IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/intgms/v21y2021i2p255-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Paul H. Delfabbro
  • Daniel L King

Abstract

Pre-commitment and limit-setting schemes have been widely discussed as potentially useful responsible gambling tools to minimize the financial harm associated with excessive gambling. Such systems allow gamblers to set time or monetary limits and can be implemented in a voluntary or mandatory form. Previous reviews have suggested that these technologies, particularly when applied as voluntary systems, appear to have little empirical support because of low uptake rates and limitations in research studies. Using evidence drawn from peer-reviewed and online literature, we examine developments over the last decade. We provide an updated appraisal of pre-commitment technology that encompasses more recent trials. We also include studies of online limit setting and the studies of mandatory limits in Norway. The present analysis finds general support for the conclusions of previous reviews and confirms the potential benefits of mandatory systems. It also highlights some potential selective uses for voluntary systems while also noting potential risks associated with implementing mandatory global limits.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul H. Delfabbro & Daniel L King, 2021. "The value of voluntary vs. mandatory responsible gambling limit-setting systems: A review of the evidence," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 255-271, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:intgms:v:21:y:2021:i:2:p:255-271
    DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2020.1853196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14459795.2020.1853196
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14459795.2020.1853196?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:intgms:v:21:y:2021:i:2:p:255-271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RIGS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.