Assessing the
techniques and needs
for responsible
gambling professional
training and
education

GP CONSULTING

JUNE 2018

Final Report
Date: June 25, 2018
Principle Investigator: Kahlil S. Philander
Co-Investigator: Sasha Stark
Co-Authors: Anna Keshabyan; Janine Robinson
Title of Project: Assessing the techniques and needs for responsible gambling
professional training and education

Acknowledgments
This research was funded by a non-resident fellowship at the International Center for
Gaming Regulation (ICGR) at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the ICGR, as well as Mark Vander Linden, Tim Miller, and
David Horricks for their support of this work. The authors thank Nerilee Hing, Lena
Quilty, Anna Thomas, and Isabelle Martin for their comments on the expert survey,
along with the uncompensated expert respondents that completed the survey. The
findings and conclusions of this paper are those solely of the authors.
i

A BOUT THE A UTHORS
K AHLIL S. P HILANDER , P H .D.
Kahlil Philander is an Assistant Professor at Washington State University's Carson College of Business.
Previously, he oversaw the GameSense responsible gambling program as Director of Social
Responsibility at BCLC and served as Director of Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas
International Gaming Institute. Dr. Philander has published widely in peer-reviewed academic journals.
He is a member of the editorial board of International Gambling Studies, Harvard’s Division on
Addiction’s Brief Addiction Science Information Source, and the UNLV Gaming Research & Review
Journal. Prof. Philander has been named to Global Gaming Business Magazine’s 40 under 40 list and was
a co-recipient of the Research of the Year Award from the National Council on Problem Gambling.
Email: kahlil.philander@wsu.edu | Phone: +1-702-722-7342

S ASHA S TARK , P H .D.
Dr. Sasha Stark is Senior Researcher for the Responsible Gambling Council. She has engaged both
Canadian and international stakeholders in the gambling prevention space. Her projects have included
an examination of youth gambling prevalence and prevention programs, the creation of guidelines for
how to respond to patrons with potential gambling problems in lottery outlets, and evaluations of
gambling prevention social marketing campaigns and youth prevention programs. Dr. Stark has more
than a decade of gambling research experience to guide her work. Prior to joining the Responsible
Gambling Council, Dr. Stark examined problem gambling inheritance, gender differences, and First
Nations youth at the University of Toronto.
Email: sashas@rgco.org | Phone: +1-416-490-2082

A NNA K ESHABYAN
Anna Keshabyan completed work on this project as a research intern with the Responsible Gambling
Council. During her internship, Anna worked on a number of research projects that included conducting
literature reviews, data analysis, proposal drafting, and program evaluation planning. Anna recently
completed her Master’s degree at Memorial University.

J ANINE R OBINSON
Janine Robinson is the Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Best Practices at the Responsible
Gambling Council. She leads the research and development programs and is also the Managing Director
of RG+. She has specialized in the field of responsible and problem gambling since 1998 and is regarded
as a leader in the field of responsible gambling education and training.
Email: janiner@rgco.org | Phone: +1-416-490-2070

ii

A BSTRACT
Responsible gambling programs continue to grow in size and scope, as does the
required depth of knowledge for professionals that are accountable for the design of
responsible gambling (RG) policies and systems. Despite the growing complexity of
responsible gambling, and the related connections to other public health programs,
business operations, and regulatory processes, there are no dedicated education
programs focused on providing knowledge workers in RG (RG professionals) with a
foundation of knowledge to effectively execute programs in this increasingly
complicated system. This report is a training needs assessment study, intended to
provide direction for future responsible gambling professional education programs.
Through an environment scan of training programs, a literature review, and a survey
of experts, we identify several broad areas of study that appear to be important to
the work of responsible gambling professionals. We additionally find that our sample
of experts have managed to acquire most of the skills that they need, through
accessing a variety of informational sources on gambling and problem gambling (PG)
information, RG corporate policies, how to educate players, RG guiding principles,
how to assist players in need, self-exclusion programs, organizational benefits of RG,
advertising and marketing guidelines, and venue design and environmental features.
But we also find that a few areas of study remain an ongoing need, including game
design and structural characteristics, gambling evaluation measures, and
organizational barriers to implementing RG policies.
We conclude that future educational programs should have a broad scope of content
for new knowledge workers in the field, while established workers would benefit
from more targeted content related to emerging areas of research and ongoing
challenges that leaders may face once established in their roles.
Keywords: responsible gambling, training, education, needs assessment

iii

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
About the Authors .............................................................................................................................. ii
Kahlil S. Philander, Ph.D. ................................................................................................................. ii
Sasha Stark, Ph.D. ........................................................................................................................... ii
Anna Keshabyan.............................................................................................................................. ii
Janine Robinson .............................................................................................................................. ii
Abstract ...............................................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................iv
Report Tables ...................................................................................................................................... v
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Overview of Study .................................................................................................................... 6
2 Literature .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Overview of RG Training Programs .......................................................................................... 7
2.2 By Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Evaluations and Research of RG Training Programs ............................................................. 11
2.4 Training Content for RG Professionals .................................................................................. 14
2.5 Summary of Content Areas .................................................................................................... 30
2.6 Challenges in RG Training ....................................................................................................... 30
2.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 31
3 Expert Survey ................................................................................................................................. 32
3.1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 32
3.2 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 33
4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 40
4.1 Limitations and Future Work ................................................................................................. 41
5 References ...................................................................................................................................... 42

iv

R EPORT T ABLES
Table 1: Share of Role Related to RG ............................................................................................... 33
Table 2: Organizational Role ............................................................................................................. 33
Table 3: Organization Type ............................................................................................................... 34
Table 4: Gambling Formats Related to Role .................................................................................... 34
Table 5: Organization Size ................................................................................................................ 34
Table 6: Place of Work ...................................................................................................................... 34
Table 7: Importance of RG Training Categories .............................................................................. 35
Table 8: Gambling and PG information............................................................................................ 35
Table 9: RG corporate policies ......................................................................................................... 36
Table 10: How to educate players (informed decision making) ..................................................... 36
Table 11: RG guiding principles ........................................................................................................ 36
Table 12: How to assist players in need........................................................................................... 36
Table 13: Self-exclusion programs ................................................................................................... 37
Table 14: Organizational benefits of RG .......................................................................................... 37
Table 15: Game design and structural characteristics .................................................................... 37
Table 16: Gambling evaluation measures ....................................................................................... 37
Table 17: Organizational barriers to implementing RG policies ..................................................... 37
Table 18: Advertising and marketing Guidelines ............................................................................. 38
Table 19: Venue design and environmental features ..................................................................... 38
Table 20: Community prevention programs ................................................................................... 38
Table 21: Treatment programs ........................................................................................................ 38
Table 24: Unmet need for information ............................................................................................ 39
Table 23: Current sources for RG information ................................................................................ 40
Table 25: Preferred mode of RG training ........................................................................................ 40
Table 26: Preferred training intensity .............................................................................................. 40

v

1 I NTRODUCTION
The field of responsible gambling (RG) is
relatively new. For example, perhaps the
oldest and certainly one of the most basic
foundational responsible gambling tools,
self-exclusion (also known as self-barring),
was developed less than 30 years ago
(Responsible Gambling Council, 2016a),
and other tactics like the first North
American Problem Gambling Awareness
Week and the first on-property RG
information center, did not occur until the
early 2000s.
Today, RG programs continue to grow in
size and scope, and the required depth of
understanding for professionals in RG
policies and systems compounds as new
technologies emerge (e.g. Ladouceur,
Blaszczynski, & Lalande, 2012), as
researchers produce better understanding
of risks from player vulnerabilities
(Hodgins, Stea, & Grant, 2011), as gaming
product designs evolve (Parke, Parke, &
Blaszczynski, 2017), and as local
environments change (Shaffer & Korn,
2002).
Despite the growing complexity of RG
systems and their connections to other
public
health
programs,
business
operations, and regulatory processes,
there are no dedicated education programs
or curricula focused on providing RG
professionals with a foundation of
knowledge to effectively execute RG
programs in this increasingly complicated
system. Today, RG training programs are
primarily geared towards educating
frontline service delivery employees in how
to respond to customers (e.g. National
Council on Problem Gambling, 2016).
While those training programs are

important components of an effective
system, there remains an absence of
understanding around the appropriate
curriculum for regulators, operators,
manufacturers,
and
other
industry
members that have responsibility and/or
accountability over organizational RG
strategies. As large domestic and foreign
organizations continue to invest in internal
RG programs (e.g. Simmons, 2017;
Velotta, 2017; Davy, 2017), there is a
growing need to provide established and
emerging leaders in the field with the
education required to be effective
knowledge workers.

1.1 O VERVIEW OF S TUDY
This report is a training needs assessment
intended to provide direction for future
responsible
gambling
professional
education programs. In the next section,
results from an environmental scan of RG
training are provided, along with a wider
research literature review, to establish a
baseline of understanding of current
practices and potential areas of future
development.
The findings from the environmental scan
and the literature review were used to
develop a survey tool, which was then
administered to a sample of practicing RG
experts, to further understand industry
needs. The survey methodology and
summary results are provided in Section 3.
Discussion of the results and next steps for
the field are provided in Section 4.

2 L ITERATURE
For the purpose of this study, we
conducted an environmental scan of RG
staff training available in the peer-reviewed
and grey literature. Subsequently, we

conducted a literature search of studies
and evaluations of RG staff training
programs. The search was completed with
the help of keywords searches for
“responsible gambling”, “staff training”,
“employee training”, and “gambling
professionals”
on
Google
Scholar,
ProQuest, JSTOR, and other online
databases. Documents were screened for
content via abstracts and executive
summaries, and those relevant to the topic
of this research were fully reviewed.
In this section of the report, we discuss
existing RG employee training programs
and assess evidence of their effectiveness.
We then examine the common challenges
associated with the delivery and
implementation of RG training programs.
Finally, we reflect on the process of
creating a RG training program for
regulators, operators, and manufacturers
that will address their needs. This includes
the RG topic areas that are unique and
relevant to RG professionals.

2.1 O VERVIEW OF RG T RAINING
P ROGRAMS
RG training programs tend to focus on
frontline employees who have direct
service delivery tasks or other interactions
with customers. Training materials for
frontline gambling staff often provide
information on general RG principles,
including the notions of chance and
randomness, and seek to enable
employees to respond to players with
gambling problems in the venues (e.g.
Ladouceur et al., 2004; Giroux, Boutin,
Ladouceur, Lachance, & Dufour, 2008). In
some cases, staff training programs also
equip employees with the basic knowledge
of problem gambling resources, and
encourage staff to facilitate help-seeking

behaviors in people with gambling
problems (e.g. Dufour, Ladouceur, &
Giroux, 2010; LaPlante, Gray, LaBrie,
Kleschinsky, & Shaffer, 2012).
The research provides sufficient evidence
on overall effectiveness of such programs,
with an increase in RG knowledge, a
positive change in attitudes towards RG
initiatives, and enhanced overall job
satisfaction as outcomes (Giroux et al.
2008; LaPlante et al., 2012; Lee, Song,
Lee, Lee, & Bernhard, 2013). There are a
number of challenges associated with the
implementation of staff training programs
including the need for staff to regularly
refresh training, address role ambiguity of
staff with RG training (e.g. conflicts in RG
and other business goals), and tailoring the
program to meet the needs of employees
with different levels of RG expertise (Giroux
et al., 2008; Hing & Nuske, 2012; Gray,
Tom, LaPlante, & Shaffer, 2015).
Additionally, the growing research and
innovations in the area of RG make it
essential to update the content of such
programs to bring them in line with the most
recent research findings (Wong & Poon,
2011). Although some training programs
for venue employees provide a desired
depth of knowledge and cover the most
important areas of expertise associated
with problem gambling, adapting such
programs for use with RG professionals will
require modifications to program content
and delivery processes.

2.2 B Y J URISDICTION
RG training requirements and programs
vary in different jurisdictions. In this section,
we present a brief overview of these
programs in various countries and
jurisdictions. We note that our review was
done of publicly reported sources in the

English language, and therefore may
exclude materials from countries where
content is not produced in English, or
where training is guarded as either a trade
secret or otherwise not publicly distributed.
Australia has one of the most developed
RG training policies with all courses
following a nationally specified competency
unit (Australian Government, 2013). This
competency unit outlines basic RG training
requirements for certified venue staff,
which include knowledge of RG initiatives,
problem
gambling
awareness,
identification of the signs of problem
gambling, and interventions and resources
to help people with gambling problems.
The gambling authorities in most Australian
states have developed RG training courses
for venue staff that follow these national
requirements (e.g. ACT Gambling and
Racing Commission, 2015; New South
Wales Liquor and Gaming, 2012; Victorian
Responsible Gambling Foundation, 2016).
In New Zealand, Clubs New Zealand
provides the Being a Responsible
Gambling Host Training Course for
gambling venue employees. This online
self-paced course provides information on
problem gambling, RG strategies, and
harm minimization in the gambling venues
(Clubs New Zealand Inc., 2018).
RG training programs for frontline staff are
established in most Canadian provinces.
Such programs usually provide frontline
employees with information on RG
strategies, problem gambling, and teach
employees to identify and assist people
with gambling problems in the venue. While
some provinces have many specialized
programs for different categories of
gambling employees, others implement
more generalized training courses. Overall,

the vast majority of RG programs in
Canada target frontline venue employees
or venue management who deal with
customers on a regular basis.
In Alberta, video lottery terminal (VLT) staff
are required to complete Reel Facts
training within 30 days of hire, which
provides information on what responsible
gambling is and how they can encourage it,
the signs of problem gambling, how to
avoid reinforcing gambling myths, and
support services. Albertan bingo workers
are required to undergo A Good Call
course that raises awareness about RG
and problem gambling and helps them to
develop knowledge and skills to assist the
customers. Furthermore, there is a twophase Deal Us In course designed to
educate casino employees about RG and
provide information on where the player
may seek help. Importantly, phase two of
Deal Us In is concerned with the education
of management and security employees to
whom it provides communication and
intervention skills (Alberta Gaming & Liquor
Commission, 2018).
Ontario has RG training programs for
gaming, lottery, and bingo retailers.
Frontline employees of the gaming venues
are required to participate in mandatory
training that consists of a one-hour training
session and focuses on recognizing
problem gambling signs, responding to
these signs, and reporting the incident in a
customer service database. Additionally,
advanced training for senior management
and supervisors is offered by the Ontario
Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).
This advanced course includes a threehour in-depth classroom training and
provides management employees with
thorough
gambling
education
and

customized techniques for dealing with
customers in distress. OLG also provides a
training course for corporate employees
that promotes awareness of RG practices,
highlights potential warning signs of
problem gambling, and dispels myths that
are commonly associated with gambling
(OLG, 2010). Although this course
encourages adoption of RG practices, it
does not provide employees with an indepth understanding of how to incorporate
RG practices into the development of RG
policies, regulatory frameworks, and codes
of conduct. Gambling, Gaming and
Technology Use (formerly known as
Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario) has
also developed a training course for
problem gambling prevention and referral
specialists (PGIO, 2017). This course
focuses on the methods of problem
gambling prevention, counselling, and
communication with people with gambling
problems. It emphasizes RG strategies
targeted at problem gambling prevention
and intervention, but is more relevant to the
needs of counselors and professionals who
assist people with gambling problems than
to regulators, operators, and policymakers.
Lottery retailers in Atlantic Canada are
required to complete the Retailer
Responsible Gambling Training Program,
which educates staff about responsible
gambling, how to encourage informed
decisions, and how and when to provide
support to players (Atlantic Lottery
Corporation, 2017). Loto-Québec requires
retailers to complete the Taking Risks is No
Game training and also offers a recognition
program for retailers who are particularly
committed to responsible gambling
(Société des Établissements de Jeux du
Québec Inc., 2016). The Liquor and

Gaming Authority of Manitoba recently
launched a Smart Choices course for
employees working in the hospitality
industry (2018). Although the course is
predominantly focused on regulations
surrounding the responsible use of alcohol,
it also includes components to increase RG
and problem gambling awareness. In
Saskatchewan, retailers complete the
Responsible Gaming for VLT Site
Operators Saskatchewan training that
teaches staff to distinguish responsible
from
problem
gambling,
discusses
gambling myths, and shows how to provide
information to those seeking help
(Saskatchewan
Tourism
Education
Council, 2016). British Columbia Lottery
Corporation provides venue staff with
GameSense
Appropriate
Response
Training which is targeted at learning about
RG, signs and impacts of problem
gambling, gaining knowledge of resources
available to people with gambling problems
and their families, and gaining practical
experience in communicating with people
with gambling problems (BCLC, 2018).
Corporate employees also receive general
information on gambling in British
Columbia and responsible gambling,
through a program entitled, Where’s your
GameSense.
In the US, the development of RG training
programs for corporate professionals is
supported by the American Gaming
Association’s Code of Conduct (2017). The
Code highlights the importance of
educating new and existing employees on
RG strategies and regularly providing them
with information updates on RG, related
company policies, and help resources for
problem gambling. The National Centre on
Responsible Gambling in the US, a non9

profit predominantly supported through
industry donations with an independent
scientific advisory board, developed an
Executive, Management, & Employee
Responsible
Gaming
Education
(EMERGE) program which includes a webbased course aiming to raise problem
gambling awareness among gaming
employees of all levels (2016). The
EMERGE program covers such topics as
gambling addiction, factors underlying
gambling disorder development, gambling
and public health, and responsible gaming
programs. It is noteworthy that although the
program contains a section on RG, the
information provided in this section is very
general and not too extensive. The
EMERGE program was developed to train
gaming employees at all levels and
therefore, the contents of the program are
not tailored to the specific needs of RG
professionals. More focus on specific RG
strategies and their incorporation in
companies’ codes and regulations might be
required in order to address the specific
needs of RG professionals.
Some US states such as New York have
staff training programs that teach venue
employees to recognize the signs of
problem gambling (American Gaming
Association, 2008). Oregon began the
online Responsible Gambling & You
retailer training program in June 2016,
which teaches lottery staff how to provide
information on the odds of winning and how
the games work, recognize problem
gambling, and provide information on
support resources (Shaw & Robinson,
2017. Ohio is also in the process of
establishing VLT retailer training (Ohio
Lottery Commission, 2016).

The development of RG training is also
supported by specific US commercial
gaming industry operators. Las Vegas
Sands, headquartered in Nevada, has
established the Play Responsibly program
for its employees that educates team
members about RG support services and
ways to assist guests with potential
gambling problems (LVSC, 2015). Caesars
also has RG training for their employees
called Operation Bet Smart, which
promotes employee awareness about RG
strategies, helps them understand the
company’s position on the issue, and
supplies them with information necessary
to help others (Caesars, 2018). MGM
implements the GameSense program for
its employees, including four different
levels of training, depending on role
(Feldman, 2017).
In Europe, the British Association of
Bookmakers (ABB) requires retailers to
complete training and regular refreshers on
the signs of problem gambling and how to
communicate with those who may need
support (Griffiths, 2014). The ABB also
requires each locale to have a dedicated
responsible gambling coordinator, who is
nominated by staff and receives additional
training for engaging in complex
interactions with players. In Switzerland,
employees are required to complete
training and refreshers on problem
gambling and its consequences, and how
to approach and provide information to
players seeking help (Nunweiler, Tomei, &
Zumwald, 2014).
In Singapore, local operators provide RG
training programs to raise awareness about
RG strategies and to equip employees to
assist people with gambling problems
(National Council on Problem Gambling,

2009; Winslow, Cheok, & Subramaniam,
2015). Sands China in Macau provides RG
Team Training for its employees.
Additionally, the Gaming Inspection and
Coordination Bureau in Macau conducts
RG training for gambling employees as a
part of its RG campaigns (Responsible
Gambling Organizing Committee, 2013).

2.3 E VALUATIONS AND R ESEARCH OF
RG T RAINING P ROGRAMS
This section reviews evidence from studies
evaluating the impact of employee training
programs on a range of RG-related
outcomes. The research evidence on RG
employee training programs has expanded
over the past decade, but evidence of
effectiveness generally remains limited.
For example, no studies have investigated
the effects of RG training programs on
problem gambling rates in venues and
additional evidence for the impact of RG
training program on people with gambling
problems is needed (Robinson, Quilty, &
Lobo, 2016). Despite these limitations,
most studies investigating the outcomes of
employee training programs show an
improvement in RG knowledge among
employees, more positive attitudes towards
RG initiatives and people with gambling
problems, and overall increases in job
satisfaction and organizational trust
(Dufour et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2013;
Giroux et al. 2008; LaPlante et al., 2012;
Quilty, Robinson, & Blaszczynski, 2015).
Most evaluations of employee training
programs find training interventions useful.
For example, an evaluation of the VLT
retailer staff training program in Manitoba
that included over 1,500 employees found
that 98% of participants found this training
helpful (Smitheringale, 2001). Employees
reported developing knowledge of how

gambling works, how problem gambling
develops, the signs of problem gambling,
and available problem gambling resources.
Some knowledge improvements were seen
in the ability to recognize the signs of
problem gambling, knowing when to
provide help, and seeing the value in
providing help. An evaluation of As luck
would have it - an awareness program for
VLT retailers in Quebec - included 707
participants who attended a two-hour
awareness workshop that covered such
topics as chance and randomness,
fallacies and misconceptions about
gambling, recognizing symptoms of
problem gambling, and what retailers can
do if they decide to intervene (Ladouceur et
al., 2004). Immediately following the
workshop, participants had increased
knowledge about attributes of problem
gambling, ways of approaching people with
gambling problems, and felt more capable
of doing so. Six months later, compared to
a control group of new retailers, workshop
attendees reported approaching excessive
gamblers significantly more often and were
more likely to discuss the resources
available to people with gambling problems
seeking help.
The People Making Difference workshop
was developed in Quebec to teach casino
employees about problem gambling and
ways to assist gamblers in crisis (Giroux et
al., 2008). More than 2,400 employees
across three casinos were enrolled in a
three-hour
training
workshop
that
explained how gambling problems develop,
how to identify and assist people with
gambling problems, and the importance of
employees’ role in assisting distressed
gamblers. The majority of participants
reported that they were satisfied with the

training session and that it was relevant
and useful to their job. At the end of the
session, participants had a better
understanding of problem gambling, its
signs, and interventions. They were also
more confident in their ability to distinguish
a gambler in crisis, and more convinced
about the value of helping people with
gambling problems and the importance of
their role in identifying the gamblers in
crisis. Participants also demonstrated
improved knowledge of self-exclusion
programs and were more convinced that
such programs are helpful to people with
gambling problems. However, not all of this
knowledge was retained at six-month
follow-up. Participants were less certain in
their ability to identify people with gambling
problems and gamblers in crisis, less sure
of when to intervene, and failed to
remember some procedures necessary to
help gamblers in crisis.
A similar training program for VLT
employees in Quebec (Taking risks is no
game - 2) was designed to inform
employees about problem gambling,
community resources, and treatment
available to people with gambling problems
(Dufour et al., 2010). The workshop was
mandatory for all VLT employees in
Quebec, and more than 800 employees
took part in it. At the end of the workshop,
the majority of participants reported that
they were satisfied with the training, had a
better understanding of problem gambling,
felt better equipped to detect people with
gambling problems, and were more
capable and eager to help people with
gambling problems. Most of the changes in
employees’ knowledge and attitudes were
retained at an eight-month follow-up,
although some knowledge gains were lost.

The study also investigated the impact of
the workshop on employees’ behaviors by
using a help-seeking pseudo-patron. This
behavioral assessment revealed that
employees in experimental venues gave
the information pamphlet to pseudo-patron
significantly more often during the post-test
than during the pre-test but much less so
during the follow-up. These outcomes
further support the idea that regular training
sessions should be offered to maintain
knowledge gains.
The evaluation of a training program in two
Asian casinos demonstrated similar results
(Wong & Poon, 2011). In this study, training
was delivered to 83 casino employees. The
training materials and session had a similar
structure to that described by Giroux et al.
(2008) and Dufour et al. (2010). Most
participants were satisfied with the training
and reported that the workshop helped
them to develop empathy for people with
gambling problems and feel more confident
in their ability to assist these players.
Additionally,
there
were
significant
improvements in participants’ knowledge of
chance and randomness and signs of
problem gambling. These knowledge gains
were maintained at 12-month follow-up.
Interestingly, the majority of participants
expressed a need for a refresher course
during the follow-up assessments. Most
senior executives of the establishments
participating in the study also sought
advice on how to further improve the
existing RG strategies.
LaPlante et al. (2012) examined the
processes and procedures designed to
prepare casino employees for complex
situations involving people with gambling
problems. Employees taking part in a
multimedia-based RG training program

(Play Responsibly) were surveyed before
and one month after completing the
program. The results indicate that
participants provided more educated
responses on questions about luck, kinds
of gambling, and emotional harms of
problem gambling after completing the
program. The training program raised
participants’ awareness of situations when
gambling becomes a problem and
considerably improved their understanding
of self-exclusion programs, gambling
regulations, and problem gambling.
Authors
noted
that
despite
the
improvements, the program was more
successful in teaching participants new
information than correcting erroneous
beliefs. Therefore, it is important that
developers of RG programs understand
existing
misconceptions
related
to
gambling and devote more resources to
addressing these faulty beliefs.
In Switzerland, Nunweiler and colleagues
(2014) evaluated an awareness training
program for VLT retailers which included a
two-and-a-half-hour annual workshop
consisting
of
educational
videos,
discussions, and roleplay. The results of
their evaluation demonstrated that the
majority of participants perceived the
program as helpful, and were more
confident in their ability to identify and
approach people with gambling problems
at the end of the program. However, many
participants noted that they did not feel that
they should intervene with people with
gambling problems, mostly due to privacy
and conflict of interest concerns.
The impact of RG programs is not limited to
an overall increase in gambling-related
knowledge. A notable change in
organizational attitudes following the

implementation of RG programs was also
observed in several studies. Lee et al.
(2013) found that RG initiatives voluntarily
implemented by a casino, such as selfexclusion, were positively related to
employees’
organizational
trust.
In
contrast, RG programs mandated by the
government (e.g. mandatory closing hours,
regulations regarding who can play in the
casino, etc.) were negatively related to
organizational trust. An online survey
administered to 130 casino employees in
Ontario (Quilty, Robinson, & Blaszczynski,
2015) reported that the predominant
majority (93.8%) of participants received at
least some form of RG instruction. Most
participants reported that RG training
improved their ability to identify problem
gambling signs and respond to them. Most
employees had a positive attitude toward
RG training and endorsed more such
training being related to the identification of
and response to problem gambling.
Another important finding in this study was
that exposure to signs of problem gambling
and difficulties in responding to these signs
were both associated with decreased job
satisfaction. One of the possible
explanations for this finding is that
employees who are exposed to signs of
problem gambling and are limited in their
ability to respond to them might experience
increased emotional labour along with
helplessness, which leads to stress that
ultimately results in decreased job
satisfaction. Therefore, RG training
programs helping employees to identify
and respond to people with gambling
problems may not only be useful for
increasing employees’ knowledge of RG
but may also lead to enhanced job
satisfaction among gaming venue staff.

There are several important limitations to
the studies discussed above. First and
foremost, all research studies presented
were focused on RG training programs for
frontline staff. Regulators, manufacturers,
and corporate employees at operators
have significantly less (if any) interaction
with people with gambling problems.
Moreover, their tasks may be unique,
including the development of RG
regulations
in
specific
venues,
implementing
RG
programs,
and
evaluating the effectiveness of such
programs. The needs of knowledge
workers in RG (RG professionals) are quite
different from those of frontline staff. Rather
than emphasizing the identification of and
intervention with people with gambling
problems, RG training programs for
professionals should be focused on
learning about specific RG strategies,
evaluating the evidence of effectiveness of
strategies, and incorporating RG into the
policies and regulations of specific
organizations. Discussion of how to
balance RG with existing privacy and
confidentiality regulations and how to avoid
a conflict of interest when implementing RG
programs should also be provided as a part
of professional RG training. Explaining the
value of mandated RG programs and
addressing misconceptions about RG
would allow the RG professionals to
appreciate the need for RG programs. Last,
as most RG professionals hold managerial
positions, it would be helpful to discuss the
positive impact of RG programs on
employee attitudes such as job satisfaction
and organizational trust.
In addition to thematic constraints, it is also
worth keeping in mind that all studies relied
on employees’ self-reports of their

knowledge of RG and problem gambling.
Only one study (Dufour et al., 2010)
actually used a behavioral measure
(pseudo-patron) to evaluate helping
behaviors in VLT retailers. One potential
problem with self-reports in this line of
research is social desirability bias, as
employees who underwent RG training
might be more likely to report that the
training improved their knowledge and
understanding of RG because they deem
such
responses
more
desirable.
Additionally, as most follow-up surveys
were voluntary, self-selection bias might
have taken place, and employees who
remembered training materials better or
were generally more interested in RG
decided to participate in the surveys. The
cross-sectional nature of some studies also
precludes us from drawing generalized
conclusions regarding the programs’
effectiveness. Finally, all of the studies
used employees’ perceptions of program
effectiveness as the key program outcome.
Outcomes such as players’ experiences
with excessive gambling in the venue,
attempts to seek help from staff members,
satisfaction with the help they received,
and access to resources can also be
measured in future research of RG training.

2.4 T RAINING C ONTENT
P ROFESSIONALS

FOR

RG

As discussed above, the content of RG
training programs for frontline staff usually
includes learning modules on chance and
randomness, game types, common
misconceptions about gambling, problem
gambling awareness, and identification of
problem gambling signs along with
interventions and community resources for
people with gambling problems. This
choice of curricula is predominantly

motivated by the tasks fulfilled by frontline
staff and interactions between frontline
staff and players. Most RG regulators,
operators, and policymakers work in
substantially different environments and
are typically responsible for program and
policy design, implementation, and
analysis. Training programs for these
stakeholders should cover a broader scope
of RG-related information that is more
pertinent to management responsibilities.
To inform a training needs assessment
survey, this section of the review examines
the potential subject list for RG professional
training programs, providing a rationale for
including specific topics into the program
curriculum. At the end of each section, we
provide a summary of recommended
educational material to be covered on each
topic.

2.4.1 R E S PO NS I BLE
C O R PO R A TE P O L I CIE S

G A M BL I NG

Gambling-related policies vary in scope,
intensity, and sophistication depending on
the jurisdiction in which they are
implemented. Cultural, social, and political
processes in particular regions often
dictate the nature of gambling and the
regulatory framework. The content of RG
professional training programs should
provide an overview of gambling-related
policies and regulations in the RG
professionals’
jurisdictions,
as
understanding these subtleties is important
to interpreting more general training. These
regulations vary by jurisdiction, but the
most common include exclusion of minors,
requirements for gaming operators to
obtain a license, and prohibition of
advertisement of unlicensed gaming
venues. There are also fundamental

principles that guide the majority of RG
initiatives and regulations.
One of the most well-known frameworks
underlying policy development in the area
of RG is the Reno Model (Blaszczynski,
Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004). The Reno
model is a science-based model that
provides a strategic framework for RG
initiatives and outlines key groups and
concepts related to RG, stakeholders, and
guiding principles of RG developments.
The concept of informed choice represents
one of the key tenets of the Reno Model. It
holds that the responsibility to provide
sufficient information on gambling-related
processes and consequences lies with the
industry and government regulators, while
the decision whether or not to gamble
resides with consumers themselves. The
key stakeholders outlined in the Reno
Model include consumers, industry,
healthcare providers, and governments.
The key principles of the Reno Model
include the commitment to the reduction of
problem gambling incidence, collaboration
between stakeholders targeted at informing
and evaluating public policy, identifying
short- and long-term priorities, and using
scientific
research
to
guide
the
development of policies aiming to reduce
the incidence of problem gambling.
The Reno Model puts a special emphasis
on scientific research and rigorous
investigation of the effectiveness of RG
programs and using scientific evidence in
policymaking. The principles of the Reno
Model can be instrumental in making
decisions regarding potential RG policies
(National
Center
for
Responsible
Gambling, 2017). We note that the Reno
model is not without criticism (e.g. Hancock
& Smith, 2017), as it reflects many

underlying values that may not translate
across cultures or institutions. For
example, through its emphasis of informed
decision making, the model necessarily
prioritizes personal sovereignty over
collective harms. While this is perhaps wellsuited to most western cultures, it may not
translate to all jurisdictions. However, given
the widespread adoption of the Reno
model
by
many
major
industry
stakeholders, it is RG professionals’
training should include learning and
applying the principles of the Reno Model
to the development and implementation of
RG practices, along with related critiques.
Based on the discussion in this section, we
recommend including the following topics
in a RG Professional Training module on
RG corporate policies:
•

Most widespread RG policies

•

Best practices in RG policies

•

Science-based
gambling policy

•

Roles of industry actors (regulators,
operators, researchers, etc.)

•

Emerging RG policies

•

RG policies in the participants’ local
jurisdiction

models

for

2.4.2 H O W TO A S S I S T P LA Y E R S I N N E E D
Helping players with gambling problems is
a part of most RG programs. It is commonly
achieved through identifying people with
gambling problems (this may be selfidentification) and referring them to help
resources. Resources may include a
gambling helpline, support groups,
counseling,
or
self-help resources.
Identifying players with gambling problems
is part of the process of assisting players in
need. It may be accomplished through

training venue staff to detect problem
gambling signs and intervening with these
players. Alternatively, the use of
technology and self-identification can
detect players with gambling problems and
refer them to available resources. RG
professionals should be knowledgeable of
the various ways of providing assistance to
players in need. Particularly, RG program
developers should be aware of different
methods of identifying people with
gambling problems, their relative strengths
and limitations, as well as circumstances in
which each method would be most
effective. RG professionals should be able
to determine whether it is feasible to pursue
the identification of people with gambling
problems in their circumstances, and if so,
how vigorously the identification should be
pursued.
Staff observations of player behaviors are
the most commonly used method for
identifying people with gambling problems
in land-based venues, but with the rise of
online gambling and ongoing technological
developments, other ways to detect
problem gambling have been introduced.
Behavioral tracking of betting patterns can
be used to reliably identify people with
gambling problems online (Ladouceur,
Shaffer, Blaszczynski, & Shaffer, 2017).
For example, a machine learning algorithm
based on neural networks (TREPAN) was
used to predict potentially harmful
gambling (Percy et al., 2016). The
knowledge extraction algorithm trained on
real-life gambling data produced compact
and comprehensible logic rules that helped
identify players who have a high chance of
using
self-exclusion
programs.
In
particular, the variability of bets and
gambling intensity were the most important

risk factors distinguishing potential selfexcluders identified by TREPAN. The
development of new quantitative metrics to
identify players who are likely to have
gambling problems, as well as continuous
improvement
of
existing
statistical
algorithms and data analytic-based
designs, are key to the advancement of
data mining in the field of RG. Thus, RG
professionals should be informed of these
new developments and provided with
information on the decision-making criteria
they should use if they want to apply
machine learning to their practices.
Several studies e.g. (Braverman, LaPlante,
Nelson, & Shaffer, 2013; Gray, LaPlante, &
Shaffer, 2012; Philander, 2014) monitored
players’ activity on online gambling sites
and identified behavioral patterns that
differentiate the players who trigger RG
gaming alert systems from those who do
not. The findings showed that intensity of
gambling activities (number of bets, active
betting days, gambling session duration)
and financial variables (total bet size and
net losses) could be used to accurately
identify people with potential gambling
problems (Gray et al., 2012). Braverman et
al. (2013) used online gambling data to
determine
behavioral
patterns
that
identified players who were previously
enrolled in an RG program. They found that
those who engaged in more than two types
of gambling during their first month of site
membership and placed highly variable
bets on casino games or live action sports
were more likely to benefit from future RG
programs. Furthermore, some evidence
suggests that loyalty card systems and
software packages developed for EGMs
can aid staff in monitoring gambling
behaviors and identifying people with

gambling problems in land-based venues
(Delfabbro, King, & Griffiths, 2012). The
use of technology and behavioral
strategies to identify people with gambling
problems, or at future risk of developing
problems with gambling, is a promising
area of RG and hence, RG professionals
should be informed of these developments
and possible ways to incorporate them into
practice.
As outlined above, we recommend
covering the following topics when
discussing how to assist players in need:
•

Assistance as part of the customer
service model model

•

Using communication techniques to
reduce player resistance

•

Identifying players using in-person
behavioral markers

•

Digital behavioral
identification

•

In-venue resources (i.e. printed
materials, on-site resource centers,
self-exclusion)

•

Processes for referring to external
resources

tracking

and

2.4.3 H O W TO E D U CA TE P LA YE R S
(I N FO RM E D D E CI S IO N M A K I NG )
Informed decision-making is a key tenet of
RG initiatives, as framed in the Reno Model
(Blaszczynski et al., 2004). Research on
positive play suggests that beliefs about
gambling are a fundamental component of
responsible gambling by players (Wood &
Griffiths, 2015; Wood, Wohl, Tabri, &
Philander, 2017). The what and how of
providing
players
with
educational
information on gambling, notions of chance
and randomness, problem gambling signs,

and possible harms associated with
problem gambling should be at the
forefront of RG program development.
There are a number of ways in which this
educational information can be provided to
the players. Social media campaigns, RG
advertisements,
in-game
warning
messages, and RG information kiosks can
all be used to deliver gambling-related
information to players and help them make
informed
decisions
regarding
their
gambling.
Players often differ from each other in the
intensity of their gambling involvement and
their knowledge and attitudes about
gambling.
Hence,
the
educational
information provided to players should be
tailored to their unique characteristics, such
as previous gambling experience (or lack of
thereof)
and
gambling
frequency
(Gainsbury, Abarbanel, Philander, Butler,
2017). The Responsible Gambling Council
(RGC) has developed an informed
decision-making
framework
that
emphasizes targeting the content and
delivery of information to specific types of
players. Casual, frequent, and intensive
players
should
receive
different
educational
materials
on
gambling
safeguards, risks, and help availability that
are most relevant to their specific needs
and delivered using channels that are most
suited to their level of play (RGC, 2010).
Information on how to incorporate the
notions of informed decision making and
harm minimization in gambling regulations
should be considered by regulators. The
issue of facilitating awareness about
problem gambling was discussed by
Blaszczynski, Parke, Parke, and Rigbye
(2014) in their report on operator-based
approaches to harm minimization in

gambling. The authors note that although
information on risks and probability of
gambling might raise awareness, the
evidence as to whether this raised
awareness translates into behavioral
change is still vague. The research also
suggests that to initiate behavior change,
information provided to the player should
be personally-relevant (e.g. behavioral
feedback) and should outline alternative
actions the player should consider instead
of gambling. It is also useful to frame the
information in a way that encourages
people to engage in self-awareness
leading
actions.
Such
presented
information is more likely to cause change,
as people are more likely to attend to
personally relevant information and less
likely to dismiss such information.
Several studies show that presenting
information in a way that interrupts
gambling activities may be useful for
drawing players’ attention and disrupting
the dissociative state that is frequently
experienced during gambling sessions
(Bailey, Konstan, & Carlis, 2001;
McCrickard, Catrambone, Chewar, &
Stasko, 2003). RG strategies must also
consider avoiding interference with
recreational gambling by interrupting play
too frequently or for too long. Presently, the
evidence on best mode of delivery for
gambling-related information is limited.
Studies suggest that the traditional ways of
raising awareness about problem gambling
are only mildly effective, when not paired
with additional RG strategies (Wohl,
Gainsbury, Stewart, & Sztainert, 2013;
Hing, 2004; Monaghan & Blaszczynski,
2010). Effective training programs should
consider the appropriate ways to frame and
deliver gambling-related information along

with the importance of informed decision
making.
Incorporating cultural competency in RG
practices and awareness messages is
another essential part of ensuring that all
players can make informed decisions about
gambling. A training program for RG
professionals should enable development
of culturally diverse gambling initiatives that
are not limited to translating RG materials
into different languages and distributing
those materials to communities and cultural
organizations.
Acquiring
cultural
competency would allow professionals to
recognize that attitudes towards gambling
can vary in different cultures and
successfully develop materials that engage
with the realities of different cultures
(Fogarty, 2017).
In summary, when considering how to
educate players about RG and problem
gambling, the following topics should be
discussed:
•

Value of informed decision making

•

How to provide information (i.e.
social
marketing,
in-game
messaging, information kiosks)

•

What information to provide (i.e.
randomness, signs of problem
gambling, behavioral feedback)

•

Tailoring information (i.e. gambling
frequency, cultural background)

•

Balancing information on risky and
positive play

2.4.4 S E L F -E X CL US IO N P R O G R A M S
Self-exclusion programs provide people
with gamblers with an option to ban
themselves from gambling venues for a
predetermined or indefinite duration of

time. Self-exclusion is one of the most
researched RG practices, with multiple
studies in different jurisdictions indicating
that the introduction of self-exclusion
programs led to reductions in problem
gambling accompanied by improvements
in well-being, control over gambling, and
social and familial functioning (McCormick,
Cohen, & Davies, 2018; Hayer & Meyer,
2011; Nelson, Kleschinsky, LaBrie, Kaplan,
& Shaffer, 2010; Ladouceur, Sylvain, &
Gosselin, 2007; Tremblay, Boutin, &
Ladouceur,
2008).
Self-exclusion
programs are shown to be a useful tool in
designing and promoting RG-oriented
policies. RG professionals should thus be
provided with information that is relevant to
the
incorporation
of
self-exclusion
programs into a RG policy framework.
Some self-exclusion programs draw on an
abstinence-based approach to problem
gambling
prevention
and
include
completely banning the player from the
gambling venue. However, recently, more
flexible approaches to self-exclusion exist,
with some venues offering self-exclusion
that is only limited to a particular time frame
or a particular form of gambling. Some
operators allow third parties to enact
exclusion agreements, and some provide
excluders with access to problem gambling
counseling services (Blaszczynski et al.,
2014). The evidence on the effectiveness
of each form of self-exclusion program
delivery is quite limited. Nevertheless, it is
important to provide RG professionals with
an overview of the available modalities of
self-exclusion and encourage them to seek
empirical evidence for the effectiveness of
each particular delivery form before
incorporating it into RG programs and
regulations.

Multi-operator self-exclusion schemes
(MOSES) require special attention in the
discussion of the self-exclusion initiatives.
The most common criticism of single-venue
self-exclusion is that patrons can continue
gambling at other venues after selfexcluding themselves from a particular
website or casino (Parke & Rigbye, 2014).
MOSES require sharing of data and
resources among the venues in such a way
that the players who choose to exclude
from one venue instantly lose access to
any other venue within a certain
jurisdiction. MOSES require information
sharing between different venues and
providers that asks for novel regulations in
terms of privacy, confidentiality, and
information management. Therefore, it is
important to include the discussion of
MOSES as a part of RG jurisdiction-wide
training program for regulators, operators,
and policymakers.
Finally, the providers offering self-exclusion
programs face multiple obstacles that RG
professionals should be aware of. For
example, self-exclusion programs are
frequently criticized for inconvenient and
inaccessible enactment procedures. Many
providers require players to visit the venue
to enroll in a program. This requirement
leads to unnecessary exposure of people
with gambling problems to gambling
products, thereby increasing chances of
gambling-related harms. Another issue
with the self-exclusion programs is the
enforcement of programs and preventing
breaches which impede the effectiveness
of
self-exclusion
programs.
RG
professionals’ training should discuss the
ways to provide players with more
accessible ways to enroll in self-exclusion

along with more effective enforcement of
self-exclusion agreements.
As such the discussion of self-exclusion
programs should include:
•

Local regulatory requirements

•

Enactment procedures

•

Duration

•

Third-party exclusion

•

Single venue vs. multi-operator
programs

•

Enforcement

•

Impact/effectiveness
exclusion

•

Responding
exclusion

•

Withholding of
banned players

•

Reinstatement procedure

2.4.5 A D V E RT IS I NG
G UI D E L I NE S

to

of

self-

breaches

of

winnings

A ND

from

M A RK E T I NG

As RG professionals regularly face a need
to develop gambling-related advertising
and marketing materials, it is essential to
familiarize them with the RG standards for
such items. The potential concerns with
gambling advertisements mostly involve
advertisements specifically targeted at
vulnerable populations (e.g. youth),
normalization and positive framing of
gambling, underestimation of gamblingrelated harms, and use of disproportionate
incentives in marketing campaigns. The
use of empirical evidence to guide the
development of advertising and marketing
guidelines should be highlighted when
educating RG professionals.

To ensure that gambling advertising and
marketing campaigns are in line with the
most progressive RG standards, gambling
regulators and operators need to develop
evaluation tools and guidelines to assess
these campaigns. A RG professional
training program should highlight the key
principles
in
evaluating
gambling
advertisements. One example of an
evaluation framework for gambling
marketing and advertisement campaigns
can be demonstrated through the RG
Check program developed by the RGC.
The RG Check evaluation criteria for
gambling advertising and promotion
include development of advertising
policies, screening processes, advertising
safeguards, and best practices in
developing loyalty programs for gambling
establishments. All these criteria are
essential to determine the degree to which
certain gambling advertisements align with
RG standards. For example, the existence
of corporate advertising and marketing
policies promotes social responsibility and
ensures that advertising does not deceive
or
specifically
target
vulnerable
populations. The developed RG screening
process assures that all advertisement and
marketing activities satisfy corporate
policies and RG standards. In such a way,
RG regulators and operators should be
informed of how they can develop
advertising
policies
and
screening
processes in their organizations.
As for specific safeguards, the prohibition
of
misleading
advertisements
that
overestimate the odds of winning or
underestimate the gambling-associated
harms is an essential RG standard that
promotes
informed
decision-making.
Advertising plays a prominent role in

establishing gambling as a social norm,
and gambling advertisements often
enhance the positive aspects of gambling
(e.g. entertainment, fun, chance to win,
socializing) and downplay the risks
associated with it (Parke, Harris, Parke, &
Rigbye, 2014; McMullan & Miller, 2008;
Monaghan, Derevensky, & Sklar, 2008).
Such portrayals often lead to a distorted
depiction of gambling activities. Thus,
providing consumers with adequate
information on different forms of gambling,
how
they
work,
probability
and
randomness, risks associated with
gambling, as well as help resources
available to people with gambling problems
should be a priority for those who design
gambling advertisement guidelines.
Another important RG standard is
concerned with targeting.
gambling
advertisements to people with gambling
problems
and underage gamblers.
Research shows that these populations are
particularly susceptible to the impacts of
advertisement and marketing campaigns
(Griffiths, 2016; Hanss, Mentzoni, Griffiths,
& Pallesen, 2015; Planzer & Wardle, 2011;
Binde, 2009). Thus, it is important to
ensure that gambling advertisements do
not exploit these vulnerable populations by
using
youth-targeting
images
or
overestimating the winning odds.
The impact of promotional marketing
incentives, social media marketing, and
loyalty programs should be considered
when evaluating advertising strategies.
Narayanan and Manchanda (2012) found
that people with gambling problems were
much more vulnerable to the effects of
marketing incentives in gambling venues.
Such incentives prompted them to play
longer and gamble more than people

without gambling problems offered the
same incentives. Current codes of
practices limit the offer of marketing
incentives that might promote excessive
gambling (Blaszczynski et al., 2014).
Encouraging
socially
irresponsible
gambling is also discouraged by most
regulations and codes of practice. Yet,
there is currently a lack of transparency
regarding monitoring and enforcing these
regulations. With the development of online
gambling and the advance of social media
marketing tools, there are even more
implications for policy development in
gambling advertisements. Hence, the
discussion of RG practices in gambling
marketing and advertising should be part of
an RG professionals’ training course.
Finally, the discussion of facilitating RG
through marketing and advertising should
be incorporated in RG professional
training. Social marketing campaigns are a
common way to raise awareness about RG
practices. The purpose of such campaigns
may include educating communities about
gambling and the specific harms and risk
associated with it, providing information
about resources available to people with
gambling problems or concerned others,
and decreasing stigma associated with the
problem
gambling.
Evaluations
of
campaigns usually demonstrate that they
are successful at raising awareness and
educating the public about problem
gambling and risks, and encouraging
actions that reduce the risks of problem
gambling (e.g. RGC, 2017b; RGC, 2016;
RGC, 2009). It is worth noting that
vulnerable populations, such as high-risk
gamblers and young players, should be
specifically targeted by RG campaigns in

order to decrease negative impacts of
gambling on these populations.
Based on our review of research on
advertising and marketing guidelines, an
RG professional training program should
cover the following topics on advertising:
•

Local regulatory requirements

•

Impact on high-risk populations
(e.g. youth, problem gamblers)

•

Content restrictions

•

Evaluating gaming marketing/ads

•

Effectively promoting RG through
social marketing/ads

2.4.6 G A M E D E S IG N A N D M A C H I NE
S T RU C TU RA L C H A RA CTE R IS T I CS
The overall structure and individual
features of the games can affect gambling
outcomes, and some features may
increase the harms associated with
gambling. Sounds, lights, the fast pace of
the game, and losses disguised as wins
may contribute to the state of dissociation
from the outside environment and thereby
result in excessive gambling (Wood,
Griffiths, Chappell, & Davieste, 2004;
Templeton, Dixon, Harrigan, & Fugelsang,
2014). Pre-commitment tools represent a
way of reducing gambling-associated
harms through limiting the amount of time
and money the player spends on gambling
activities. Review of pertinent RG
regulations and RG features for game
design along with the implementation of
pre-commitment programs in land-based
and online gambling venues should be a
part of RG professional training.
Games vary in their design and structure:
speed, odds of winning, stakes, rule
complexity, and the amount of social

interaction required are different among
different games. Certain game features can
lead to more harmful outcomes than others
(McCormack & Griffiths, 2013). For
example, some evidence suggests that
games that are fast-paced and provide
immediate outcomes can cause players to
engage in more games and underestimate
the frequency of their gambling (Ladouceur
& Sevegny, 2006). Games that require a
degree of social isolation (i.e. EGMs and
VLTs) often draw on the state of
dissociation from the outside environment
that can lead to the loss of control.
Additionally, lights and sounds associated
with many VLT games often facilitate this
dissociative state in which individuals can
easily lose track of time and money spent
gambling (RGC, 2017a). Losses disguised
as wins is another game feature that
promotes excessive gambling. Losses
disguised as wins is a common feature of
many VLT games that involve multiple
bets. It can be observed when only one bet
wins and the overall gain is less than the
total of money wagered, yet the machine
produces “winning” sounds and provides
positive feedback. Losses disguised as
wins are especially problematic because
they provide players with false feedback
encouraging
more
gambling
and
precluding players from making informed
decisions.
While some features of casino games can
encourage excessive gambling, it is
possible to modify the game design in such
a way to promote more responsible
gambling practices. The use of RG
messages during the game has already
been discussed, but it is noteworthy that to
produce the most impact, such RG
messages should provide personalized

feedback on one’s gambling and interfere
with the dissociative state created by the
game. Cash and time displays providing
feedback on money and time spent
gambling are also frequently discussed as
built-in RG strategies, and there is some
evidence for the effectiveness of these
features (Ladouceur & Sevigny, 2006;
Blaszczynski et al., 2014).
Finally, pre-commitment is an RG
instrument that is used to predetermine the
amount of time or money the player intends
to spend gambling. Pre-commitment can
be mandatory or voluntary, depending on
the operator or jurisdictional rules.
However, the limited research evidence
supports voluntary pre-commitment and
shows that setting the financial limits for
one’s gambling leads to more reduction in
problem gambling than setting time limits
(Auer & Griffiths, 2013). As such, the
discussion of different types of precommitment tools, use of these tools in
online and offline venues, as well as
evidence for their effectiveness should be
incorporated in RG professional training.
Based on our review, the essential topics in
the discussion of game design and
characteristics include:
•

Sounds, lights, speed of play

•

Losses disguised as wins (false
wins) and near misses

•

Money and time spent display

•

Pre-commitment tools

•

In-game messaging

2.4.7 V E NUE D E S IG N A ND O TH E R
E NV IR O N M E NTA L F E A TU RE S
The environment in which gambling
activities take place has a prominent

impact on the gambling outcomes. Some
gambling
environments
are
more
conducive to RG initiatives than others. In
particular, the accessibility of the venue, its
opening hours, forms of gambling offered,
access to cash, access to alcohol and other
drugs, and availability of help resources
(e.g. onsite experts, RG leaflets, helpline
number, etc.) all play a role in establishing
RG practices in the venue. Therefore, it is
important
to
provide
gambling
professionals with information on the
environmental features that can promote or
impede RG activities.
The location of gaming venues, their
opening hours, and the ease with which
one can access the venues might
contribute to the level of problem gambling
among patrons. For example, Pearce,
Mason, Hiscock, and Day (2008) found that
individuals who had the greatest access to
gaming venues were at greater risk of
developing gambling problems than those
with less access to the venues. At the same
time, limiting venue accessibility might
decrease interest among recreational
gamblers, who often comprise the greatest
part of venues’ clientele.
In the discussion of location and
accessibility of gambling opportunities,
particular attention should be paid to the
effects of exposure and adaptation.
Shaffer, LaBrie, and LaPlante (2004)
viewed gambling as a public health toxin
and applied the exposure and adaption
theories to analyze the events that take
place within communities following the
introduction of gambling opportunities.
Similar to chemical and biological toxins,
the introduction of new gambling
opportunities in the community is
conceived to trigger the rates of problem

gambling to rise at first, as most vulnerable
players develop gambling problems,
followed by less vulnerable players. These
vulnerable players include those with
greatest
exposure
to
gambling
opportunities (e.g. venue staff, people
living in proximity of gambling venues),
people afflicted by other psychological
disorders, youth, and individuals with low
socio-economic
status
(Jacques
&
Ladouceur, 2006; Petry, Stinson, & Grant,
2005; Shaffer, Hall, & Vanderbilt, 1999;
National
Council
on
Responsible
Gambling, 2017). However, after the initial
rise in prevalence rates of problem
gambling, people begin to adapt to the
changed environment, moderate their
gambling
behavior,
develop
new
prevention and intervention resources, and
thereby the rates of problem gambling
plateau or decline. It is important to note
that exposure and adaptation effects are
not uniform across all settings, and social
environments frequently play a role in
shaping
the
interaction
between
population’s exposure and adaptation to
gambling (LaPlante & Shaffer, 2007).
Therefore, familiarizing RG professionals
with exposure and adaptation hypothesis,
and discussing the effects of venue
location and accessibility on different
groups of players, should be a part of
professional RG training. Additionally,
providing RG professionals with the
information on populations that are at highrisk of developing gambling problems is
important, as it can be used in planning of
RG programs and venue design.
Chasing losses is a sign of gambling
disorder that is experienced when, despite
meaningful financial losses, the person
continues to gamble in order to make up for

these losses. Chasing losses is often
reinforced through easy access to cash
and opportunity to withdraw additional
funds, which often results from a ready
availability of ATMs on the gambling floors,
venues, and kiosks. Self-reports from
gamblers imply that easy access to cash
triggers impulsive decision making (White,
Kraus, & Swartzwelder, 2006), and people
with gambling problems are more likely to
withdraw money, make larger withdrawals,
and have a higher probability of gambling
with the withdrawn funds (McMillen,
Marshall, & Murphy, 2004). However,
limiting
access
to
ATMs
may
inconvenience recreational players or, in
cases when gambling opportunities are
offered in non-casino environments (e.g.
bars, clubs, lottery kiosks), it might also
inconvenience those visitors of the
establishment who do not engage in
gambling. Limiting access to ATMs in
gaming venues might also prompt people
with gambling problems to bring more cash
to the venue. Thus, all the advantages and
limitations of restricting ATM access,
reducing the number of machines, or
limiting the withdrawal amount should be
addressed in training for RG professionals,
to enable them to make appropriate
considerations around access policies.
The use of alcohol and other drugs during
the gambling session can decrease
decision making abilities and increase
impulsive risk-taking (George, Rogers, &
Duka, 2005). There is also evidence that
the use of recreational drugs concurrently
with gambling activities leads to more
negative gambling outcomes (Cronce,
Bittinger, Di Lodovico, & Liu, 2017).
Therefore, it is important to discuss the
development of regulations pertaining to

the limited provision of alcohol on gambling
premises as well as the monitoring and
care of intoxicated customers. Additionally,
developing
regulations
related
to
monitoring the use of other substances
during the gambling session is an important
part of RG programming and customer
protection.
Problem gambling services and RG
information centers are increasingly
becoming an essential part of modern
gambling venues. Research shows that the
use of these resources is mostly motivated
by their accessibility (Blaszczynski et al.,
2014). For example, Mobile Access to
Responsible
Gambling
Information
(MARGI) kiosks are used in several
Canadian provinces to improve players’
understanding of gambling harms, house
advantage, and responsible gambling. RG
Information and Resource Centers can be
similarly used to offer information about RG
and resources available to those who have
concerns about their gambling patterns.
Such centers can be found inside the
gaming venues and are available to
patrons seeking help or information.
Establishing information centers where
players can obtain advice and RG
information in the venue is another
important part of ensuring that all players
can make informed decisions regarding
their gambling activities, engage in positive
play behaviors, and receive assistance
when in need.
In summary, RG professional training on
venue design and other environmental
features should cover:
•

Venue accessibility (i.e. venue
location, opening hours, high risk
populations)

•

Gambling exposure and adaptation

•

Number of machines and game
types

•

Access to cash

•

Access to alcohol and substance
use

•

On-site RG information centers

2.4.8 G A M BL I NG E V A L UA TIO N M E A S URE S
Making decisions about RG policies,
programs, and guidelines is an important
part of the responsibilities of RG
professionals. Ideally, such decisions
should be grounded in empirical research
on the effectiveness and specific outcomes
of the RG program in question. As such,
regulators and operators need to be able to
evaluate the efficiency of RG initiatives and
critically assess empirical evidence related
to RG programs. Enabling these
professionals with knowledge of evaluation
tools and measures will be beneficial to
their decision-making capacities.
Several skills are particularly important to
professionals’ knowledge needs in
program evaluation. These areas include
critical thinking and evidence assessment,
basic knowledge of program evaluation
and research methods, knowledge of
assessment tools in RG, and interpreting
program evaluation outcomes. Using
critical thinking skills for evidence
assessment can include reading the
scientific
literature
on
new
RG
developments and evaluating the strength
of the evidence presented by specific
studies. These skills are useful for making
decisions about introducing new RG
programs or modifying existing ones. Basic
knowledge of program evaluation and
research methods can be practical for

operators who have already implemented a
RG program and want to learn whether it
was
effective.
Understanding
of
assessment tools used in RG research and
evaluation will contribute to professionals’
ability to interpret the outcomes of program
evaluations and learn more about specific
programs’ mechanisms of change. Finally,
RG professionals need to be able to
recognize how programs and their features
contribute to specific outcomes and
whether program performance meets
established criteria (Oehler et al., 2017).
Such knowledge can guide professionals’
decision-making regarding continuation
and changes to RG programs and
regulations.
One of the evaluation tools that is
particularly notable in the field of RG is the
Positive Play Scale (PPS) – an instrument
designed to measure responsible gambling
behaviors (Wood et al., 2017). It assesses
players’ behaviors on such parameters as
honesty
and
control,
personal
responsibility, and gambling literacy.
Additionally, it can be divided into two
unique components: players’ positive
beliefs about gambling and players’
responsible gambling behaviors. RG
regulators and operators should be
informed about the PPS because it can be
an essential tool in measuring the
effectiveness of RG programs and their
elements, and making informed decisions
about future program design and
development. Moreover, the PPS can aid
RG professionals in creating more
segmented RG strategies that are
specifically tailored to the needs of certain
categories of gamblers (e.g. youth,
Indigenous players, bingo players). Finally,
the PPS promotes a more positive

approach to behavior change in gambling,
appeals to low- and moderate-risk as well
as to high-risk gamblers, and thus can
potentially lessen the stigma surrounding
RG strategies. Hence, RG professionals
should be given information on how to use
the PPS for RG program evaluation in such
a way as to maximize the benefits of this
tool.
Summarizing the preceding review, the
following topics are worth including in RG
professional on gambling evaluation
measures:
•

Critical thinking
assessment

•

Program evaluation and research
methods

•

Knowledge of assessment tools
(i.e. positive play scale, problem
gambling severity index)

•

Interpreting evaluation outcomes

for

evidence

2.4.9 P RO B LE M
G A M BL I NG
T RE A TM E NT P R O G R A M S

&

As
problem
gambling
impacts
approximately 1% to 3% of the North
American population (Ladouceur, 1996;
Weibe, Mun, & Kauffman, 2006), it is
important to inform professionals working
in the area of RG about gambling disorder
and treatment programs available. The
treatment methods for problem gambling
include motivational interviewing (MI),
cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), brief
intervention, and even pharmacological
treatments. Adjuncts to treatment like 12step programs and peer support are also
available. Evaluating treatment programs
for problem gambling and assessing
evidence for their effectiveness is a
significant part of providing help to people

with gambling problems and their families.
Hence, learning about the types of
interventions for problem gambling and
their relative strengths and limitations
should be a significant part of RG
professionals’ training.
The growing reliance on evidence-based
interventions for problem gambling is one
of the major trends in treatment
development. Most empirical work so far
has been done on cognitive and behavioral
treatments and motivational interviewing
interventions for problem gambling.
Numerous trials demonstrate that CBTbased treatment produces significant
symptom improvements in problem and
pathological gamblers (McIntosh, Crino, &
O’Neill, 2015; Smith, Battersby, Harvey,
Pols, & Ladouceur, 2015; Toneatto, Pillai,
& Courtice, 2014). Moreover, several
studies demonstrate that adding a
mindfulness component to traditional CBTtreatment might
produce improved
outcomes for people with gambling
problems (McIntosh et al., 2015; Toneatto
et al., 2014). When CBT-based treatment
was compared to MI, no significant
differences between the two treatments
were observed, although both treatments
produced outcomes superior to those of
no-treatment group (Carlbring, Jonsson,
Josephson,
&
Forsberg,
2010).
Additionally, a combined CBT and MI
treatment decreased problem gambling
symptoms in clients who attended
individual or group sessions when
compared to waitlist controls (Oei, Raylu, &
Casey, 2010). There is substantial
empirical support for the effectiveness of
CBT and MI in the treatment of problem
and pathological gambling. Thus, it is
essential to provide RG professionals with

training on CBT and MI interventions for
problem gambling.
Less research support is currently available
for 12-step interventions (i.e. Gamblers
Anonymous)
and
pharmacological
treatments for problem gambling. However,
some research suggests that it might be
beneficial to combine 12-step interventions
with CBT (Petry et al., 2006). Moreover,
some preliminary research shows promise
in using opioid receptor antagonists (e.g.
naltrexone and nalmefene) for ameliorating
gambling cravings in people with gambling
problems (Kim, Grant, Adson, & Shin,
2001).
Therefore,
informing
RG
professionals on these interventions would
also be a useful addition to a RG
professional training course.
Lastly, brief interventions, such self-help
workbooks, gambling helplines, and brief
MI are frequently used to address problem
gambling (Hodgins, Stea, & Grant, 2011).
The research findings show that telephonebased MI combined with a self-help book
delivered through mail led to improvements
over 12-month and 24-month follow-up
periods (Hodgins, Currie, Currie, & Fick,
2009). A study of a self-help toolkit, Your
First Step to Change: Gambling, has
shown some promise, as significantly more
toolkit recipients demonstrated reduction in
problem gambling compared to the control
group (LaBrie et al., 2012). Online
interventions incorporating CBT and MI
elements were shown to be effective in
reduction of problem gambling symptoms
(Carlbring & Smit, 2008). Venue-based
treatment referral and support services
could also be considered brief interventions
as they provide an initial help to players
experiencing problems with their gambling.
As brief interventions are the easiest form

of gambling treatment to implement, it is
important to educate RG professionals
about the available brief interventions, and
ways to incorporate them in RG practices.
This review suggests that problem
gambling and treatment programs training
should cover the following areas:
•

Family therapy

•

Motivational interviewing

•

Cognitive-behavioral therapy

•

Brief interventions

•

Mindfulness

•

Pharmacological interventions

•

Evaluating program effectiveness

•

Adjuncts to treatment: e.g. 12-step
programs and peer support

2.4.10

C O M M U N IT Y

P RE V E NT I O N

P RO G RA M S
While clinical programs and therapies for
problem gambling mostly focus on the
treatment of already existing problems,
community prevention programs often take
a more proactive role and aim to prevent
the problem from occurring in the first
place. Community prevention efforts often
involve raising awareness around the issue
of problem gambling, reducing risk factors,
conducting
screening
and
early
interventions, and providing targeted
services to vulnerable populations (NCRG,
2017).
Community efforts to raise awareness
around the issue of problem gambling often
include social advertising and marketing
campaigns. Such campaigns may be
targeted at general public education about
RG and problem gambling, or they might
also attempt to educate and change

behaviors of specific groups, such as
youth, veterans, or Indigenous people. As
discussed above, research shows that
social marketing is effective for raising
awareness and about problem gambling
and gambling harms, reducing stigma, and
inducing more responsible gambling
behaviors (RGC, 2017b; RGC, 2016; RGC,
2009).
The risk factors commonly associated with
problem gambling include comorbid mental
health conditions, a history of trauma,
increased
levels
of
stress,
low
socioeconomic status, and a lack of access
to healthcare (NCRG, 2017). To reduce the
risk factors associated with problem
gambling, regulators, operators, and
policymakers could be educated to partner
with community health professionals in
determining the risk factors that are
particularly prominent in a specific
community. Further, specific actions can be
taken to ameliorate the risk factors. For
example, conducting a brief problem
gambling screening as a part of clinical
interviews for other psychological disorders
may lead to early detection and promote
subsequent
interventions.
Workplace
prevention programs for problem gambling
might increase access to help resources
among individuals who would not otherwise
reach out for help due to increased stress
levels (Rafi, Ivanova, Rozental, &
Carlbring,
2017).
Finally,
targeted
community interventions typically focus on
specific populations, such as youth,
Indigenous people, older adults, or
veterans, and thereby address specific risk
factors experienced by these populations.
Implementing such interventions usually
requires establishing partnerships with
other organizations in the community.

Early interventions have proven to be
successful in treating a broad range of
mental health conditions. The most
common form of early intervention for
problem gambling is the provision of a
helpline, however, other resources, such
as self-directed workbooks, websites, and
smartphone apps are also available. The
important advantage of self-directed help
resources is that they can be used by those
who normally would not seek formal help.
At the same time, early interventions can
be helpful for connecting individuals in
crisis with mental health services providers
and informing such individuals of other help
resources available in the community
(Weinstock et al., 2011).
Community prevention programs vary in
their scope, reach, and method of
implementation.
Informing
RG
professionals about the available modes of
prevention program delivery and the
evidence for their effectiveness may help to
ensure the success of the future prevention
initiatives.
In general, an overview of community
prevention programs for problem gambling
should incorporate the following topics:
•

Help lines

•

Websites/apps

•

Online support groups/forums

•

Social marketing campaigns

•

Financial education

•

Brief problem gambling screening

•

Community interventions for highrisk populations

•

Work and school programs

•

Evaluating program effectiveness

2.5 S UMMARY OF C ONTEN T A REAS
The above subsections outline the most
important content areas to be included in a
RG professional training program. Since
the program’s target audience is RG
professionals responsible for program
development and decision-making, they
should be familiar with gambling-related
regulations in their jurisdictions along with
the most common RG policy frameworks.
Informed decision making is at the core of
RG and positive play initiatives and thus,
professional
training
should
cover
providing players with information to make
educated decisions about their gambling.
Furthermore, the ways to identify and
support people with gambling problems
should be discussed in professional RG
training. Self-exclusion programs are one
of the most popular problem gambling
interventions available in many gambling
venues and their implementation requires
special
consideration
from
RG
professionals. As some professionals also
take part in establishing regulations around
gambling promotion, it is also worth
discussing the development of RG
advertising and marketing guidelines.
Some environmental and game features
are associated with increased risks for
problem
gambling;
hence,
RG
professionals should be informed of how to
design individual games and gaming
venues to decrease gambling-associated
harms. Additionally, RG professionals
should be able to make informed
judgements regarding the success of
specific RG programs so basic training in
program evaluation and research will be
suitable to their needs. Finally, knowledge
of treatment programs for problems
gambling and community prevention

programs is essential to the needs of RG
professionals who might be involved in
implementation of, or referral to, such
programs.

2.6 C HALLENGES IN RG T RAINING
When considering gambling training for
regulators, operators, and manufacturers, it
is useful to consider the challenges that
arise in the process of developing and
implementing RG training. Furthermore, it
is important to understand the factors that
limit the effectiveness of training programs.
Insight on training challenges comes from
the literature on training programs
developed for frontline employees.
Role conflict was one of the most
prominent challenges associated with RG
training programs. One qualitative study
explored challenges experienced by
gaming employees in Queensland,
Australia (Hing & Nuske, 2012). Concerns
reported by staff related to invading clients’
privacy, losing clients to competitors, and
getting in trouble with the venue managers.
Overall, role conflict was apparent in
employees’ responses. In such a way, the
issues of privacy, confidentiality, and
potential conflicts of interests should be
emphasized
when
discussing
the
development of RG regulations with RG
professionals. It is important to keep in
mind that regulators and operators can also
experience role conflict associated with
incorporating RG initiatives in their
companies’ practices and regulations, as
many might see such initiatives as
discrepant with companies’ goals to make
profits. Thus, it is essential to stress the fact
that RG strategies are not designed to
interfere with recreational gambling and
they
promote
corporate
social

responsibility that will benefit their business
in the long-term.
Another potential challenge for RG training
programs is the ability of participants to
apply the material they learned in the
program to solving real-life problems.
Several studies noted the difficulty in
identifying people with gambling problems
that venue employees experienced even
after undergoing RG training. Delfabbro,
Borgas, and King (2012) investigated the
extent to which venue staff could identify
people with gambling problems in
Australian casinos and electronic gambling
machines (EGMs) venues. Their results
demonstrated an extensive disparity
between staff perceptions and gamblers’
actual problem gambling scores. Another
study (Hing, Nuske, & Holdsworth, 2013)
also revealed a discrepancy between
behaviors that venue staff considered
indicative of problem gambling and those
behaviors that were identified as such in
the RG industry kit. For example, staff
members largely failed to appreciate the
relationship between problem gambling
and alcohol and drug use, faulty cognitions,
depressive thoughts, suicidal ideations,
and being involved in multiple gambling
activities. Importantly, many employees
expressed reluctance to initiate any
interventions when patrons exhibited signs
of problem gambling. These findings show
that an important limitation to the
effectiveness of RG training programs is
employee difficulty applying the knowledge
learned in the course. An RG training
program
for
professionals
should
incorporate discussions of the ways in
which the course content can be applied to
tasks they have to solve on a daily basis.

Differences in pre-existing knowledge of
RG should also be considered during the
program design. All gambling employees
are not identical in terms of their knowledge
and awareness of RG programs and
problem gambling. Gray et al. (2015)
assessed casino employees on gamblingrelated knowledge and used cluster
analysis to group them by opinion and
knowledge differences. The results
demonstrated the existence of distinct
knowledge groups and supported the need
to classify employees into instructional
tiers. These outcomes can be directly
applied to the development of an RG
professional training program, as different
professionals likely vary in their knowledge
of RG. Pre-testing participants’ knowledge
and classifying them into instructional tiers
would ensure that all course participants
are appropriately challenged and learn new
information relevant to their needs.
Finally, the environment of the venue and
work conditions have also been shown to
contribute to employees’ and patrons’
problem gambling, substance use, and
other health problems (Hu, Luk, Leong, U,
& Van, 2013; Tiyce, Hing, Cairncross, &
Breen, 2013). RG training programs should
address staff problem gambling along with
patron problem gambling, as well as
provide RG professionals with information
on making the environment of the venue
safe and conducive to RG initiatives.

2.7 S UMMARY
This review explored the research and
evaluation literature on RG training
programs existing to date. Although most
such publications are concerned with the
training of frontline staff, there are still
valuable lessons that can be taken from
these programs for the design of RG

professional training. Potential content
areas for RG professional training were
also reviewed and along with the current
state of research in each of these areas. To
summarize, most RG training programs
reviewed proved to be beneficial for the
employees who participated in them and
frequently led to increased awareness of
problem
gambling
and
a
better
understanding of RG. The development of
training for RG professionals needs to
cover a broad scope of topics – including
RG policies, assisting and educating
players, self-exclusion, advertising and
marketing guidelines, venue and game
characteristics, evaluation measures, and
treatment and prevention programs – to
enable them to design and implement
effective RG policies, regulations, and
public programs.

inquiry for RG subject matter areas
included:
•
•
•

•

Responsible gambling corporate
policies

•
•

How to assist players in need
How to educate players (informed
decision making)
Self-exclusion programs

•
•
•
•

3 E XPERT S URVEY
3.1 M ETHODOLOG Y
Following the literature review, the next
phase of the study was a needs
assessment (Barbazette, 2006) expert
survey tool. The survey is designed to
assess RG training needs and interests
among all levels of expert employees at
gaming
regulators,
operators,
manufacturers, and consultancies, along
with preferences around delivery of
training. The study protocol was found to
be exempt from review by the Institutional
Review Board at Washington State
University.
After development of a draft survey by this
report’s authors, the survey was adapted
based on feedback from four practicing
experts in the field. Final categories of

Responsible gambling guiding
principles
Organizational
benefits
of
responsible gambling
Organizational
barriers
to
implementing responsible gambling
policies

•
•
•

Advertising
and
marketing
guidelines
Game
design and machine
structural characteristics
Venue
design
and
other
environmental features
Gambling evaluation measures
Treatment programs
Community prevention programs

Each respondent was asked about their
interest in these subject matter areas, and
was then asked about related sub-topics if
the subject was not rated as Unimportant.
Due to the nature of the population of study
(practicing RG professionals), a purposeful
sampling technique was used. Each of the
study authors subjectively, but broadly,
identified professional contacts for whom
some (or more) of their, or their
employees’, roles are related to RG, who
were provided with anonymous survey
links that could be forwarded to other
contacts fitting the study aims and scope.
Social media posts were also made to the
first author’s social media pages (Twitter
and LinkedIn), as well as the remaining

authors’ organizational social media pages
(Twitter and LinkedIn). Informed consent
was acquired during the recruitment
process.
In total, 98 individuals responded to the
survey, 23 responses were removed due to
incompletion, and 9 more responses were
removed due to failing one or two attention
check questions. Participation was
voluntary, and respondents received no
compensation for their responses. In
addition to the curriculum and service
delivery questions, respondents were
asked about other characteristics of their
role and organization.

3.2 R ESULTS
In this subsection, we provide the results of
the expert survey, primarily through
frequencies and mean averages. In section
3.2.1, we describe the final survey sample.
In section 3.2.2, we outline the RG content
areas that respondents feel are most
important to their organization. Finally, in
section 3.2.3, we identify the areas where
respondents have the greatest need for RG
educational content and how they would
prefer to receive this training. As this study
focused on assessing the general
perspectives of a small but knowledgeable
group of experts, our analysis is generally
limited to descriptive rather than inferential
statistics.

accessed, and 69 people completed, the
survey. Nine respondents were removed
for failing one or two attention checks. The
sample of 60 respondents included in the
final analysis cut across broad categories
of interest.
As shown in Table 1, nearly one third had
roles entirely devoted to RG, while 97%
had “some” or more.
T ABLE 1: S HARE OF R OLE R ELATED TO RG
Reported Share

No.

%

All

Most

Some

Not much

Total

In Table 2 we observe that the sample
includes a diverse set of roles, including
over 20% of the sample from Senior
Leadership (22%), Management (37%),
and Non-Management Employees (23%).
T ABLE 2: O RGANIZATIONAL R OLE
Primary Role Type

No.

%

Senior leader (Exec/Board)

Management

Non-management employee

Researcher/academic

Consultant

Other

Total

3.2.1 S A M P LE D E S CR I PT IO N
In this section, we describe the composition
of the study sample. 1 Overall, 92 people

Table 3 suggests that the sample is
disproportionally operators, at nearly half

1 Some figures may not sum to 100% due to

rounding.

the sample. This is not unexpected, as
operators are typically larger organizations,
resulting in more RG-related employees.
T ABLE 3: O RGANIZATION T YPE
Organization Category

No.

%

Operator or service provider

Government regulator

Consulting

Other

Total

Respondents were asked which forms of
gambling they operated, regulated, or to
which their role focused. The responses to
this question are provided in Table 4, which
suggests a broad coverage of games, with
casino-related EGMs, table games, and
lottery products forming the top three
categories.
T ABLE 4: G AMBLING F ORMATS R ELATED TO
R OLE
Gambling Formats

No.

%

50-499

26.3

500-2,499

24.6

2,500 or more

26.3

Total

In Table 6, we describe the countries where
respondents are located. While there is
diverse
representation
from
four
continents, Canada and the U.S. form a
large part of the sample, likely due to the
sampling approach. We note that those
North American responses do reflect
multiple gaming jurisdictions within both
Canada and the U.S.
T ABLE 6: P LACE OF W ORK
Country

No.

%

Australia

5.3

Canada

56.1

Japan

1.8

Singapore

5.3

Sweden

1.8

United Kingdom

United States of America

22.8

Total

Table games (casino)

Slots/EGMs (casino)

3.2.2 C O NTE N T A RE A S

VLTs/EGMs (non-casino)

Lottery products

Charitable gaming

Online gaming

Sports betting

Race betting

Other

In this section, we outline the overall
categories of RG that respondents find the
most important to their organizations
Overall, the results shown in Table 7.
substantiate the findings of the literature
review, as the mean (Avg) score of all
categories was above 3.0, which equates
to a ‘moderately important’ score, while
eight categories scored at or above 4.0,
equating to an ‘important’ score.

As shown in Table 5, respondents
represent a range of organization sizes,
with small, medium and large organizations
all over 22% of the sample.
T ABLE 5: O RGANIZATION S IZE
Number of Employees

No.

%

1-49

22.8

The top three categories, Gambling and
PG information, RG corporate policies, and
How to educate players, were selected as
important or very important (Top-2 Box %)
by at least 80% of the study sample.
Among operators/service providers only,

this figure increased to 97% (Top-2 Box %
Oper.). These appear to be foundational
components of RG training across nearly
all organizations and jurisdictions.
While treatment programs were the lowest
rated category on average, we note that it
was rated in the top-two boxes (Important
or Very Important), by 70% of the sample.
The low average score appears to be
driven by low ratings from many operators,
who only had a 38% top-two box score and
may only have a tangential need for
knowledge related to treatment programs.
T ABLE 7: I MPORTANCE OF RG T RAINING
C ATEGORIES

Category

Avg

Top-2
Box %

Top-2
Box %
Oper.

Community
3.4
prevention
programs
Treatment
3.2
programs
Other
3.2
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

In subsequent tables, we examine
subcategories for each topic area. The
subcategory tables are presented in order
from highest average ranked importance to
lowest.

Category

Avg

Top-2
Box %

Gambling and PG
information
RG corporate
policies
How to educate
players
RG guiding
principles
How to assist
players in need
Self-exclusion
programs
Organizational
benefits of RG
Game design and
structural
characteristics
Gambling
evaluation
measures
Organizational
barriers to
implementing RG
policies
Advertising and
marketing
guidelines
Venue design and
environmental
features

4.5

Top-2
Box %
Oper.

4.2

4.2

4.1

4.1

Gambling
and
problem
gambling
information was identified as the most
important category of information, but as
shown in Table 8, none of the
subcategories were rated as highly as the
overall category itself. This may suggest
that while respondent felt like a broad
understanding of gambling and problem
gambling was important, more specific
topics or refined understanding was not as
essential.

4.0

T ABLE 8: G AMBLING AND PG INFORMATION

4.0

Subcategory

Avg

Signs of problem gambling
Problem gambling risk-factors and
impacts
Description and prevalence of
problem gambling and gambling
harms

4.36
4.27

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.5

4.08

How to set and stick to limits
3.97
Cultural factors related to sub3.97
groups of people who gamble
Randomness, independence of
3.95
events, gambling myths
Odds of winning
3.78
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

In Table 9, we observe that all
subcategories of policies appear to be
important to RG experts. This likely reflects
what is a heavily legislated and regulated
practice.
T ABLE 9: RG CORPORATE POLICIES
Subcategory

Avg

Innovative responsible gambling
policies

4.34

Best practices in responsible
gambling policies
Responsible gambling legislation
and policies in the participants'
local jurisdiction

4.32
4.29

Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

Table 10 outlines responses on educating
players. There appears to be a greater
importance placed on what information to
provide to players, rather than how to
provide the information.
T ABLE 10: H OW TO EDUCATE PLAYERS
( INFORMED DECISION MAKING )
Subcategory

Avg

What information to provide
4.20
Value of informed decision making 4.07
Tailoring information
4.03
How to provide information
3.90
Balancing information on risky and 3.88
positive play
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

Compared to RG corporate policies
specifically (Table 9), there is somewhat
slightly less interest in the underlying
frameworks that might drive those
decisions (Table 11).
T ABLE 11: RG GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Subcategory

Avg

Science-based frameworks

3.88

Corporate social responsibility

3.88

Gambling as a public health issue

3.83

Duty of care

3.66

Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

Table 12 describes responses to subtopics
on assisting players in need. Despite
narratives that suggest digital tracking and
algorithmic based risk identification will be
future areas of development in RG
programs, this was the lowest rated
subcategory. Respondents were more
interested in subcategories related to core
aspects of RG programs, including
integrating RG into the customer service
model and referring customers to external
resources.
T ABLE 12: H OW TO ASSIST PLAYERS IN NEED
Subcategory
Assistance as part of customer
service model

Avg
4.21

Processes for referring to external
resources
Communication techniques to
increase confidence in approaching
players

4.19
4.09

In-venue resources
3.89
Identifying players using in-person 3.88
behavioral markers
Digital behavioral tracking and 3.55
identification
Note: Response categories include 1-Not Important;
2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately Important; 4Important; 5-Very Important

In Table 13, we see a similar trend. The
most recent innovations in self-exclusion
programs: reinstatement, multi-operator
systems, winning withholding, and thirdparty exclusion, are all the lowest rated,
while more core program components are
highly rated.

T ABLE 13: S ELF - EXCLUSION PROGRAMS
Subcategories

Avg

Local regulatory requirements
4.07
Enactment procedures, dealing
4.07
with distressed customers
Impact/effectiveness of self3.98
exclusion, role of counselor
support
Enforcement
3.96
Duration
3.82
Reinstatement
3.60
Single venue vs. multi-operator
3.30
programs
Withholding of winnings
3.12
Third-party exclusion
3.02
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

In Table 14 we observe that there is slightly
more interest in knowledge around the
organizational benefits of RG as it relates
to external forces (e.g. public perception
and regulatory risk) as opposed to internal
forces (e.g. employee trust and job
satisfaction).
T ABLE 14: O RGANIZATIONAL BENEFITS OF RG
Subcategory
Avg
Public perception of organization
4.07
Player sustainability
3.97
Regulatory risk
3.97
Employee organizational trust
3.66
Employee job satisfaction
3.55
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

While game structural characteristics and
tools like limit setting are topics receiving
significant research at the moment, as
shown in Table 15, there is only moderate
interest in seeing that knowledge translated
into educational programming.

T ABLE 15: G AME DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL
CHARACTERISTICS

Subcategory

Avg

Losses disguised as wins and near

3.71

misses
Money and time spend display

3.69

Pre-commitment tools

3.53

In-game messaging

3.52

Speed of play

3.47

Game sound & lights

2.90

Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

As will be shown in Table 22, gambling
evaluation measures are the most sought
area of educational programming, but as
shown in Table 16, its relative importance
to other subtopics is not high.
T ABLE 16: G AMBLING EVALUATION MEASURES
Subcategory

Avg

Measurement tools

3.89

Where to find results from other
evaluations
How to weigh evidence

3.75

Research methods

3.74

3.74

Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

Table 17 outlines subcategories related to
organizational barriers. Training and
knowledge, management support, and
employee commitment all rate relatively
high.
T ABLE 17: O RGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS TO
IMPLEMENTING RG POLICIES

Subcategory

Avg

Training and knowledge

4.28

Management support and
employee commitment
Organizational culture

4.25

Public education

3.86

4.05

Reluctance/ambivalence

3.62

Role conflict

3.61

Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

Advertising and marketing guidelines are
often subject to regulatory controls, and
this appears to be the most important
subtopic on advertising and marketing to
our respondents, as shown in Table 18.
T ABLE 18: A DVERTISING AND MARKETING
G UIDELINES

Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

In Table 20, we observe that there is limited
need for education around community
prevention programs, with the possible
exception of help lines. Help lines are often
used as part of operator-related referral
programs, in addition to in the community,
which may explain the increased reported
importance.
T ABLE 20: C OMMUNITY PREVENTION
PROGRAMS

Subcategory

Avg

Local regulatory requirements

3.84

Subcategory

Impact on high-risk populations

3.74

Content restrictions

3.65

Effectively promoting RG through
marketing/ads
Evaluating gaming marketing/ads

3.65

Help lines
3.82
Websites/apps
3.57
Evaluation of program
3.44
effectiveness
Social marketing campaigns
3.39
Financial education
3.34
Online support groups/forums
3.18
Brief problem gambling screening
3.05
Community interventions for high- 2.96
risk populations
Work and school programs
2.73
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

3.44

Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

Despite their close ties to operations,
subcategories related to venue design and
other
environmental features
were
generally not rated highly, as shown in
Table 19. This includes accessibility and
machine counts, which are frequent
subjects of policy debate, but may be less
relevant in day-to-day tasks of RG experts.
T ABLE 19: V ENUE DESIGN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES

Avg

Consistent with the broader category
scoring, the subcategory importance
scores for treatment programs shown in
Table 21 suggest that there is limited
interest in related knowledge among our
respondents who are predominantly in
industry or regulatory roles.

Subcategory

Avg

On-site responsible gambling
information centers

3.65

Access to alcohol

3.33

Subcategory

Avg

Access to cash

3.31

Gambling exposure and adaptation

3.15

3.35
3.15

Substance use

3.09

Venue accessibility

3.00

Number of machines and game
types

2.76

In-person counselling
Evaluating treatment program
effectiveness
Online/technology assisted
treatments
Peer and group support

T ABLE 21: T REATMENT PROGRAMS

3.06
2.77

Pharmacological interventions
2.24
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

3.2.3 N E E D S & D E L IV E R Y
After outlining the areas of content that are
most important to their organizations,
respondents were then asked which of the
broad categorized content areas where
they perceived that they had an unmet
need. This was measured on a five-point
Likert scale from strongly disagree to
strongly agree.
As shown in Table 22, with the exception of
treatment programs, which may be seen as
tangential to the role of operators, the lower
ranked content areas from Table 7 are
generally the higher ranked topics in terms
of need. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this
suggests that respondents and their
organizations focus on their highest need
areas. Future training programs could
consider consolidating information across
jurisdictions and/or organizations, or
consider whether existing content is
comprehensive.
Only three subcategories have an average
rating above 3.0, which is indicative of
average agreement, gambling evaluation
measures, organization barriers to RG
policies, and game design and structural
characteristics, suggesting training for
most RG professionals should address
these topics. However, all but two
categories scored in the top two boxes
(Agree or Strongly Agree) for at least 20%
of the sample. With a sizeable minority of
respondents expressing need in these
areas, there may be an opportunity to
develop
customizable
educational
programs across most of these categories,

for a reasonably
organizations.

size

group

of

T ABLE 22: U NMET NEED FOR INFORMATION
Category

Avg

Top-2
Box %

Top-2
Box %
Oper.

Gambling
3.4
evaluation
measures
Organizational
3.2
barriers to
implementing RG
policies
Game design and
3.2
machine structural
characteristics
Venue design and
3.0
environmental
features
Organizational
2.8
benefits of RG
Advertising and
2.8
marketing
guidelines
Community
2.8
prevention
programs
RG corporate
2.7
policies
How to assist
2.7
players in need
How to educate
2.6
players
Treatment
2.6
programs
RG guiding
2.5
principles
Gambling and PG
2.4
information
Self-exclusion
2.3
programs
Note: Response categories include 1-Not
Important; 2-Slightly Important; 3-Moderately
Important; 4-Important; 5-Very Important

As shown in Table 23, Table 24, and Table
25, there does not appear to be a strongly
preferred mechanism for delivering course
content, though most respondents seem to
prefer a half day in-person training session.
After reviewing these figures and

qualitative feedback, it appears that
preferences are driven by the subject
matter and the role of the person receiving
the training. For example, when asked
about their specific work/jurisdiction, one
respondent wrote, “…we have frontline
staff in our venues who are trained to deal
with players but also RG management
responsible for corporate policies, internal
advisory services, public education,
research funding, and development and
evaluation,” demonstrating a consideration
of the different needs and responsibilities
across roles at their organization.
It also appears that our sample of experts
have been able to meet most of their
educational needs, through reading
research, attending conferences or
external training, and other sources.
Alternatives to those sources would need
to add additional value or efficiencies to
warrant a chance in behavior.
T ABLE 23: C URRENT SOURCES FOR RG
INFORMATION

Source

Share

Research

83%

Networking

82%

Internal documents

73%

External/offsite training

73%

News sources

72%

Internal/onsite training

45%

Note: Multiple responses allowed

T ABLE 24: P REFERRED MODE OF RG TRAINING
Modality

Share

Online modules

40%

In-person training session

57%

Online module with an inperson supplement
Note: Multiple responses allowed

42%

T ABLE 25: P REFERRED TRAINING INTENSITY
Time period

Share

One-hour session

13%

Half-day session

38%

Full-day session

12%

Multiple-day course

23%

Other

13%

4 C ONCLUSIONS
Through an environmental scan of extant
training programs, a detailed literature
review, and a survey of related experts, this
study sought to identify core curricula and
assess the need for specialized training in
responsible
gambling
policies
and
programs. Several insights emerged that
may be of interest to RG stakeholders.
First, most RG training programs reviewed
proved to be beneficial for the employees,
and frequently led to increased awareness
of problem gambling and a better
understanding of RG. While programs were
generally found to focus on frontline
employees, there are several lessons that
may be helpful in training knowledge
workers without service delivery roles. For
example, role conflict was one of the most
prominent challenges associated with RG
training programs. Training programs at all
levels should emphasize how RG strategy
and operations can and do fit into larger
organizational goals.
Second, our review of literature identified
multiple areas of study that appear
important to the knowledge base of RG
professionals. Broadly, these include RG
policies, assisting and educating players,
self-exclusion, advertising and marketing
guidelines,
venue
and
game
characteristics, evaluation measures, and
treatment and prevention programs.

Finally, our survey of experts, which
included 60 persons with backgrounds
spanning a broad set of organization types,
sizes, roles, and jurisdictions, produced
several insights. Our expert group
generally confirmed the broad categories of
study that emerged in our literature review
are pertinent to their work.
A comprehensive educational program
should include content related to gambling
and PG information, RG corporate policies,
how to educate players, RG guiding
principles, how to assist players in need,
self-exclusion programs, organizational
benefits of RG, game design and structural
characteristics,
gambling
evaluation
measures, organizational barriers to
implementing RG policies, advertising and
marketing guidelines, and venue design
and environmental features.
The survey also revealed that our selection
of experts managed, through reading
research, attending conferences or
external training, and other sources, to
meet most of their educational needs. Only
a handful of topics, including gambling
evaluation
measures,
organizational
barriers to implementing RG, and game
design
and
machine
structural
characteristics, were found to be unmet
topics of study, on average. While a
training program that targets new leaders in
the field may need a broader curriculum,
more established knowledge workers may
only need educational programs in areas of
emerging research (evaluation measures
and game design) or ongoing challenges
they may be facing once in their roles
(organizational barriers).

4.1 L IMITATIONS AND F UTURE W ORK

Through an environmental scan, a review
of literature, and an expert survey, this
study provided insight on the educational
needs of RG professionals. We note that
our environmental scan and literature
review were limited to publicly available,
English-language sources, within the
scope of our database search. This
necessarily excludes potentially important
sources, and in particular, may bias against
trade secrets that firms believe are
valuable, or culturally relevant distinctions
that appear in non-English-language
speaking countries. Future research could
consider a similar exercise in other
languages, or through a qualitative
mechanism that could explore potentially
undisclosed areas of relevance.
Also, reaching our population of study
necessarily required a non-probabilistic
sampling technique. Because of this, and
the limited sample size, our survey results
were descriptive rather than inferential. As
a means of obtaining more precise
inference, researchers could consider
attempting a census of individual
jurisdictions,
workplace
learning
specialists, or trade associations.
Future research could take other paths. As
our study was based on a self-reported
assessment of needs, other studies could
explore more objective measures of
knowledge, to determine if subjective
assessments
align
with
objective
measures. Perhaps most importantly,
training programs should be developed and
evaluated to consider how to deliver the
information effectively, and assess the
overall usefulness of these programs for
knowledge workers in RG.

5 R EFERENCES
ACT Gambling and Racing Commission (2015). Education and Training. Retrieved from
https://www.gamblingandracing.act.gov.au/community/education-training on February 1st,
2018.
Alberta Liquor and Gaming Commission (2018). AGLC Smart Training Programs. Retrieved from
https://smartprograms.aglc.ca/ on February 1st, 2018.
American Gaming Association (2017). AGA Code of Conduct for Responsible Gambling.
American Gaming Association (2008). Responsible Gaming Statutes and Regulations – Third Edition.
Atlantic Lottery Corporation (2017). Atlantic Lottery Retailer Manual.
Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. (2013). An empirical investigation of theoretical loss and gambling intensity.
Journal of Gambling Studies, DOI: 10.1007/s10899-013-9376-7.
Australian Government (2013). SITHGAM201 Provide responsible gambling services.
Bailey, B., Konstan, J., & Carlis, J. (2001). The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance,
and anxiety in the user interface. Proceedings of the IFIP TC-13 international conference on
human-computer interactions, Tokyo, Japan.
Barbazette, J. (2006). Training needs assessment: Methods, tools, and techniques (Vol. 1). John Wiley &
Sons.
Binde, P. (2009). Exploring the impact of gambling advertising. International Journal of Mental Health
and Addiction, 7, 541-554.
Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible
gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301-317.
Blaszczynski, A., Parke, A, Parke, J., & Rigbye, J. (2014). Operator-Based Approaches to Harm
Minimization in Gambling: Summary, Review, and Future Directions. London, UK: The
Responsible Gambling Trust.
Braverman, J., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., & Shaffer, H.J. (2013). Using cross-game behavioral markers
for early identification of high-risk Internet gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27,
868-877.
British Columbia Lottery Corporation. (2018). Appropriate Response Training (ART). Retrieved from
http://corporate.bclc.com/social-responsibility/player/responsible-gambling/art.html
on
February 1st, 2018.
Caesars Entertainment. (2018). Caesars’ Commitment to Responsible Gaming. Retrieved from
http://caesarscorporate.com/about-caesars/responsible-gaming/ on February 23, 2018.
Carlbring, P., Jonsson, J., Josephson, H. & Forsberg, L. (2010). Motivational interviewing versus
cognitive-behavioral group therapy in the treatment of problem and pathological gambling: a
randomized controlled trial. Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 39, 92-103.
Carlbring, P., & Smit, F. (2008). Randomized trial of internet-delivered self-help with telephone support
for pathological gamblers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 1090-1094.

Cronce, J.M., Bittinger, J.N., Di Lodovico, C.M., & Liu, J. (2017). Independent versus co-occurring
substance use in relation gambling outcomes in older adolescents and young adults. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 60, 528-533.
Clubs New Zealand Inc. (2018). Being a Responsible Gambling Host: Looking Out for Each Other.
Retrieved from https://clubsnz.org.nz/training-54/30-clubcare-gaming-harm-preventiontraining.html on February 1st, 2018.
Davis, R., Misra, S., & Van Auken, S. (2002). A gap analysis approach to marketing curriculum
assessment: A study of skills and knowledge. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(3), 218-224.
Delfabbro, P., Borgas, M., & King, D. L. (2012). Venue staff knowledge of their patrons’ gambling and
problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 155-169.
Delfabbro, P, King, D.L., & Griffiths, M. (2012). Behavioral profiling of problem gamblers: A summary
and review. International Gambling Studies, 12, 349-366.
Dufour, J., Ladouceur, R., & Giroux, I. (2010). Training program on responsible gambling among video
lottery employees. International Gambling Studies, 10, 61-80.
Feldman, A. (2017). GameSense: Enhancing guest service through responsible gambling awareness and
education. Presented at the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States conference.
Retrieved from https://www.nclgs.org/PPs/Summer2017/RG-Feldman.pptx
Fogarty, M. (2017). The place of cultural competency in ‘responsible gambling’ practice: Challenging
notions of informed choice. Addiction, Research, and Theory, 2017, doi:
10.1080/2F16066359.2017.1311875
Gainsbury, S., Abarbanel, B., Philander, K., Butler, J. (2017). Customized Responsible Gambling
Messaging as a Tool to Encourage Help-Seeking. Report prepared for the Manitoba Gambling
Research Program. GP Consulting: Vancouver, Canada.
George, S., Rogers, R.D., & Duka, T. (2005). The acute effect of alcohol on decision making in social
drinkers. Psychopharmacology, 182, 160-169.
Giroux, I., Boutin, C., Ladouceur, R., Lachance, S., & Dufour, M. (2008). Awareness training program on
responsible gambling for casino employees. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, 6, 594-601.
Gordis, L. (2000). Epidemiology (2nd Ed.) Philadelphia: W.B. Sauders.
Gray, H.M., LaPlante, D.A., & Shaffer, H.J. (2012). Behavioral characteristics of Internet gamblers who
trigger corporate gambling interventions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 527-535.
Gray, H.M., Tom, M.A., LaPlante, D.A., & Shaffer, H.J. (2015). Using opinions and knowledge to identify
natural groups of gambling employees. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31, 1753-1766.
Griffiths, M. D. (2016). Gambling advertising, responsible gambling, and problem gambling: A brief
overview. Casino and Gaming International, 27, 57-60.
Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Responsible Gambling Initiatives and Preliminary Evaluation of the ABB Code of
Conduct. Report prepared for the Association of British Bookmakers.
Hanss, D., Mentzoni, R.A., Griffiths, M.D., & Pallesen, S. (2015). The impact of gambling advertising:
Problem gamblers report stronger impacts on involvement, knowledge, and awareness than
recreational gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 483-491.

Hayer, T., & Meyer, G. (2011). Self-exclusion as a harm minimization strategy: Evidence for the casino
sector from selected European countries. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, 685-700.
Hancock, L., & Smith, G. (2017). Critiquing the Reno model I-IV international influence on regulators
and governments (2004–2015)—the distorted reality of “responsible gambling”. International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(6), 1151-1176.
Hing, N. (2004). The Efficacy of Responsible Gambling Measures in NSW Clubs: The Gamblers’
Perspective. Australian Gaming Council.
Hing, N., & Nuske, E. (2012). Responding to problem gamblers in the venue: Role conflict, role
ambiguity, and challenges for hospitality staff. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism, 11, 146-164.
Hing, N., Nuske, E., & Holdsworth, L. (2013). How gaming venue staff use behavioral indicators to assess
problem gambling in patrons. Journal of Gambling Issues, 28, 1-25.
Hodgins, D.C., Stea, J.N., & Grant, J.E. (2011). Gambling Disorders. Lancet, 378, 1874-1884.
Hodgins, D.C., Currie, S.R., Currie, G., & Fick, G.H. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of brief motivational
treatments for pathological gamblers: more is not necessarily better. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 77, 950-960.
Hu, S.X., Luk, A., Leong, C., U, C., & Van, F. (2013). The correlations of work conditions with unhealthy
lifestyles and occupational health problems of casino croupiers in Macau. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 29, 255-268.
Jacques, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2006). A prospective study of the impact of opening a casino on gambling
behaviors: 2- and 4-year follow-ups. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 764-773.
LaBrie, R.A., Peller, A.J., LaPlante, D.A., Bernhard, B., Harper, A., Schrier, T., & Shaffer, H.J. (2012). A
brief self-help toolkit intervention for gambling problems: A randomized multisite trial.
American Journal of Orthpsychiatry, 82, 278-289.
Ladouceur, R. (1996). The prevalence of pathological gambling in Canada. Journal of Gambling Studies,
12, 129-142.
Ladouceur, R., Blaszczynski, A., & Lalande, D. R. (2012). Pre-commitment in gambling: a review of the
empirical evidence. International Gambling Studies, 12(2), 215-230.
Ladouceur, R., Boutin, C., Doucet, C., Dumont, M., Provencher, M., Giroux, I., & Boucher, C. (2004).
Awareness promotion about excessive gambling among video lottery retailers. Journal of
Gambling Studies, 20, 181-185.
Ladouceur, R., & Sevegny, S. (2006). The impact of video lottery game speed on gamblers. Journal of
Gambling Issues, 17, DOI: 10.4309/jgi.2006.17.12
Ladouceur, R., Shaffer, P., Blaszczynski, A., & Shaffer, H.J. (2017). Responsible gambling: A synthesis of
the empirical evidence. Addiction Research and Theory, 25, 225-235.
Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., & Gosselin, P. (2007). Self-exclusion program: A longitudinal evaluation study.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 85-94.
LaPlante, D.A., Gray, H.M., LaBrie, R.A., Kleschinsky, J.H., & Shaffer, H.J. (2012). Gaming industry
employees’ responses to responsible gambling: A public health imperative. Journal of
Gambling Studies, 28, 171-191.

LaPlante, D.A. and Shaffer, H.J. (2007). Understanding the influence of gambling opportunities:
Expanding exposure models to include adaptation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77,
616-623.
Las

Vegas
Sands
(2015).
Play
Responsibly.
Retrieved
https://www.sandscasino.com/global/responsible-gaming.html on February 23, 2018.

from

Lee, C.K., Song, H.J., Lee, H.M., Lee, S., & Bernhard, B.J. (2013). The impact of CSR on casino employees’
organizational trust, job satisfaction, and customer orientation: An empirical examination of
responsible gambling strategies. International Journal of Hospitality and Management, 33, 406415.
Liquor

and Gaming Authority of Manitoba (2018). Smart Choices. Retrieved from
http://lgamanitoba.ca/social-responsibility/training/smart-choices/ on February 1st, 2018.

McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). A scoping study of the structural and situational characteristics
of internet gambling. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning
(IJCBPL), 3(1), 29-49.
McCormick, A. V., Cohen, I. M., & Davies, G. (2018). Differential Effects of Formal and Informal Gambling
on Symptoms of Problem Gambling During Voluntary Self-Exclusion. Journal of gambling
studies, 1-19.
McCrickard, D.S., Catrambone, R., Chewar, C.M., & Stask, J.T. (2003). Establishing tradeoffs that
leverage attention for utility: Empirically evaluating information display in notification systems.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 8, 547-582.
McIntosh, C.C., Crino, R.D., & O’Neill, K. (2015). Treating problem gambling samples with cognitive
behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based interventions: A clinical trial. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 32, 1305-1325.
McMillen, J., Marshall, D., & Murphy, L. (2004). The Use of ATM’s in ACT Gaming Venues: An Empirical
Study. Australian Capital Territory: ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.
McMullan, J.L., & Miller, D. (2008). All in! The commercial advertising of off-shore gambling on
television. Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 230-251.
Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Impact of mode of display and message content of responsible
gambling signs for electronic gaming machines on regular gamblers. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 26, 67-88.
Monaghan, S., Derevensky, J., & Sklar, A. (2008). Impact of gambling advertisements and marketing on
children and adolescents: Policy recommendations to minimize harm. Journal of Gambling
Issues, 22, 252-274.
Narayanan, S., & Manchanda, P. (2012). An empirical analysis of individual level casino gambling
behavior. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 10, 27-62.
National Centre for Responsible Gambling. (2017). Gambling and Public Health. A guide for
Policymakers. Beverly, MA: C. Reilly.
National Centre for Responsible Gambling (2016). EMERG Training. Retrieved from
http://www.ncrg.org/public-education-and-outreach/employee-communications/emergetraining on February 1st, 2018.

National Council on Problem Gambling (2009). Measures/Initiatives to Address Problem Gambling in
Singapore. Presented at the Responsible Gambling Symposium, Hong Kong. Retrieved from:
http://www.umac.mo/iscg/Events/RG_symposium/presentations/HK(2).pdf
National Council on Problem Gambling (2016). NCPG affiliates’ guide for casino employee responsible
gaming
training
programs.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ncpgambling.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/NCPG-Affiliate-Guide-for-Casino-Employee-Responsible-GamingProgram-March-2016.pdf
Nelson, S.E., Kleschinsky, J.H., LaBrie, R.A., Kaplan, S., & Shaffer, H.J. (2010). One decade of selfexclusion: Missouri casino self-excluders four to ten years after enrollment. Journal of
Gambling Studies, 26, 129-144.
New South Wales Liquor and Gaming. (2012). Responsible Conduct of Gambling. Student Manual.
Nunweiler, S., Tomei, A., & Zumwald, C. (2014, November). An example of awareness training program
for video lottery retailers in Switzerland. Presentation from Conference on Pathological
Gambling and Behavioural Addictions, Warsaw, Poland.
Oehler, S., Banzer, R., Gruenerbl, A., Malisching, D., Griffiths, M.D., & Haring, C. (2016) Principles for
developing benchmark criteria for staff training in responsible gambling. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 33, 167-186.
Oey, T.P.S., Raylu, N., & Casey, L.M. (2010). Effectiveness of group and individual formats of a combined
motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral treatment program for problem gambling:
a randomized control trial. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 38, 233-238.
Ohio Lottery Commission. (2016). Operating Standards – Responsible Gambling Program.
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. (2010). Responsible Gaming: Policies and Programs.
Parke, J., & Rigbye, J. (2014). Self-Exclusion as a Gambling Harm Minimisation Measure in Great Britain:
An Overview of the Academic Evidence and Perspectives. London, England.
Parke, J., Parke, A., & Blaszczynski, A. (2017). Key issues in product-based harm minimisation: examining
theory, evidence and policy issues relevant in Great Britain. Retrieved from
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/26363/1/pbhm-final-report-december-2016.pdf
Parke, A., Harris, A., Parke, J., & Rigbye, J. (2014). Responsible marketing and advertising in gambling: A
critical review. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, 8, 21-35.
Pearce, J., Mason, K., Hiscock, R., & Day, P. (2008). A national study of neighbourhood access to
gambling opportunities and individual gambling behaviour. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 62, 862-868.
Percy, C., Garcez, A., Dragicevic, S., Franca, M.V.M., Slabaugh, G.G., & Weyde, T. (2016). The need for
knowledge extraction: Understanding harmful gamblign behavior with neural networks.
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 285, 974-981.
Petry, N.M., Stinson, F.S., & Grant, B.F. (2005). Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other
psychiatric disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related
Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66, 564-574.
Philander, K. S. (2014). Identifying high-risk online gamblers: a comparison of data mining
procedures. International Gambling Studies, 14(1), 53-63.

Planzer, S., & Wardle, H. (2011). The Comparative Effectiveness of Regulatory Approaches and the
Impact of Advertising on Propensity for Problem Gambling. Report prepared for Responsible
Gambling Fund.
Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario. (2017). Problem Gambling Prevention and Referral Specialist.
Toronto, ON.
Quilty, L.C., Robinson, J., & Blaszczynski, A. (2015). Responsible gambling training in Ontario casinos:
employee attitudes and experience. International Gambling Studies, 15, 361-376.
Rafi, J., Ivanova, E., Rozental, A., & Carlbring, P. (2017). Effects of a workplace prevention programme
for problem gambling: Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 7,
doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2017-015963
Responsible Gambling Council (2010). Insight 2010: Informed Decision Making. Toronto, ON:
Responsible Gambling Council.
Responsible Gambling Council (2009). Evaluation of friends4frieds 2008-09: Ontario’s Problem
Gambling Social Marketing Campaign for Young Adults. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Health
Promotion.
Responsible Gambling Council (2016a). Best Practices for Self-Exclusion Reinstatement and Renewal.
Retrieved
from
http://www.responsiblegambling.org/docs/default-source/researchreports/insight---best-practices-for-self-exclusion-reinstatement-and-renewal.pdf?sfvrsn=10
Responsible Gambling Council (2016b). Game Brain: Post-Performance Feedback Results. Toronto, ON:
Ontario Ministry of Health and Log-Term Care.
Responsible Gambling Council (2017a). Preventing Harm and Improving Player Support for Video Lottery
Terminals and Electronic Keno. Toronto, ON: Responsible Gambling Council.
Responsible Gambling Council (2017b). Social Marketing Campaign: Stop the Chase II. Toronto, ON:
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
Responsible Gambling Organizing Committee. (2014). Report on Responsible Gambling 2009-2013.
Macau: Tipografia Macau Hung Heng Lda.
Robinson, J., Quilty, L., & Lobo, D.S.S. (2016). Responsible gambling training: The essentials.
Presentation for Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario.
Sarkar, S., Weide, T., Garcez, A., Slabaugh, G.G., Dragicevic, S., & Percy, C. (2016). Accuracy and
interpretability trade-offs in machine learning applied to safer gambling. CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, 1773.
Saskatchewan Tourism Education Council. (2016). Responsible Gaming for VLT Site Operators
Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://sk.vltonline.ca/home on July 6th, 2016.
Société des Établissements de Jeux du Québec Inc. (2016). Retailers. Retrieved from http://loteriesvideo.loto-quebec.com/en/our-commitment/retailers on July 6th, 2016.
Shaffer, H. J., & Korn, D. A. (2002). Gambling and related mental disorders: A public health
analysis. Annual review of public health, 23(1), 171-212.
Shaffer, H.J., LaBrie, R., & LaPlante, D. A. (2004). Laying the foundation for quantifying regional exposure
to social phenomena: Considering the case of legalized gambling as a public health toxin.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 40-48.

Shaffer, H.J., Hall, M.N., & Vanderbilt, J. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling
behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public
Health, 89, 1369-1376.
Shaw, S., & Robinson, J. (2017). Creating a Business Case for Responsible Gambling Training. Presented
at the New Horizons in Responsible Gambling Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
Simmons, R. (2017, August 16). American Gaming Association updates responsible gaming codes.
Gambling Insider. Retrieved from https://www.gamblinginsider.com/news/3931/americangaming-association-updates-responsible-gaming-codes
Smith, D.P., Battersby, M.W., Harvey, P.W., Pols, R.G., & Ladouceur, R. (2015). Cognitive versus
exposure therapy for problem gambling: Randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 69, 100-110.
Smitheringale, B. (2001). The Manitoba gambling customer assistance program: A summary report.
Winnipeg, MB: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.
Templeton, J.A., Dixon, M.J., Harrigan, K.A., & Fugelsang, J.A. (2014). Upping the reinforcement rate by
playing the maximum lines in multi-line slot machine play. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31, 949964.
Tiyce, M., Hing, N., Cairncross, G., & Breen, H. (2013). Employee stress and stressors in gambling and
hospitality workplaces. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 12, 126-154.
Toneatto, T., Pillai, S., & Courtice, E. (2014). Mindfulness-enhanced cognitive behavior therapy for
problem gambling: A controlled pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, 12, 197-205.
Tremblay, N., Boutin, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2008). Improved self-exclusion program: Preliminary results.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 505-518.
Velotta, R.N. (2017, August 15). MGM Resorts takes on problem gambling with new program. Las Vegas
Review Journal. Retrieved from https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinosgaming/mgm-resorts-takes-on-problem-gambling-with-new-program/
Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. (2016). Responsible Service of Gaming Training. Retrieved
from
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/safer+communities/gambling/responsible+service+of+ga
ming+training on February 1st, 2018.
Weibe, J., Mun, P., & Kauffman, N. (2006). Gambling and Problem Gambling in Ontario. Toronto, ON:
Responsible Gambling Council.
Weinstock, J., Burton, S., Rash, C.J., Moran, S., Biller, W., Krudelbach, N., … , Morasco, B.J. (2011).
Predictors of engaging in problem gambling treatment: Data from the West Virginia problem
gamblers help network. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 372-379.
White, A.M., Kraus, C.L., & Swartzwelder, H.S. (2006). Many college freshmen drink at levels far beyond
the binge threshold. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30, 1006-1010.
Winslow, M., Cheok, C., & Subramaniam, M. (2015). Gambling in Singapore: An overview of history,
research, treatment and policy. Addiction, 110(9), 1383-1387.

Wohl, M.J., 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.
Wong, I.L.K., & Poon, M. (2011) Awareness promotion about problem gambling for casino employees:
An Asian experience. Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health, 2, 61-67.
Wood, R.T., Griffiths, M.D., Chappell, D., & Davies, M.N. (2004). The structural characteristics of video
games: A psycho-structural analysis. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 1-11.
Wood, R.T., Wohl, M.J.A., Tabri, N., & Philander, K. (2017). Measuring responsible gambling amongst
players: Development of the Positive Play Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 227.