski et al., in press).

One possible explanation for why setting a time limit resulted in significantly less time spent gambling may relate to the fact that asking gamblers to explicitly set a time limit acts as a form of public commitment. Past research suggests that publicly committing to a goal increases the likelihood of reaching the goal (Hollenbeck, Williams, & Klein, 1989; Moyers et al., 2007; Mussell et al., 2000) and this public commitment strategy has been successfully applied in other domains of health research, such as weight loss (Nyer & Dellande, 2010). Applied to the domain of gambling, having gamblers explicitly set a time limit may help them externalize their limit and increase the likelihood that gamblers will play responsibly.

Lastly, we caution that not all pop-up messages are created equal and thus there may be variance in their effectiveness as responsible gambling tools. Parush and colleagues (2013), for example, argued that responsible gambling-oriented pop-up messages typically do not conform to basic Human Computer Interactions (HCI) principles, guidelines and heuristics, which undermines the end-users' desire to interact or use the tool. Providing support for their contention, Warren, Parush, Wohl, and Kim (in press) created an HCI-inspired responsible gambling tool and found that (compared to a standard responsible gambling tool, which typically violates HCI-principles) monetary limit setting and adherence was enhanced. Moreover, gamblers enjoyed using the HCI-inspired pop-up message tool more than the standard tool (i.e. they felt the HCI-inspired pop-up message tool was easy to use and did not undermine their gambling enjoyment). There is no reason to believe that these results would not extend to a time limit pop-up message if designed with such principles.

Implications

On theoretical grounds, limiting the amount of time spent gambling has been recognized as an important responsible gambling strategy by the gambling industry (Currie, Hodgins, Wang, El-Guebaly, & Wynne, 2008; Moore, Thomas, Kyrios, & Bates, 2012; Responsible Gambling Council, 2006) and the general public (Turner et al., 2005). Moreover, while some gambling activities may benefit from setting a monetary limit, others may benefit more from a time limit (Currie et al., 2008; see Weinstock, Ledgerwood, & Petry, 2007). Indeed, a time limit may be particularly important when engaging in gambling activities in which gamblers report a tendency to lose track of time (e.g. EGMs; Diskin & Hodgins, 2001; Stewart & Wohl, 2013). The current results provide preliminary evidence for such a supposition.

The observed findings appear to have immediate applied significance in providing policymakers with an understanding of the responsible gambling utility of a time limit tool, especially a tool that uses a pop-up message to engage gamblers to set an explicit time limit prior to EGM play. Specifically, based on the results reported herein, we suggest that the incorporation of time limit tools (such as a time limit pop-up message) on EGMs may be effective in assisting gamblers in reducing the time they spend on EGMs. Moreover, the reported results provide preliminary empirical support for the responsible gambling policies of Canadian jurisdictions (e.g. Alberta and Nova Scotia) that have included a time limit tool in their responsible gambling system.

Moreover, results of the current research demonstrated that although gamblers do not typically set a time limit on their play (see Blaszczynski et al., in press; Manitoba Gaming Control Commission, 2009), they do so when provided with explicit direction, which reduces the time spent gambling. In this light, it may be prudent that gambling jurisdictions offer a time limit tool, especially one that uses a pop-up message to instruct the gambler to set an explicit time limit on their gambling. However, akin to the gamblers in the current study, we argue that the gambler should have the choice to set a time limit (i.e. voluntary pre-commitment). In accordance with Rose, Lucas, Jang, and Kim (2008), voluntary pre-commitment (as opposed to mandatory pre-commitment) provides gamblers with choice, which allows for greater investment in their decision-making behaviours.

Limitations

Some limitations of the current research should be noted. First, participants were recruited from the student population at a large Canadian university, which may limit the generalizability to ecologically valid environments, such as casinos. University student EGM gamblers may not be representative of EGM gamblers in general (Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2011; Gainsbury, Russell, & Blaszczynski, 2014). Notwithstanding, the between-group effects of the time limit setting manipulation should extend beyond the restricted sample. That is, there is nothing inherent to the manipulation that would be particularly appealing to a university sample of EGM gamblers. However, future research should examine whether the effects of time limit setting observed in the current paper generalizes to other EGM populations. Indeed, the average time participants spent on the EGM in the current study (M =  7.40 minutes) is likely to be less than gamblers would spend engaged in EGM play in an actual gambling venue (see Ladouceur & Sévigny, 2009; Schrans et al., 2004). The short observed duration of play might be indicative of a low tolerance for gambling in a laboratory setting – a possibility in need of empirical attention. Importantly, the relatively short duration of play cannot account for the reported between-condition differences. Specifically, individual differences in tolerance for gambling in a laboratory should be eliminated by random assignment between conditions. Thus, the observed between-condition effect should only be the result of the experimental manipulation. It should be noted that the standard deviations for the average time participants spent on the EGM in both the experimental and control conditions were large. When such a situation is present, a medium to large effect size is needed to achieve statistical significance with a small sample (Cohen, 1988). In the current study, a medium effect size was observed with a small sample (d = .10 with an N = 43; see Cohen, 1988), which increases our confidence in the present findings. Nonetheless, the large standard deviations provide grounds for caution when interpreting the findings and suggest a need for replication.

Third, due to demand characteristics, participants might have felt some pressure to set a time limit in the time limit condition, which might have driven some of the observed effect. This possibility was likely reduced through the use of a non-direct means of setting and reporting the time limit to avoid direct reporting to the experimenter. In addition, the manner in which participants set their time limit via pop-up messages mimics that which may be experienced in vivo, thus providing greater confidence in our findings. However, future studies should be replicated in a real gambling setting to provide greater ecological validity.

Fourth, some participants in the time limit condition might have expected a reminder when their limit was reached. If this were the case, they might have yielded the responsibility to monitor their time spent playing to the EGM (i.e. exceeding one limit might have been the result of a diffusion of responsibility for monitoring time on device). Of the nine participants who exceeded their limit in the time limit condition, some might have benefited from an additional pop-up message that reminded them of their limit when reached.

Fifth, the control condition (i.e. participants who were not exposed to a time limit tool) did not receive any form of intervention. As such, we cannot determine whether the results found in the current study are due to the time limit feature itself or simply the presence of a novel or ‘different experience’ as a result of exposure to a pop-up message on an EGM screen. That is, the presence of a pop-up message may alter the gamblers' experience (e.g. reducing their desire to gamble). Note, however, that Parush and colleagues (2013) showed that the presence of a pop-up message does not undermine the amount of enjoyment or craving gamblers experience whilst playing.

Fifth, participants were exposed to a single machine and a single (time limit tool) intervention. As such, the current experiment cannot speak to the relative responsible gambling impact of a time limit tool when other responsible gambling tools (e.g. a monetary limit tool) are at the gambler's disposal (cf. Wohl et al., 2013). Lastly, because the current study focused on the use of the pop-up message tool as a prevention initiative and not as an intervention tool, only non-problem and low-risk EGM gamblers were recruited. Future research should examine whether the effects of a time-limit pop-up message tool reported herein generalizes to disordered gamblers.

Conclusions

In recent years, responsible gambling tools have been introduced to facilitate responsible gambling on EGM machines (Wynne, 2009). In the current research, the effectiveness of one such tool – a time limit pop-up message – in promoting responsible EGM play was assessed. Results provided support for the hypothesis that having gamblers set an explicit time limit will result in the setting of a time limit as well as reduced time on device. Given the high rates of disordered gambling among EGM gamblers (see Breen, 2005; Smith & Wynne, 2004), it is important to design and empirically assess responsible gambling tools that may help EGM gamblers set and adhere to time limits in order to encourage responsible gambling. As such, the current research makes an important contribution to the emerging literature examining the effectiveness of strategies aimed at promoting responsible EGM play.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by an Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC) research grant (#370154) to the second author and third authors.

Notes on contributors

Hyoun S. Kim

Hyoun S. Kim is a masters student at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. His research focuses on the antecedents and consequences of disordered gambling. Specific attention is paid to facilitating responsible gambling as well as treatment seeking.

Michael J. A. Wohl

Michael J. A. Wohl is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. The majority of his work examines means to promote responsible gambling. In addition, his work has focused on stress and coping responses, non-rational thought and craving as predictors of continued gambling behaviour. He has published over 60 peer-reviewed papers and is the receipt of Carleton's Research Achievement Award. Recently, he was awarded an infrastructure grant from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to build a state-of-the-art Casino Laboratory. The Carleton University Gambling Lab contains card tables, slot machines and an interactive virtual reality casino.

Melissa J. Stewart

Melissa J. Stewart is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. Her research focuses on examining the role of outcome expectancies and gambling motives on problematic gambling behaviour, as well as assessing the effectiveness strategies aimed at promoting responsible slot machine play.

Travis Sztainert

Travis Sztainert is a PhD candidate at Carleton University who examines the antecedents and consequences of problem gambling behaviour. Specifically, he examines gambling as a behavioural addiction, and his main area of focus concerns the subjective experience of craving often reported by problem gamblers. Other research he has conducted includes examining how to facilitate better care for those who may develop gambling problems, as well as identifying responsible gambling tools that may aid in preventing problem gambling. He has also conducted research examining barriers to treatment-seeking among problem gamblers.

Sally M. Gainsbury

Sally Gainsbury is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University, and the Associate Editor of International Gambling Studies. She is a clinical psychologist with several years of research experience and is the principal investigator on several gambling research grants. She has authored many papers, book chapters, reports and presentations on gambling. She is a board member of the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors and International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.