Effects of a Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) Banneron Gambling: A Field Study

Timothy Gallagher & Richard Nicki & Amy Otteson &

Heather Elliott

Received: 28 July 2009 /Accepted: 4 November 2009 /Published online: 26 November 2009# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract The effects of a warning banner, informing patrons of the randomness of VideoLottery Terminal (VLT) outcomes, on gambling behaviour and beliefs were tested in a fieldsetting using a mixed- model 2×3 design over a six-week period with 27 problem and 27non-problem gamblers recruited from bars in a Canadian city with a population of 85,000.Overall, self-reported VLT gambling behaviour decreased significantly during the three,two-week periods. More specifically, gambling behaviour during the banner period wassignificantly less than during the baseline period. In addition, for only problem gamblers,significant decreases in faulty gambling beliefs were found across the three periods. Thissuggested that decreases in gambling behaviour were mediated by decreases in faultygambling beliefs incurred by the banner of our study and can have practical importance inthe prevention of problem gambling.

Keywords Gambling . VLTs . Slot machines . Randomness . Faulty gambling beliefs .

Addiction . Prevention . Banner

Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) gambling is one of the world’s most common gamblingactivities. It is also the kind of gambling that has been shown to most substantively lead togambling addiction (Breen and Zimmerman 2002; Doiron and Nicki 2001; Dowling et al.2005; Jefferson and Nicki 2003; Marshall and Wynne 2004; Morgan et al. 1996). It hasbeen proposed that people become problem gamblers because they make inaccuratepresumptions when attempting to predict outcomes based on chance (Ladouceur andWalker 1996). This is because gambling behaviour involves decision making and istherefore subject to cognitive biases and errors in judgement. In her reformulated cognitive-behavioural model, Sharpe (2002) viewed irrational gambling cognitions as being a criticalcomponent in the development and maintenance of problem gambling. Consistent withthis viewpoint, there are numerous reports of the successful applications of cognitive

Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133DOI 10.1007/s11469-009-9259-4

T. Gallagher (*) : R. Nicki : A. Otteson : H. ElliottDepartment of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton,NB E3B 5A3, Canadae-mail: tgallagh@unb.ca

restructuring techniques in the clinical literature which have involved changing faultygambling beliefs of pathological gamblers (e.g., Ladouceur et al. 1994, 2001; Toneatto andSobell 1990). Typically, cognitive restructuring has involved an educational componentinforming gamblers of the nature of the misconceptions which characterize their erroneousgambling beliefs, and a corrective component which is directed at the substitution oferroneous beliefs with veridical ones. However, further investigation is needed on whethersuccessful changes in treatment outcomes are mediated by changes in irrational gamblingcognitions. For example, in a randomized control study, Doiron and Nicki (2007) found thatat-risk problem gamblers taking part in a problem gambling prevention programsignificantly decreased their levels of problem gambling, assessed by the ProblemGambling Severity Index (PGSI; Wynne 2002), as a consequence of changes in irrationalcognitions, as assessed by the Informational Biases Scale (IBS; Jefferson and Nicki 2003)and Gamblers’ Belief Questionnaire (GBQ; Steenbergh et al. 2002).

A number of studies have been reported in the literature involving the use of a minimal,cognitive restructuring intervention of banners or warning messages informing gamblers ofthe randomness of outcomes. For example, Ladouceur and Sevigny (2003) found that brief,periodic pop-up messages informing VLT players that the outcomes of games was random,and that they had no control over the outcomes, resulted in less VLT play in comparison toa no interruption group condition. Steenbergh et al. (2004) found that in warning messageconditions, there was a greater knowledge of the risks of gambling but no changes inroulette gambling behaviour. Benhsain et al. (2004) found that a reminder concerningthe independence of gambling events among gamblers playing a computerized gameof American roulette resulted in reducing the number of erroneous verbalizations andmotivation to play more games. Floyd et al. (2006) found that a warning message incombination with an educational video decreased both cognitive distortions and gamblingbehaviour among roulette players in comparison to a control group. Cloutier et al. (2006)found that pop-up messages correcting common misperceptions about gambling resulted indecreases in strength of erroneous beliefs as measured by the Inventory of ErroneousBeliefs Related to Gambling (ICROLJ) but no change in motivation to play VLTs.

These minimal intervention cognitive restructuring studies involved a laboratory settingand a brief warning or reminder message pertaining to common erroneous beliefs aboutgambling, e.g., illusion of control, gambler’s fallacy. It may be argued that all of thesemessages involved a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of randomness, i.e., insituations where gambling outcomes are random, event-outcomes are truly independent ofone another (Benhsain et al. 2004). In a recent review of pop-up messages on electronicgaming machines as a proposed responsible gaming strategy, Monaghan (2008) highlightedsome of the shortcomings of this research and recommended that both laboratory and fieldstudies be done to remedy this deficiency.

In accord with this suggestion, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects ofscrolling a warning banner across VLT screens on gambling behaviour and cognitions in afield study with both non-problem and problem gamblers as participants, i.e., to determineif the use of such a warning banner might have the potential of substantially reducingproblem gambling and altering gambling cognitions in the world outside the laboratory. Abasic A-B-A design was used along with a between subjects variable, i.e., problem versusnon-problem gambler status. It was expected that exposure to the banner would decrease (1)the amount of time spent playing VLTs, (2) informational biases or cognitive distortionsscores and (3) Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI; Wynne 2002) scores. Noprediction was made regarding initial status of problem gambling since this variable wasexamined on an exploratory basis.

Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133 127

Method

Participants

These were gamblers who had played VLT machines in at least one of all the bars inFredericton, New Brunswick, a Canadian city with a population of 85,000 people, withinthe previous month. Initially, there were 84 participants; however, only 54 participantsattended all meetings and these were designated as the sample of the study. Participantswere recruited via announcements posted in the bars, and advertisements in the localnewspaper. Their problem gambling status was determined using the PGSI, i.e., participantswere classified with reference to gambling activity in the last year as problem gamblers(M=12.56; SD=4.22; Range=8.23) or non-problem gamblers (M=2.48; SD=2.23; Range=0–7). That is, according to the classification of gambler sub-types of the PGSI, “non-problem gamblers” included non-problem gamblers, low risk gamblers, and moderate riskgamblers, while “problem gamblers” only consisted of problem gamblers. By chance, the54 final participants were equally divided on their problem gambling status, i.e., there were27 problem gamblers and 27 non-problem gamblers. Participants consisted of 32 males and22 females ranging in age from 19–63 years (M=40.09; SD=11.79). Approximately half ofthe sample had an educational level greater than high-school, and an income greater than$30,000. Pearson Chi-Square tests revealed a significant difference between problem andnon-problem gamblers only with respect to Marital Status, Chi-Square (1, N=54)=6.31,p<.05. That is, more non-gamblers than problem gamblers were married.

Design

This was a mixed-model, 2×3 between-within subjects design. The between subjects factorconsisted of two different kinds of gamblers: problem or non-problem gamblers. Thewithin-subjects factor consisted of three different time periods: two-week, baselinecondition; two-week, treatment or banner condition; and a two-week, follow-up condition.

Measures

Two-Week Problem Gambling Severity Index (Two-week PGSI); (Wynne 2002). This indexconsists of one section of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI; Wynne 2002) andis made up of nine self-report items pertaining to gambling activity in the last year. For thepurposes of this study, the index was modified to pertain to a two-week period, e.g.,Thinking about the last two weeks, how often have you bet more than you could reallyafford to lose? Would you say: a) Never b) Sometimes c) Most of the time d) Almostalways. Wynne (2002) reported the PGSI to be highly reliable with a Cronbach alphareliability coefficient equal to .84, and a test-retest reliability Pearson-Product Momentcoefficient of .78. Its concurrent validity was attested to by Wynne (2002) as being highlycorrelated (p=.83) with the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur and Blume 1987)and the items of the DSM-IV.

Informational Biases Scale (IBS; Jefferson et al. 2004; Jefferson and Nicki 2003). Thisscale is a 25 item self-report questionnaire assessing the informational biases or cognitivedistortions in VLT gamblers using a 7-point Likert scale requiring respondents to rate theiranswers from “Don’t Agree at All” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (7). With participants similarto those of this study, the IBS was found by Jefferson and Nicki (2003) to consist ofpredominantly one-factor. Jefferson and Nicki (2003) reported its Cronbach alpha

128 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133

coefficient to be .92; its construct validity is supported by being sufficiently correlated withthe SOGS (r=.48), and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (Lovibond and Lovibond1995) (r=.43).

Time Sheet (TS). This is a self-report instrument previously used in our VLT laboratory(Nicki et al. 2007) providing information about each half-hour time period of VLT playfrom 10:00am to 2:00am, and VLT game played. At the top of each Time Sheet were thedays of the week, e.g., Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday; on the left margin of each time sheetwere the times of the day and night, e.g., 10:00am, 10:30am, 11:00am. There were a total of28 VLT games (Game King machine, 6 games; Power Station machine, 12 games, Multi-Game machine, 10 games). To facilitate recording of self-report data, games were assignedbrief letter codes.

Procedure

There were three meetings in all. At the first meeting, participants met in a classroom inKeirstead Hall in groups varying in size from 1–20 participants. They were asked to readand sign an informed consent form in order to take part in the study which had beenapproved by the University of New Brunswick ethic committee. They were then asked tofill out the Two-week PGSI and the IBS. Before the participants left, instructions pertainingto the TS were provided and copies of the TS forms were given to them to cover a period offour weeks. For each day, participants were instructed to fill in each half-hour block or timeperiod with the letter code corresponding to the game played during that time period. Twoweeks after the first meeting, the warning banner, “WARNING: PAYOUTS ARERANDOM AND NOTCONTROLLED BY PLAYERS. NEAR WINS ARE ALWAYSLOSSES.” appeared in English (and French) on the screens of VLT machines in all of thebars with VLTs in Fredericton for a two-week period. This message had a duration ofapproximately 25 s, and was electronically scrolled on each VLT screen approximatelyevery 15 s along with the usual message which provided information about a gambler’shelp-line phone number. No messages appeared while gamblers actually played VLTgames. The second meeting occurred at the end of the banner period. At this meeting,participants again submitted their TS data, completed the Two-week PGSI, and IBS again,and took home TS forms covering a two-week period. Finally, two weeks later, at the thirdmeeting, participants returned their TS data, completed the Two-week PGSI and the IBS.They were given their $100 remuneration and debriefing information about the purpose ofthe study.

Results

A between-within ANOVA of number of hours played as reported on the TS revealed asignificant main effect of time periods. That is, the number of hours played significantlydecreased during the three two-week periods of participation, F (2, 104)=4.61, p<.05, withan effect size of omega squared (ω2)=.003. The base-line period mean was equal to 8.59 h,SD=12.07; the banner period mean was equal to 6.91 h, SD=11.17; and the follow-upperiod was equal to 7.58 h, SD=11.37.

Further analysis with paired t-tests showed only that the number of hours playing VLTssignificantly decreased from the base-line period to the banner period, t(1, 53)=3.49,p<.001, with a medium effect size, r=.43. There was also found a significant main effectof problem gambling status, F(1,52)=4.06, p<.05, i.e., problem gamblers (M=10.71;

Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133 129

SD=15.05) reported playing more hours than non-problem gamblers (M=4.68; SD=4.58),with a large effect size, r=.58. Lastly, there was a no significant interaction betweenproblem gambling status and time periods. Means for problem gambling status and timeperiods are plotted in Fig. 1.

A between-within ANOVA of IBS scores revealed a significant main effect betweenproblem gambling and non-problem gamblers, F(1,52)=4.90, p<.05, i.e., problem gamblershad higher IBS scores (M=110.23; SD=32.26) over the three time periods than non-problem gamblers (M=94.00; SD=25.08), with a small effect size, r=.29. The main effectof time periods was not significant. However, the problem gambling status by time periodsinteraction was significant, F(2,104)=3.31, p<.05, with an effect size of ω2=.006. Thisinteraction is plotted in Fig. 2. For the problem gamblers, the base-line IBS mean was equalto =115.11, SD=27.38; the banner IBS mean was equal to 108.44, SD=35.28; and thefollow-up IBS mean was equal to 107.15, SD=34.21. For the non-problem gamblers, thebase-line IBS mean was equal to 91.22, SD=24.71; the banner IBS mean was equal to95.15, SD=24.13; and the follow-up IBS mean was equal to 95.63, SD=27.04.

The interaction effect between problem gambling status and time periods was furtherinvestigated using t-tests. Independent sample t-tests revealed that IBS scores for problemgamblers were significantly larger than non-problem gamblers’ scores only at the baselineperiod, t(52)=3.37, p<.001, with a medium effect size, r=.42.Paired sample t-tests revealedthat for problem gamblers, baseline period IBS scores were significantly larger than thosefor the follow-up period, t(26)=2.32, p<.05, with a medium effect size, r=.41. Lastly, forproblem gamblers, baseline period IBS scores were significantly larger, marginally, than thebanner period ones, t(26)=1.855, p=.075, with a medium effect size, r=.34. All thecomparisons for non-problem gamblers were non-significant.

A between-within ANOVA of Two-week PGSI scores revealed only a significant maineffect of problem gambling status, i.e., problem gamblers had higher Two-week PGSIscores than non-problem gamblers across all three time periods, F(1,52)=56.54, p<.001,with a large effect size, r=.71. For the problem gamblers, the PGSI mean was equal to

Fig. 1 Hours played by problemand non-problem gamblers onVLTs over three time periods

130 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133

11.59, SD=6.25; and for the non-problem gamblers, the PGSI mean was equal to 2.79,SD=2.71.

Discussion

The findings of this study only supported the first two hypotheses. Over the three timeperiods, the problem and non-problem gamblers together, were found to significantlydecrease their number of hours playing VLTs. The follow-up t-tests revealed only asignificant decrease from baseline to banner periods. This decrease in VLT play during thebanner period and marginal maintenance of this decrease during the follow-up period isconsistent with the laboratory findings of Ladouceur and Sevigny (2003), Benhsain et al.(2004), Floyd et al. (2006), Cloutier et al. (2006), and represent an important extension oftheir relevance to the world outside the academic laboratory.

For the second hypothesis, the finding that the effect of time periods on IBS scores wassignificantly moderated by problem gambling status suggests that the decreases in VLTgambling for problem gamblers reported above was mediated by decreases in gamblingcognitive distortions experienced by problem gamblers. As noted above, there is ampleevidence in the literature (e.g., Doiron and Nicki 2007; Ladouceur et al. 1994, 2001;Toneatto and Sobell 1990) supporting the claim of the efficacy of cognitive restructuring offaulty VLT cognitions in ameliorating problem gambling. The fact that the warning bannerhad no impact on non-problem gamblers’ IBS scores might possibly be attributed to thefinding that the non-problem gamblers had a lower IBS score than problem gamblers tobegin with. As a consequence of this “basement effect”, there would be less opportunity forthere to be a significant decrease in IBS scores. With respect to the third hypothesis, the factthat no significant differences were found for main effects and interaction for Two-weekPGSI scores might indicate that a more prolonged exposure to such a banner might benecessary in order for there to be significant clinical changes in problem gambling status.

There are several limitations in this study. All of the data collected in this study involvedself-report rather than direct observation and therefore would be liable to the biases

Fig. 2 IBS scores by problemand non-problem gamblers overthree time periods

Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133 131

associated with this methodology. Participants were self-selected from the community andmay not be representative of the larger VLT gambling population. Furthermore, since thestudy was run in the community rather than a laboratory, there were some inconsistenciesamong procedures relating to meeting times, places, and group composition throughout thestudy due to practical considerations.

In summary, the findings of this study have shown that both VLT gambling behaviour, innon-problem and problem gamblers, and faulty gambling beliefs in problem gamblerssignificantly decrease as a result of exposure to a warning banner informing players of therandomness of outcomes of VLT games. These have implications for further researchstudies. Such studies could investigate the effect of varying the duration of exposure to thewarning banners; as noted above, perhaps changes in Two-week PGSI status might havebeen found in this study with prolonged exposure to our banner. Furthermore, the use ofother banners, or banners in conjunction with participating in prevention programs might beinvestigated. Finally, a controlled experimental study could be undertaken involving anexperimental banner group which was located in one city, and a control no-banner groupwhich was located in a different city to further investigate the validity of these findings. Inconclusion, employment of warning banners which inform VLT players of the randomnessof outcomes of VLT games by electronically affixing them to VLT machines so that entiregambling populations may be exposed to a manipulation involving a minimal cognitiverestructuring of faulty gambling beliefs is practically important.

References

Benhsain, K., Taillefer, A., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). Awareness of independence of events and erroneousperceptions while gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 399–404.

Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers. Journalof Gambling Studies, 18, 31–43.

Cloutier, M., Ladouceur, R., & Sevigny, S. (2006). Responsible gambling tools: pop-up messages and pauseson video lottery terminals. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 140, 434–438.

Doiron, J., & Nicki, R. (2001). Epidemiology of problem gambling in Prince Edward Island: a Canadianmicrocosm. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46(5), 413–417.

Doiron, J., & Nicki, R. (2007). Prevention of pathological gambling: a randomized controlled trial. CognitiveBehaviour Therapy, 36, 74–84.

Dowling, N., Smith, D., & Thomas, T. (2005). Electronic gaming machines: are they the ‘crack-cocaine’ ofgambling? Addiction, 100(1), 33–45.

Floyd, K., Whelan, J., & Meyers, A. (2006). Use of warning messages to modify gambling beliefs andbehaviour in a laboratory investigation. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20, 69–74.

Jefferson, S., & Nicki, R. (2003). A new instrument to measure cognitive distortions in video lottery terminalusers: the informational biases scale (IBS). Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(4), 387–403.

Jefferson, S., Doiron, J., Nicki, R., & MacLean, A. (2004). Further psychometric development of theinformational biases scale: an instrument designed to assess gambling cognitive distortions in videolottery terminal players. Gambling Research, 16, 28–39.

Ladouceur, R., & Walker, M. (1996). A cognitive perspective on gambling. In P. M. Salkovskis (Ed.), Trendsin cognitive and behavioural therapies (pp. 89–119). New York: Wiley.

Ladouceur, R., & Sevigny, S. (2003). Interactive messages on video lottery terminals and persistence ingambling. Gambling Research, 15, 45–50.

Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J., & Dumont, J. M. (1994). Cognitive-behavioural treatment for adolescentpathological gambling. Behavior Modification, 18, 230–242.

Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., Lachance, S., Doucet, C., Leblond, J., et al. (2001). Cognitivetreatment of pathological gambling. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189, 774–780.

Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The south oaks gambling screen (SOGS): a new instrument for theidentification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.

Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Sydney:Psychology Foundation of Australia.

132 Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133

Marshall, K., & Wynne, H. (2004). Against the odds: a profile of at-risk and problem gamblers [ElectronicVersion]. Canadian Social Trends, 73, 25–29. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/0010411-008-XIE.pdf.

Monaghan, S. (2008). Review of pop-up messages on electronic gaming machines as a proposed responsiblegambling strategy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 214–222.

Morgan, T., Kofoed, L., Buchkoski, J., & Carr, R. (1996). Video lottery gambling: effects on pathologicalgamblers seeking treatment in South Dakota. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 451–459.

Nicki, R., Gallagher, T., & Cormier, A. (2007). Irrational cognitions and attractiveness of VLT games. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Canadian psychological association, Ottawa, Canada.

Sharpe, L. (2002). A reformulated cognitive-behavioral model of problem gambling: a biopyschosocialperspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1–25.

Steenbergh, T., Meyers, A., May, R., & Whelan, J. (2002). Development and validation of the gamblers’beliefs questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 143–149.

Steenbergh, T., Whelan, J., Meyers, A., May, R., & Floyd, K. (2004). Impact of warning and briefintervention messages on knowledge of gambling risk, irrational beliefs and behaviour. InternationalGambling Studies, 4, 3–16.

Toneatto, T., & Sobell, L. C. (1990). Pathological gambling treated with cognitive behavior therapy: a casereport. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 497–501.

Wynne, H. J. (2002). Introducing the Canadian problem gambling index. Edmonton: Wynne Resources.

Int J Ment Health Addiction (2011) 9:126–133 133