Mandatory verses voluntary self-tests for new online casino customers: effect on engagement, quality, gambling behavior and use of responsible gambling measures.

Abstract

Background: To combat the public health concern that is problem gambling, gambling operators are increasingly being required by legislation to exercise a duty of care obligation, including the provision of Responsible Gambling (RG) tools. Self-test assessments have long been a popular RG tool implemented by many operators, yet there has been scant empirical research on self-tests, including on how the method of delivery impacts engagement, quality, and subsequent gambling behavior. The main objective of the current study was to examine if the level of voluntariness to perform a self-test moderated these key outcomes.

Method: Participants in the study, 1800 new online customers at a leading Swedish gambling company, were randomized to one of three arms: No message (control), up to four messages inviting them to do a self-test, and one message with a mandatory (but technically possible to circumvent) self-test. The interventions were presented when the customer logged in.

Results: The results showed that 38.9% in the mandatory group and 4.8% in the voluntary group completed the self-test, with indications of a somewhat lower quality of the test by the mandatory group. There was no difference in customer churn or gambling behavior, and only minor differences in use of RG-measures post intervention.

Conclusions: We conclude that presentation format matters and can affect the use and quality of tests: gambling operators should exercise caution when interpreting non-risk assessment results derived solely from self-test tools, particularly mandatory ones, as it can result in inaccurate risk assessments that may mislead duty of care obligations. The balance between achieving high participation and maintaining quality (and thereby meaningfulness) is discussed.