How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian sample
“Return-to-player” information is used in several jurisdictions to display the long-run cost of gambling, but previous evidence suggests that these messages are frequently misunderstood by gamblers. Two ways of improving the communication of return-to-player information have been suggested: switchin...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Experimental Results |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2516712X22000211/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1811156298610245632 |
|---|---|
| author | Philip W. S. Newall Lukasz Walasek Elliot A. Ludvig Matthew Jenkins |
| author_facet | Philip W. S. Newall Lukasz Walasek Elliot A. Ludvig Matthew Jenkins |
| author_sort | Philip W. S. Newall |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | “Return-to-player” information is used in several jurisdictions to display the long-run cost of gambling, but previous evidence suggests that these messages are frequently misunderstood by gamblers. Two ways of improving the communication of return-to-player information have been suggested: switching to an equivalent “house-edge” format, or via the use of a “volatility warning,” clarifying that the information applies only in the statistical long run. In this study, Australian participants (N = 603) were presented with either a standard return-to-player message, the same message supplemented with a volatility warning, or a house-edge message. The return-to-player plus volatility warning message was understood correctly more frequently than the return-to-player message, but the house-edge message was understood best of all. Participants perceived the lowest chance of winning in the return-to-player plus volatility warning condition. These findings contribute data on the relative merits of two proposed approaches in the design of improved gambling information. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T04:48:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4976c1b64d1248acbf77abb999977c45 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2516-712X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T04:48:07Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Experimental Results |
| spelling | doaj.art-4976c1b64d1248acbf77abb999977c452023-03-09T12:34:17ZengCambridge University PressExperimental Results2516-712X2022-01-01310.1017/exp.2022.21How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian samplePhilip W. S. Newall0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1660-9254Lukasz Walasek1Elliot A. Ludvig2Matthew Jenkins3Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United KingdomDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United KingdomDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United KingdomWaikato District Health Board, Consultation Liaison/Addictions medicine, 193 London St, Hamilton, New Zealand, 3240“Return-to-player” information is used in several jurisdictions to display the long-run cost of gambling, but previous evidence suggests that these messages are frequently misunderstood by gamblers. Two ways of improving the communication of return-to-player information have been suggested: switching to an equivalent “house-edge” format, or via the use of a “volatility warning,” clarifying that the information applies only in the statistical long run. In this study, Australian participants (N = 603) were presented with either a standard return-to-player message, the same message supplemented with a volatility warning, or a house-edge message. The return-to-player plus volatility warning message was understood correctly more frequently than the return-to-player message, but the house-edge message was understood best of all. Participants perceived the lowest chance of winning in the return-to-player plus volatility warning condition. These findings contribute data on the relative merits of two proposed approaches in the design of improved gambling information.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2516712X22000211/type/journal_articleconsumer protectionelectronic gambling machineshouse edge |
| spellingShingle | Philip W. S. Newall Lukasz Walasek Elliot A. Ludvig Matthew Jenkins How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian sample Experimental Results consumer protection electronic gambling machines house edge |
| title | How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian sample |
| title_full | How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian sample |
| title_fullStr | How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian sample |
| title_full_unstemmed | How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian sample |
| title_short | How best to improve upon return-to-player information in gambling? A comparison of two approaches in an Australian sample |
| title_sort | how best to improve upon return to player information in gambling a comparison of two approaches in an australian sample |
| topic | consumer protection electronic gambling machines house edge |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2516712X22000211/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT philipwsnewall howbesttoimproveuponreturntoplayerinformationingamblingacomparisonoftwoapproachesinanaustraliansample AT lukaszwalasek howbesttoimproveuponreturntoplayerinformationingamblingacomparisonoftwoapproachesinanaustraliansample AT elliotaludvig howbesttoimproveuponreturntoplayerinformationingamblingacomparisonoftwoapproachesinanaustraliansample AT matthewjenkins howbesttoimproveuponreturntoplayerinformationingamblingacomparisonoftwoapproachesinanaustraliansample |