Responsible Gambling Review

January 2014, Vol 1, No.1, pp. 16-26

From the laboratory to the casino:

Using psychological principles to design better
responsible gambling tools
Dr. Michael J.A. Wohl
Carleton University, Canada
michael_wohl@carleton.ca

Hyoun S. (Andrew) Kim
Carleton University, Canada

Travis Sztainert
Carleton University, Canada

Abstract

With the increased expansion of legalised gambling comes a need to develop
responsible gambling tools, initiatives and programs to minimise the potential
harms associated with excessive gambling. Over the years, the Carleton University
Gambling Lab (a state of the art laboratory casino, which contains both a real-world
casino environment in addition to a highly realistic virtual reality casino) has
developed and scientifically tested an array of responsible gambling tools that have
been shown to promote responsible play. The purpose of this paper, is to provide a
concise yet comprehensive overview of the responsible gambling tools and
interventions that have been developed at the Carleton University Gambling Lab. To
this end, we provide summaries of previously tested tools and interventions,
including (a) educational videos, which reduced erroneous cognitions, (b) pop-up
message tools, which helped players set and adhere to pre-set monetary and time
limits and (c) innovative ways to reduce craving and persistence in gambling via
everyday activities such as eating. We, like others, believe that for responsible
gambling tools and interventions to be maximally effective, they should be guided in
scientific research and empirically tested before being implemented into actual
gambling environments.

Keywords monetary limits . pop-up messages . slot machine gambling

Introduction

Over the last three decades there has been a marked growth in the
availability of, and expenditures on, legalized forms of gambling (Blaszczynski,
2012; Dickerson & Baron, 2000; Smith, in press). In Canada for example, wagering
has steadily increased from $2.7 billion in 1992, to about $11.2 billion in 2002, and
$13.9 billion in 2010-2011 (Marshall, 2003; Smith, in press). A key area for this
16

growth, especially in North America, has been electronic gaming machines (EGMs;
Azmier, 2005; Collier, 2008) due, in part, to the fact that these games are quick, take
little-to-no skill to play, work on a highly rewarding variable ratio schedule of
reinforcement and offer continuous play with little to no breaks (unlike a Texas
Holdem tournament where players wait their turns). Moreover, for those who wish
to escape negative life events, EGMs can create a dissociative state (a trance like
state where players report losing track of time and money; see Breen, 2005; Diskin
& Hodgins, 1999; Griffiths, Wood, Parke, & Parke, 2006; Stewart & Wohl, 2013),
which has been associated with increased gambling symptomology (Diskin &
Hodgins, 2001; Grant & Kim, 2003).
Unfortunately, the same features that make EGMs so popular also make them
a particularly problematic form of gambling (see Dowling, Smith, & Thomas, 2005).
For example, there is a higher prevalence rate of problem gambling among people
who prefer EGMs compared to those who prefer other forms of gambling (Cox,
Kwong, Michaud, & Enns, 2000; Doiron & Nicki, 2001; Wiebe & Cox, 2001; Wiebe,
Mun, & Kaufman, 2006). In addition, vulnerable players who prefer EGMs develop
gambling problems at a faster rate than people who prefer other types of games
(Breen & Zimmerman, 2002; Breen, 2005). Indeed, EGMs are disproportionately
represented as the primary form of gambling reported by disordered players
seeking treatment (Productivity Commission, 2010). Putting a dark line under these
findings, Williams and Wood (2004) reported that approximately 15% of EGM
players experience moderate or severe gambling problems and account for an
astonishing 60% of total EGM revenue.
Although the ultimate decision to gamble and continue doing so in the face of
mounting losses remains with the player, gambling vendors (e.g., government or
industry) have begun designing and implementing harm-reduction strategies aimed
at minimising excessive EGM gambling. The aim of such strategies is to prevent the
negative consequences associated with EGM play, without overtly disturbing those
who gamble in a non-disordered manner (see Productivity Commission, 2010;
Wohl, Sztainert & Young, 2013). Such initiatives are designed to reduce
pathological gambling by helping players exert control over themselves and the
gambling situation (Smith & Wynne, 2004, p.43). As a result, gambling vendors
have been keen to help fund the development, or incorporate independently
developed and empirically tested responsible gambling (RG) tools. With regards to
EGMs specifically, RG tools are modifications made to machines that help players
limit their monetary expenditure to affordable means, as determined by the player
(Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004). In the current paper, we review RG tools
developed in Dr. Michael Wohls Carleton University Gambling Lab with the
assistance of his students (two of which co-authored this paper). It should be noted,
however, that the Carleton University Gambling Lab is not alone in developing
responsible gambling tools. For example, Svenska Spel (the state-owned company
that operates and regulates gambling in Sweden) created Playscan a behaviour
tracking tool that analyses players gambling over weeks of play and informs them
whether their play is low, moderate, or high risk. Similar to Svenska Spels Playscan,
Necctons Mentor software tracks players gambling behaviour and provides
personalised messages (e.g., Are you sure youre not playing for longer than you
17

originally intended to?) and tools to help the player gamble responsibly. There is a
growing interest in the data that these behavioural tracking tools yield in order to
verify their responsible gambling utility (see Wood & Wohl, 2013 for an empirical
assessment of behavioural tracking data from Playscan). We believe that all tools
aimed at facilitating responsible gambling have merit as long as there is
accompanying empirical assessment of their ability to minimize the risks associated
with gambling. However, the experimental approach used in the studies reported
herein is not the only way to examine the utility of responsible gambling tools. Other
methods include; player interviews, focus groups, observation studies,
questionnaires and player data analysis.


Teach them well and education will lead the way (to responsible play)

The natural first step in promoting responsible play among players is to
educate and fully inform the player about how EGMs work, the probability of
winning, and how to gamble responsibly. This is important because the player can
easily succumb to irrational beliefs about their probability of success due to the
structural characteristics (i.e. design features) of EGMs (see Wohl & Enzle, 2002,
2003; Wohl, Young, & Hart, 2005). Indeed, Skinner (1953) noted that three reel
EGMs often stop on two of the same symbols and one other similar looking symbol
(referred to as a near wins), which is strongly reinforcing and encourages
continued gambling. Extending this observation, Wohl and Enzle (2003) showed
that near losses (almost hitting a bankrupt section on a slot machine) that end in a
moderate win facilitates the notion of the self as personally lucky a self-perception
that is frequently associated with problematic gambling (Wohl, Stewart, & Young,
2011; Wohl, Young, & Hart, 2007).
Perhaps more problematic, is that EGMs typically work on a variable ratio
reinforcement schedule. Players will eventually be rewarded with a win, however,
when the win will appear is unknown a schedule highly conducive to continued
gambling despite heavy losses (Rachlin, 1990). Specifically, players will chase their
losses due to the misperception that a win is around the corner. In response, policy
makers are being counseled to turn their attention toward educational initiatives
that move EGM players from uninformed to informed consumers by providing
accurate information about the true costs of gambling and the likelihood of losing
(see Eggert, 2004; Blaszczynski, Collins, Fong et al., 2011).
To this end, Wohl, Christie, Matheson, and Anisman (2010) developed a nine-
minute educational animation that, among other things, outlined the need for
players to set and adhere to a pre-set limit on the amount of money they spend in a
given session and dispelled the erroneous beliefs that persistence will lead the
player to profit at the end of their session. To test the efficacy of the animation
(entitled Slot Machines: What Every Player Needs To Know) Wohl and colleagues
(2010) showed the animation video or a control video to EGM players at a local
gambling establishment prior to their gambling session. They found that watching
the animation reduced players erroneous beliefs about gambling. Importantly,
players who watched the educational animation prior to gambling set and adhered
18

to a pre-set monetary limit on their play more so than those who watched the
control video.
Since its creation, the educational animation has been adoption in over 160
jurisdictions around the world (E. Veri, personal communication, November 18,
2013). In fact, the animation has been so successful that in 2012 the industry
commissioned a shortened three-minute version that could be used as part of an
online responsible gambling suite of tools. Wohl, Santesso, and Kerrigan (2013)
demonstrated that the three-minute version was just as effective as the nine-minute
version in terms of facilitating monetary limit setting and adherence among EGM
players. Having established their responsible gambling equivalency, a separate
sample was shown both animations. It was found that players with greater
disordered gambling symptomatology preferred the nine minute over the three
minute animation, which suggests disordered players wanted greater
understanding of slot machine misconceptions and useful strategies to decrease
problematic play. As such, the nine-minute animations can be best used in a clinical
setting or at a responsible gambling information centre. Conversely, the shorter
animation may be more suited for viewing on YouTube.com or on Internet based
casinos within a suite of responsible gambling tools.


The utility of embedded responsible gambling tools: Pop-up messages as a
route to responsible play

Although the educational animation was effective in helping players set and
adhere to a pre-set limit on play in the session following viewing, the effect of the
animation waned over time. This led Wohl and the members of his laboratory to
consider further avenues to facilitate responsible gambling within each session. We
focused our attention on Bailey, Konstan, and Carlis (2001) finding that competing
information that suddenly appears to users, thus interrupting a task and capturing
attentional focus, has a lasting effect on thoughts and behaviours. Commonly
referred to as pop-up messages, we like others (see Monaghan, 2008), began to
assess their RG utility. At the Carleton University Gambling Lab, we built a highly
realistic virtual reality (VR) casino that contains pop-up message capable EGMs. We
then designed experimental protocols to assess whether a pop-up message that
explicitly asks the player to input a monetary limit prior to play and then reminds
the player when that limit is reached minimises excessive play.
In our first assessment, Stewart and Wohl (2013) invited young adult EGM
players to play an EGM in the Carleton University Gambling Lab VR casino. All
participants were give $20 (or 80 credits) in seed money and told that they would
be allowed to trade in any remaining credits at the end of the session for money they
would be allowed to keep. They were then escorted to the VR casino and instructed
to (a) put on the VR headgear, (b) enter the casino in the virtual world, and (c) go to
any available EGM in the casino. Upon accessing an EGM, all players were asked to
indicate how many credits they were willing to lose playing the EGM via a pop-up
message and associated text box. In the pop-up reminder condition, a pop-up
message appeared to inform players when they had reached their pre-set limit. The
19

message asked if they would like to continue gambling. Players then completed a
scale that assessed their level of symptoms for disordered gambling and the extent
to which dissociation (i.e., losing track of time and space) occurred during play.
Results revealed that participants who received a monetary limit pop-up reminder
were significantly more likely to adhere to monetary limits than participants who
did not. Additionally, dissociation mediated the relationship between gambling
symptomatology and adherence to monetary limits, but only among those who did
not receive a monetary limit pop-up reminder. To the point, the pop-up message
reminder facilitated limit adherence by breaking the attentional focus or
dissociation that the players were experiencing during EGM play.
The result of the Stewart and Wohl (2013) study begged the question: Does
a pop-up message that helps players adhere to a monetary limit have more RG
utility than educational videos? To examine whether one type of RG tool is better
than another (or if there is a cumulative effect of exposure to multiple RG tools),
Wohl, Gainsbury, Stewart, and Sztainert, (2013) recruited EGM players and exposed
them to the nine-minute educational animation or a control video. Thereafter, the
players engaged with an EGM in the Carleton University Gambling Lab VR casino. All
participants were asked to set a monetary limit prior to play, but only half of the
participants were reminded when their monetary limit was reached. Results
revealed that the animation did not have added value over the monetary limit tool.
However, in the absence of a monetary limit tool, watching the animation did
facilitate responsible gambling. The results suggest that a pop-up message tool may
be more effective in promoting responsible play, however, it is never a bad idea to
educate players. Indeed, many gambling games are not conducive to pop-up
message tools, especially in land-based casinos (e.g., table gambles); where a pop-up
message is not possible, educational animations serve as a good alternative.
Recently, Kim, Wohl, Stewart, Sztainert, and Gainsbury (2013) showed that
the principle underlying the effectiveness of limit setting via pop-up messages
extends to the adherence of a pre-set time limit. Once again, EGM players were
invited to play an EGM in the Carleton University Gambling Lab VR casino. This time,
upon entering the casino some players received a pop-up message that suggested
they enter a time limit for their gambling session (a text box was provided). Akin to
the monetary limit finding, Kim et al. (2013) found that players who set an explicit
time limit prior to gambling played for a significantly less amount of time than
players who did not set an explicit time limit prior to play. Although most players
tend not to set time limits (Auer & Griffiths, 2013) the results from this study extolls
the benefit of setting an explicit limit on gambling before a gambling session is
initiated. Indeed, recent preliminary evidence suggests that setting time limits may
be the most effective tool in modifying excessive play (Polatschek, Wadden, &
Gwynn, 2013).
Not all pop-up message tools, however, are created equal. Indeed, many pop-
up message tools that are implemented in jurisdictions around the world violate
basic Human Computer Interactions (HCI) principles a discipline concerned with
design and implementation of effective and user-friendly computer based
technology. Specifically, many of the pop-up messages that are currently in use
contain jargon that is hard for the player to understand, lack aesthetic appeal, and
20

fail to grab the players attention. Furthermore, many of the pop-up message tools
are designed from a top-down approach (i.e., experts and researchers notion of
what pop-up message tools should look and feel like) instead of asking the target
end user (e.g., EGM players) what features may better help facilitate adherence to
pre-set limits. These factors can limit the RG utility of a pop-up message.
To address the issues with pop-up messages that are currently in use, Parush,
Wohl, Mitchell, and Kim (2013) conducted focus groups to determine the end-users
(i.e., EGM players) primary needs. They found that players did not want too many
pop-ups because they would kill the fun specifically pop-ups should only occur at
the start of play, in advance of a limit being reached, and when a limit is reached.
Moreover, players said that after a limit has been reached the EGM should be
disabled for a few minutes to help the player cool down. Based on this player
feedback as well as HCI-principles, a new HCI-inspired pop-up tool was created.
Importantly, at the behest of players, a traffic light metaphor (i.e., green, yellow or
red light) conveyed through the graphical icon with no text was included in the
bottom right corner of the VR casino. Doing so meant very little cognitive load was
required for the player to determine how many credits remained in relation to their
pre-set limit. This use of the traffic light metaphor is also unobtrusive and easily
interpretable both when the icon is attended to (conscious awareness) and when
the icon is not attended to (subconscious awareness), which is essential from an HCI
perspective.
To assess the new HCI-inspired pop-up tools RG utility, Parush and
colleagues (2013) recruited EGM players and exposed them to either the new tool or
a standard pop-up message tool using the Carleton University Gambling Lab VR
casino. Akin to Stewart and Wohl (2013), players in both pop-up message conditions
were first asked to set a monetary limit on play and then reminded when that limit
was reached. As hypothesised, players who interacted with the HCI-inspired pop-up
message tool were significantly more likely to stop gambling when their pre-set
limit was reached than players who interacted with the standard pop-up message
tool. The results of the study highlight the importance of designing and
implementing RG tools grounded using HCI principles, especially if they are to be
maximally effective in promoting RG behaviours (a principles and guidelines
document for pop-up message design can be obtained by contacting the first
author).


A new path to responsible gambling: Eating reduces the risk of excessive
gambling

Aside from RG tools, the Carleton University Gambling Lab put intellectual
muscle behind developing innovative ways to promote responsible play. One such
avenue is via mundane human behaviour like eating. Investigation into the
association between eating and responsible gambling started from the basic
(known) association between risk-taking and hunger. Specifically, risk-taking
increases alongside hunger to facilitate feeding. This makes sense from an
evolutionary prospective as food becomes scarce there is an increasing need to
21

hunt more dangerous or risky prey. Importantly, risk-taking as a result of hunger

extends beyond the feeding domain. Symmonds, Emmanuel, Drew, Batterham and
Dolan (2010), for example, found that hungry participants were more likely to make
risky economic decisions than participants who had eaten. Additionally, Biner,
Huffman, Curran and Long (1998) found that hungry players believed they could
control the outcome of the game (i.e., increased illusions of control) and also
expected to win more money gambling (i.e., increased positive outcome
expectancies).
Recently, Sztainert, Wohl and Abizaid (2013) aimed to determine if hunger
could have an effect on problematic gambling behaviour. Specifically, they
hypothesized that players who are hungry would gamble longer in the face of
continued losses compared to participants who had something to eat. To test this
idea, disordered players were instructed to fast the morning before their gambling
session in the Carleton University Gambling Lab. Upon entering the laboratory,
some participants were fed a high caloric muffin (to reduce their hunger), while
other participants were fed only when the study came to completion. Thus two
groups were created: hungry and not hungry players. They were then allowed to
play on a slot machine in a casino laboratory. As predicted, hungry participants (as
assessed with a subjective measure of hunger) persisted more in the face of
continued loss. Thus, eating prior to going to the casino may be a low-cost, high-
impact RG strategy.
In light of the Sztainert et al. (2013) study, we suggest that an RG initiative
might include an advertisement that urges players to eat before gambling. For
example, responsible gambling knowledge translation might include messaging such
as eat before play or fill your stomach, play smart. Aside from ad campaigns, this
responsible gambling messaging could be included in pop-up messages on EGMs,
both before initiating play as well as after a few hours of continuous play (when the
player might be getting hungry). Additionally, gambling venues might consider
providing food (e.g., complimentary snacks) that can be consumed on the gambling
floor or at least in an eating lounge that is housed on, or in close proximity to, the
gambling floor.


Conclusion


The Reno Model (Blaszczynski et al., 2004) suggests that responsible
gambling policy, tools, and programs be based on sound scientific research and be
empirically tested before being implemented. Over the years, the Carleton
University Gambling Lab has developed and empirically tested a number of RG tools
and strategies that have been shown to promote responsible play. The empirical
studies mentioned in this paper have been designed with methodological rigor to
avoid some of the limitations associated with experimental studies. Indeed, the
studies were conducted with sufficient power (.80) to detect a moderate effect size,
d = .5, as significant (p < .05, two-tailed; Cohen, 1988). Moreover, extending the
generalisability beyond the laboratory, some of the tools developed in the Carleton
University Gambling Lab have demonstrated their effectiveness within the walls of
22

actual gambling venues. For example, the educational animation Slot Machines:
What Every Player Needs to Know has been incorporated into the responsible
gambling strategies of gambling jurisdictions around the world. The success of this
animation, as well as the other RG tools and strategies developed and tested in the
Carleton University Gambling Laboratory underscores the importance of basic,
laboratory-based research in the development of responsible gambling policies and
programs.

This research reported was made possible by research grants from the Ontario
Problem Gambling Research Centre and an infrastructure grant from the Canadian
Foundation for Innovation Fellowship to the first author.


References

Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most
intense online gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behaviour. Journal
of Gambling Studies, 29, 647-660.
Azmier, J. J. (2005). Gambling in Canada 2005: Statistics and context. Retrieved from
http://cwf.ca/pdf-docs/publications/June2005-Gambling-in-Canada-2005-
Statistics-and-Context.pdf.
Bailey, B., Konstan, J., & Carlis, J. (2001). The effects of interruptions on task
performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In: Proceedings of
the IFIP TC-13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
Tokyo, Japan. pp. 593-601.
Biner, P. M., Huffman, M. L., Curran, M. A., & Long, K. R. (1998). Illusory control as a
function of motivation for a specific outcome in a chance-based
situation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 277-291.
Blaszczynski, A. (2012). Influencing International Foundations for Legalization,
Policy and Commercial Gambling: A Tribute to William Eadingtons
International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking. UNLV Gaming
Research & Review Journal, 16, 27- 32.
Blaszczynski, A., Collins, P., Fong, D., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., Shaffer, H. J., Tavares,
H. & Venisse, J. L. (2011). Responsible gambling: general principles and
minimal requirements. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, 565-573.
Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science based framework
for responsible gambling: The Reno Model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20,
301-317.
Breen, R. B. (2005). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers: A
replication. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2, 44-49.
Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in
machine gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 31-43.
Collier, R. (2008). Do slot machines play mind games with gamblers? Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 179, 23-24.
Cohen. J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
23

Cox, B. J., Kwong, J., Michaud, V., & Enns, M. W. (2000). Problem and probable
pathological gambling: Considerations from a community survey. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 548553.
Dickerson, M., & Baron, E. (2000). Contemporary issues and future directions for
research into pathological gambling. Addiction, 95, 11451159.
Diskin, K. M., & Hodgins, D. C. (1999). Narrowing of attention and dissociation in
pathological video lottery gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 225-245.
Diskin, K. M., & Hodgins, D. C. (2001). Narrowed focus and dissociative experiences
in a community sample of experienced video lottery gamblers. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 58-64.
Doiron, J. P., & Nicki, R. M. (2001). Epidemiology of problem gambling in Prince
Edward Island: A Canadian microcosm? The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
46, 413-417.
Dowling, N., Smith, D., & Thomas, T. (2005). Electronic gaming machines: Are they
the crack-cocaine of gambling? Addiction, 100, 33-45.
Eggert, K. (2004). Truth in gaming: Toward consumer protection in the gambling
industry. Maryland Law Review, 63, 217-286.
Grant, J. E., & Kim, S. W. (2003). Dissociative symptoms in pathological gambling.

Psychopathology, 36, 1434-1439.
Griffiths, M. D., Wood, R. T. A., Parke, J. & Parke, A. (2006). Dissociative states in
problem gambling. In C. Allcock (Ed.). Current issues related to dissociation
(pp. 27-37). Melbourne: Australian Gaming Council.
Kim, H. S., Wohl, M. J., Stewart, M. J., Sztainert, T., & Gainsbury, S. (2013). Limit your
time, gamble responsibly: Setting a time limit (via pop-up message) on an
electronic gambling machine reduces time on device. Manuscript under
review.
Marshall, K. (April, 2003). Fact-sheet on gambling. Perspectives on labour and income
Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE, 4, no. 4, online edition.
Monaghan, S. (2008). Review of pop-up messages on electronic gaming machines as
a proposed responsible gambling strategy. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 6, 214-222.
Parush, A. Wohl, M. J. A., Mitchell, K., & Kim, H. (2013). Facilitating responsible
gambling through persuasive technology: Using human-computer interaction
principles to better money limit tools. [Research Report]. Guelph, ON: Ontario
Problem Gambling Research Centre.
Polatschek, A., Wadden, L., & Gwynn, M. (2013, November). My-Play: Nova Scotias
experience with a responsible gambling system for VLTs. Paper presented at
the 23rd Annual Conference on National Association for Gambling Studies,
Sydney, Australia.
Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Report no. 50, Canberra.
Rachlin, H. (1990). Why do people gamble and keep gambling despite heavy losses?
Psychological Science, 1, 294-297.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Smith, G. (in press). The nature and scope of gambling in Canada. Addiction.
Smith, G. J. & Wynne, H. J. (2004). VLT gambling in Alberta: A preliminary analysis.
Edmonton, AB: Alberta Gaming Research Institute.
24

Stewart, M.J., & Wohl, M. J.A. (2013). Pop-up messages, dissociation and craving:
How monetary limit reminders facilitate adherence in a session of slot
machine gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 268-273.
Symmonds, M., Emmanuel, J. J., Drew, M. E., Batterham, R. L., & Dolan, R. J. (2010).
Metabolic state alters economic decision making under risk in humans. PloS
one, 5, 6, e11090.
Sztainert, T., Wohl, M. J. A. & Abizaid, A. (2013, May). Starving to gamble: Hunger and
gambling-related craving interact to heighten persistent play among problem
gamblers. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Gambling
and Risk-taking, Las Vegas, NV.
Wiebe, J., & Cox, B. J. (2001). A profile of Canadian adults seeking treatment for
gambling problems and comparisons with adults entering an alcohol
treatment program. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 418-421.
Wiebe, J., Mun, P., & Kauffman, N. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Ontario
2005. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Responsible Gambling Council.
Williams, R. J., & Wood, R. T. (2004). The proportion of gaming revenue derived from
problem gamblers: Examining the issues in a Canadian context. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 4, 33-45.
Wohl, M. J. A., Christie, K., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Animation-based

education as a gambling prevention tool: Correcting erroneous cognitions
and reducing the frequency of exceeding limits among slot players. Journal of
Gambling Studies, 26, 469-486.
Wohl, M. J. A., & Enzle, M. E. (2003). The effects of near wins and losses on self-
perceived personal luck and subsequent gambling behavior. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 184-191.
Wohl, M. J. A., & Enzle, M. E. (2002). The deployment of personal luck: Illusory
control in games of pure chance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 1388-1397.
Wohl, M. J. A., Gainsbury, S., Stewart, M. J., & Sztainert, T. (2013). Facilitating
responsible gambling: The relative effectiveness of education-based
animation and monetary limit setting pop-up messages among electronic
gaming machine players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 703-717.
Wohl, M. J., Santesso, D. L., & Harrigan, K. (2013). Reducing erroneous cognition and
the frequency of exceeding limits among slots players: A short (3-minute)
educational animation facilitates responsible gambling. International Journal
of Mental Health and Addiction, 11, 409-423.
Wohl, M. J. A., Stewart, M. J., & Young, M. M. (2011). Personal luck usage scale
(PLUS): Psychometric validation of a measure of gambling-related belief in
luck as a personal possession. International Gambling Studies, 11, 7-21.
Wohl, M. J. A., Sztainert, T., & Young, M. M. (2013). The CARE Model: How to improve
Industry Government-Health Care Provider linkages. In D. Richards, L.
Nower, and A. Blaszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of disordered gambling (263-
282). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wohl, M. J. A., Young, M. M., & Hart, K. E. (2005). Untreated young gamblers with
game-specific problems: Self-concept involving luck, gambling ecology and

25

delay in seeking professional treatment. Addiction Research and Theory, 13,

445-459.
Wohl, M. J. A., Young, M. M., & Hart, K. E. (2007). Perceived personal luck facilitates

problem gambling and inhibits treatment readiness. Substance Use & Misuse.

42, 43-63.
Wood, R. T.A., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of Playscan as a
tool to aid responsible gambling and minimise problematic gambling
beahviours [Report]. Sundbyberg, Sweden: Svenska Spel.

26