REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS

RESEARCH ON PRE-COMMITMENT AS A PREVENTION MEASURE TO REDUCE GAMBLING-RELATED HARMS

Application Deadline: May 15, 2023

The International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG) invites investigators to apply for a two-year Large Grant to study the efficacy of “pre-commitment,” a prevention strategy that allows gamblers to set limits on money and time spent gambling. Applicants may request up to a total of $75,000 per year up to two years plus 15 percent in Facilities & Administration costs. Total amount that may be requested is $172,500.

The International Center for Responsible Gaming

The ICRG is a global leader in research and education on gambling disorder and responsible gambling. Since 1996, the ICRG (formerly the National Center for Responsible Gaming) has conducted rigorous competitions for research grant funds. The ICRG grants program is monitored by the Scientific Advisory Board, an independent panel of leading scientists with expertise in addiction and related topics. The Scientific Advisory Board plays a vital role by ensuring that the ICRG follows rigorous standards in awarding grants for only the highest quality research proposals. See page 11 for a list of current members. 

Funding

The funding for this initiative is from Global Payments (www.globalpayments.com). The ICRG will award one grant through this initiative. The ICRG maintains a firewall to protect the integrity of research supported with funds from the gambling sector. Visit www.icrg.org to see details about the firewall.

Eligible Applicants

Domestic or international, public or private, non-profit or for-profit organizations are eligible to apply for ICRG funding.  The Principal Investigator must have a PhD, MD, or other terminal degree. 

Research on Pre-Commitment

Most scientists working on prevention and responsible gambling agree that enabling players to make informed decisions about their gambling is a productive strategy for reducing gambling-related harms. Informed decision-making can be encouraged by educating players about the benefits of limiting their gambling expenditures to within an affordable amount of money as well as time spent gambling before play begins (i.e., pre-commitment). The supposition is that if a player pre-commits to a limit in a non- emotionally arousing state before gambling that player will: a) set a limit that is within his or her means; and b) adhere to his or her limit when notified that it has been reached. 

Unfortunately, this is an under-developed area of research, especially in North America. Investigations of the effectiveness and acceptability of mandatory and voluntary pre-commitment are lacking.  More investigations using real-life settings without relying on samples of convenience (e.g., college students) are needed. 

The ICRG seeks to fund research that assesses the effectiveness of voluntary and/or mandatory pre-commitment programs (through either online or land-based gambling venues) under real life conditions. The ICRG encourages applicants to design research programs that not only determine the effectiveness of such programs but also offer insights for improving existing pre-commitment strategies. 

Review Process and Criteria

 The ICRG seeks proposals of high scientific merit from investigators who show promise of disseminating their work at high-impact conferences and in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals. 

An appropriate scientific review group convened in accordance with the standard ICRG peer review procedures, modeled on those of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will evaluate applications for scientific and technical merit.

As part of the initial review, all applications:

  • May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top half of applications under review, will be discussed and assigned a priority score.
  • Will receive a written critique in the Summary Statement.
  • Will receive a second level of review by the Scientific Advisory Board, which makes the final funding decisions.

The peer review panel will evaluate proposals according to the following criteria, adapted from the NIH: 

  1. Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services or preventative interventions that drive this field?
  2. Investigator(s). Are the Principal Investigator (PI), collaborators and other researchers well suited to the project? If the project is collaborative, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? 
  3. Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies instrumentation or interventions proposed? 
  4. Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies and benchmarks for success presented? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for protection of human subjects from research risks justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? 
  5. Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations or collaborative arrangements? 

Additional Review Criteria

In addition to the above criteria, the following items will be considered in the determination of scientific merit and the priority score:

  • Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research will be assessed.
  • Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.
  • Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If vertebrate animals are to be used in the project, the five items described in PHS Form 398 research grant application instructions will be assessed.
  • Biohazards: If materials or procedures are proposed that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, determine if the proposed protection is adequate.

Additional Review Considerations

  • Budget: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research plan.

Application Instructions

Please use the ICRG Large Grant application form available for download from the resource page. This application form provides the Face Page, Page 2 and the Budget pages. You may use the NIH Biosketch or download ICRG’s version from the “Apply for ICRG Funding” section of the website. The narrative section should be presented in your own document.

Application Outline

  • Face Page (form provided)
  • Page Two: Project Summary/Abstract, Senior/Key Personnel, Previous Support (form provided)
  • Biographical sketches (form provided or use NIH form)
  • Budget Summary and Justification for Year 1 (form provided)
  • Budget Summary and Justification for Year 2 (form provided)
  • Research Plan (your own document)
  • Human Subjects/Vertebrate Animals (your own document)
  • Appendix: letters of support, citations, other materials. If human subjects are involved in the research project, download the Targeted/Planned Enrollment Form from the ICRG website and include in the Appendix.

Face Page (1 page)

Insert text into the shaded areas on the Face Page form.

The Principal Investigator (PI) is the person responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the project and is the primary contact for the ICRG. Provide full name, degree(s), title, department, institution, mailing address, telephone number and email address. 

Date of Proposed Period of Support. Projects may begin on August 1, 2023 and conclude no later than July 31, 2025.

Funds Requested. Fill in the amounts requested for years 1 and 2. Total requests may not exceed $150,000 in direct costs. A Facilities & Administration rate higher than 15 percent of direct costs is not allowable.

Applicant Organization. The Applicant Organization is legally and financially responsible for the conduct of activities supported by the award. Provide the name and contact information of the Applicant Organization’s Administrative Contact. 

Regulatory Approvals. Please check the appropriate box to indicate the use of animals (IACUC) or human subjects (IRB) in the proposed project. Note that the Principal Investigator must provide a copy of the IACUC and/or IRB letter to the ICRG before award funds will be released. Pending approvals at the time of application submission are acceptable. 

Certifications. Provide the electronic signatures of the Principal Investigator and the Official Signing for the Organization by typing names in the shaded box and checking the box “Confirm Signature.” 

Page 2: Project Summary/Abstract; Senior/Key Personnel; Previous Support (1 page) 

Insert text in the shaded areas on the form provided. 

Project Summary/Abstract. Provide a succinct and accurate description of the proposed work suitable for dissemination to the public. State the application’s broad, long-term objectives and specific aims. Describe concisely the research design and methods for achieving the stated goals. 

Senior/Key Personnel. In addition to the Principal Investigator, Senior/Key Personnel are defined as individuals who contribute to the scientific development or execution of the project in a substantive, measurable way, whether or not salaries are requested. In addition, stakeholders should be included under Key Personnel. Stakeholders are defined as individuals affected by the proposed research project. For example, a stakeholder might be a treatment provider involved in a clinical trial. List the Principal Investigator, last name first. Then list all other Senior/Key Personnel in alphabetical order, last name first. For each individual, provide name, institutional affiliation and role on the project. 

Previous Support from the ICRG. Please list the title of any grant awards to the Principal Investigator from the International Center for Responsible Gaming, the National Center for Responsible Gaming, and the Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders. Identify products resulting from the grant(s), such as publication in a peer- reviewed journal, a poster or presentation at a conference or subsequent support from NIH or another funding entity to continue the research project. 

Biographical Sketches 

Biographical Sketches of the Principal Investigator and Senior/Key personnel should be included (maximum of five pages each). Please use the NIH form or download the biosketch form.

Budget (2 pages) 

Present the proposed budget for years 1 and 2 on the forms provided. 

Allowable Cost Items

  • Personnel. Allowable personnel expenses include salary and applicable fringe benefits for the Principal Investigator, post-docs and graduate students (if they receive a salary) and other professional and technical staff.
  • Consultant Costs. Identify consultants by name and estimate the number of days of service and rate of compensation.
  • Equipment. Only equipment essential to the conduct of this project is allowed. 
  • Human subjects. Costs of recruitment (e.g., purchase of advertising), payments to subjects, patient care and other costs associated with the use of participants in the study. 
  • Facilities & Administration costs. Up to 15 percent of the total direct costs.
  • Travel. ICRG grantees are required to present a poster at the annual ICRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction. Budget for travel to the conference in Las Vegas, Nevada in the second year of the grant. 

Unallowable Cost Items 

Funding will not be provided for the following:

  • Administrative personnel 
  • Stipends
  • Office equipment and furniture
  • Tuition
  • Dues and membership fees
  • Maintenance/service contracts
  • Construction, alteration, maintenance or rental of buildings or building space
  • Recruiting/relocation expenses
  • Entertainment/social expenses

Budget Justification 

In the space below the Budget Summary, explain and justify costs presented, providing calculations to demonstrate how amounts were determined. Enter text in the shaded area on the form provided. 

Research Plan (Maximum 15 pages) 

This section should be presented in your own document. Please observe the following formatting requirements: 

  • Arial 11-point font
  • A smaller type size may be used in figures, graphs, diagrams, charts, tables, figure legends and footnotes. However, applicants should use their judgment and avoid the use of excessively small type that would be difficult to read.
  • Type density, including characters and spaces, must be no more than15 

characters per inch. Type may be no more than six lines per inch.

  • Margins of at least one half inch on all sides on all pages.
  • Single-column format for text
  • Standard paper size (8.5” X 11”)
  • Paginate all pages 

Use any word processing software to create the text. Then, convert to a PDF using a PDF creation software such as Adobe® Acrobat® Professional. Scanning hard copies to produce a PDF typically results in excessively large files that can be difficult to e- mail or open and, therefore, will not be accepted for review. 

Please follow the outline provided below. 

Specific Aims. State the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved. List the specific objectives of the research proposed (e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field or develop new technology). 

Research Strategy. Organize the Research Strategy section according to the following outline: 

(a) Significance

  • Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed project addresses.
  • Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields.
  • Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services or preventative interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved. 

(b) Innovation

  • Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms.
  • Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or intervention(s) to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies, instrumentation or intervention(s). 
  • Explain any refinements, improvements or new applications of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions. 

(c) Approach

  • Describe the overall strategy, methodology and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed and interpreted as well as any resource sharing plans, as appropriate. A data sharing plan or an explanation of why data sharing is not feasible is expected to be included in all applications where the generation of data is anticipated. Reviewers will assess the reasonableness of the data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data. 
  • Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies and benchmarks for success anticipated to achieve the aims. 

(d) The Relevance and Societal Impact of the Proposed Research. 

Protection of Human Subjects/Vertebrate Animals (Maximum 2 Pages)
Protection of Human Subjects
If applicable, summarize your plan to protect human subjects according to the following outline: 

1) Risks to Human Subjects

a) Human Subjects’ Involvement and Characteristics 

  • Describe the proposed involvement of human subjects in the work outlined in the Research Plan section. 
  • Describe the characteristics of the subject population, including their anticipated number, age range and health status. 
  • Identify the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of any subpopulation.
    Explain the rationale for the involvement of special classes of subjects, such as fetuses, neonates, pregnant women, children, prisoners, institutionalized individuals or others who may be considered vulnerable populations. Note that “prisoners” includes all subjects involuntarily incarcerated (for example, in detention centers) as well as subjects who become incarcerated after the study begins. 
  • List any collaborating sites where human subjects research will be performed and describe the role of those sites and collaborating investigators in performing the proposed research. 

b) Sources of Materials 

  • Describe the research material obtained from living individuals in the form of specimens, records or data. 
  • Describe any data that will be collected from human subjects for the project described in the application. 
  • Indicate who will have access to individually identifiable private information about human subjects. 
  • Provide information about how the specimens, records or data are collected and whether material or data will be collected specifically for the proposed research project. 

c) Potential Risks 

  • Describe the potential risks to subjects (physical, psychological, financial, legal or other), and assess their likelihood and seriousness to the subjects. 
  • Where appropriate, describe alternative treatments and procedures, including the risks and potential benefits of the alternative treatments and procedures, to participants in the proposed research. 

2) Adequacy of Protection Against Risks 

a) Recruitment and Informed Consent 

  • Describe plans for the recruitment of subjects (where appropriate) and the process for obtaining informed consent. If the proposed studies will include children, describe the process for meeting requirements for parental permission and child assent.
  • Include a description of the circumstances under which consent will be sought and obtained, who will seek it, the nature of the information to be provided to prospective subjects and the method of documenting consent. If a waiver of some or all of the elements of informed consent will be sought, provide justification for the waiver. 

b) Protections Against Risk 

  • Describe planned procedures for protecting against or minimizing potential risks, including risks to privacy of individuals or confidentiality of data, and assess their likely effectiveness. 
  • Research involving vulnerable populations, as described in the DHHS regulations, Subparts B-D, must include additional protections. Refer to DHHS regulations, and OHRP guidance (www.hhs.gov/ohrp). 
  • Where appropriate, discuss plans for ensuring necessary medical or professional intervention in the event of adverse effects to the subjects. Studies that involve clinical trials (biomedical and behavioral intervention studies) must include a general description of the plan for data and safety monitoring of the research and adverse event reporting to the IRB and others, as appropriate, to ensure the safety of participants. 

3.) Potential Benefits of the Proposed Research to Human Subjects and Others 

  • Discuss the potential benefits of the research to human subjects and others.
  • Discuss why the risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to research participants and others. 

4)  Importance of the Knowledge to be Gained 

  • Discuss the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained as a result of the proposed research. 
  • Discuss why the risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the importance of the knowledge that reasonably may be expected to result. 

5)  Data and Safety Monitoring Plan 

If the research includes a clinical trial, create a heading entitled “Data and Safety Monitoring Plan.” 

  • Provide a general description of a monitoring plan that you plan to establish as the overall framework for data and safety monitoring.
  • Describe the entity that will be responsible for monitoring and the process by which Adverse Events will be reported. 

Vertebrate Animals 

If vertebrate animals are involved in the project, address each of the five points below. 

1)  Provide a detailed description of the proposed use of the animals for the work outlined in the Research Plan Narrative. Identify the species, strains, ages, sex and numbers of animals to be used in the proposed work. 

2)  Justify the use of animals, the choice of species and the numbers to be used. If animals are in short supply, costly, or to be used in large numbers, provide an additional rationale for their selection and numbers. 

3)  Provide information on the veterinary care of the animals involved. 

4)  Describe the procedures for ensuring that discomfort, distress, pain and injury will be limited to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research. Describe the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs, and/or comfortable restraining devices, where appropriate, to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury. 

5)  Describe any method of euthanasia to be used and the reason(s) for its selection. State whether this method is consistent with the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines on Euthanasia. If not, include a scientific justification for not following the recommendations. 

Appendix 

The Appendix may include items such as a list of references cited, letters of support (e.g., to demonstrate institutional or community support for the project), and other supporting materials. In addition, if the research plan involves human subjects, please include a targeted/planned enrollment form, available for download from the resource page at www.icrg.org.

Submission Process 

Create a single PDF document with the PI’s name as the title. Use a PDF creation software such as Adobe® Acrobat® Professional to create the PDF rather than scanning hard copies to produce a PDF. Such files can be difficult to email to open and, therefore, will not be accepted for review

Send proposal via email to Christine Reilly, Senior Research Director (creilly@icrg.org) by 5 p.m. (Eastern) ON MAY 15, 2023.

Questions? Contact Christine Reilly (creilly@icrg.org; 978-338-6610). 

ICRG Scientific Advisory Board 

Chair 

Linda B. Cottler, PhD, MPH 

Dean’s Professor, Department of Epidemiology

College of Medicine and College of Public Health and Health Professions

University of Florida 

Board Members 

Tammy Chung, PhD 

Director, Center for Population Behavioral Health, Professor of Psychiatry
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

David C. Hodgins, PhD 

Professor of Psychology 

University of Calgary 

Miriam Jorgensen, PhD 

Research Director, Native Nations Institute
University of Arizona
Research Director
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development Harvard University 

Gloria Miele, PhD 

Program Director, Opioid and Stimulant Implementation Support UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs
Chair, UCLA ISAP Continuing Medical Education Committee 

T. Celeste Napier, PhD 

Professor of Psychiatry
Director, Center for Compulsive Behavior and Addiction 

Rush University 

International Center for Responsible Gaming 

900 Cummings Center, Suite 219-U

 Beverly, MA 01915
Tel: 978-338-6610
Fax: 978-522-8452 www.icrg.org

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE GAMING ELECTS MARK LIPPARELLI AS CHAIR

For immediate release

BEVERLY, MASS. — January 31, 2023—The International Center for Responsible
Gaming (ICRG) convened last week in Las Vegas and elected Mark Lipparelli as chair
of the governing board. The board also welcomed new members, Birgitte Sand, former
executive director of the Danish Gambling Authority, and M. Cristina Romero De Alba,
partner at the LOYRA law firm in Madrid Spain.

Mark Lipparelli, the founder of Gioco Ventures LLC, is the past chairman of the Nevada
Gaming Control Board and a past member of the Nevada State Senate. He has served
on numerous boards of gaming companies and is the current board chairman of Galaxy
Gaming.

The ICRG Board honored outgoing chair, Alan M. Feldman, for his vision and
leadership and tireless work on behalf of the ICRG’s mission. Feldman is Distinguished
Fellow in Responsible Gaming at the UNLV International Gaming Institute.
Birgitte Sand served as executive director at the Danish Gambling Authority from 2008
to 2020. She is currently an independent consultant covering gambling legislation and
regulation, gambling authorities, player self-exclusion, responsible gambling, market
strategies, reporting and the use of gambling data.

M. Cristina Romero De Alba is a partner at the LOYRA law firm in Madrid, Spain. She
specializes on advising financial institutions and investors including private equity,
operators and suppliers in the gaming and betting industry. She is focused on multi
jurisdiction and cross border transactions as well as regulatory and licensing
proceedings in the United States, Latin America, the European Union and the United
Kingdom.

# # # # #

About ICRG

The ICRG is the global leader in scientific research on gambling disorder and
responsible gaming. It is supported by gambling operators and related manufacturers
and businesses. For more information, visit www.icrg.org.
Media Contact
Christine Reilly (617-359-9904)
ICRG
creilly@icrg.org

The ICRG Board of Directors met on January 23 and honored Alan Feldman, the outgoing chair. the board approved the following resolution:

WHEREAS, Alan Feldman has served with distinction, skill and good humor as Board Chair of the International Center for Responsible Gaming (the “Center”) for more than a decade; and

WHEREAS, throughout his tenure, Alan Feldman has demonstrated vision and leadership, and has worked tirelessly, to support and advance the Center’s mission;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Center hereby expresses its appreciation and gratitude for Alan Feldman’s many contributions to the Center, wishes him well in all the years to come, and looks forward to his continued interest in and support of the Center’s mission;

Furthermore, the board elected Alan as chair emeritus. Many thanks to Alan for his ongoing support of the ICRG and its mission.

The International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG) invites investigators to apply for research grants to study gambling and gambling problems among emerging adults in the US. The deadline is January 31, 2023 and applicants may request up to a total of $402,500 for the three-year Center of Excellence Grant.

Potential topics may include:

•A social norms approach has been used effectively in college alcohol prevention as well as college gambling projects. Applicants might experiment with this approach in the development and testing of new responsible gambling and intervention strategies suitable for this demographic group.

•A national survey of gambling behaviors and problems among young adults in the US such as a replication of past studies.

•A study of young adult involvement in daily fantasy sports, online sports wagering, betting on eSports and other forms of online gambling.

•The convergence of video game playing and online gambling (online sports wagering, gambling on e-Sports, daily fantasy sports, etc.). Is there significant migration from video gaming to online gambling?

•The predictors of gambling problems in this population group.

The funding for this initiative is from FanDuel and Hard Rock International. The ICRG maintains a firewall to protect the integrity of research supported with funds from the gambling sector

Download the announcement and application form.

The other new initiative invites investigators to study the health impact of gambling advertising. The deadline is March 1, 2023. Applicants may request up to $172,500 for a two-year grant.

Examples of eligible projects include:

• Controlled experiments assessing the physiological, cognitive, emotional and/or behavioral effect of different types of messages, including messaging promoting gambling availability, messaging promoting less risky gambling and messages warning of harm.
• Studies of awareness of advertisements in different populations of people who gamble (emerging adults, vulnerable populations, different cultural groups).
• Studies of methods of effectively promoting responsible gambling tools such as
gambling helplines and self-exclusion.

The funding for this initiative is from BetMGM, a partnership between MGM Resorts International and Entain Holdings.

Download the announcement and application from Resources..

The International Center for Responsible Gaming is proud to invite all stakeholders to the 23rd Annual ICRG Conference on Gambling and Addiction on Oct. 9-10, 2022.  The conference will feature the latest research on gambling disorder and responsible gambling, including a new study on sports wagering. Researchers, health professionals, gaming regulators and professionals, and healthcare providers will discuss the relevant research on gambling disorder/problem gambling and current responsible gaming strategies. The conference is held in conjunction with Global Gaming Expo at the Venetian Expo in Las Vegas.

In order to appeal to the diverse interests of the audience, topics covered in this forum will include:

●Analyzing barriers and implementing new models for the treatment of trauma and addiction

●Health disparities and its relationship to problem gambling

●Gambling and the Brain

●The psychological effect of “Big Wins”

●Comorbidities linked with gambling disorder

●New research on sports wagering and responsible gaming

“The conference will be of special interest to responsible gaming specialists,” said ICRG

President Art Paikowsky. “Topics include self-exclusion, gambling helplines and low usage of responsible gaming tools.”

VisitICRG Conference on Gambling and Addictionfor program details and online registration link. Note that the early bird registration deadline expires after Sept. 23.

We hope to see you there in October!

ICRG staffConference on Gambling and Addiction

Lottery gambling is one of the most popular forms of gambling in the US. In 2020, gross lottery sales totaled $82,777,858,762. However, the research base on lottery play as it relates to gambling disorder and responsible gambling is under-developed. To rectify this gap, the Hoosier Lottery has awarded the ICRG a three-year grant of $137,400 to conduct grant competitions to select research focused on lottery gambling and gambling disorder.

In 2022, the ICRG has released two Requests for Applications (RFA). The Small Research Grant on Lottery Gambling will support a one-year grant of $30,000. Funding priorities include the following:

  • Examine strategies to promote the responsible gambling principles of Positive Play harm minimization and treatment referral for lottery players.
  • Identify the positive or negative factors that influence behaviors and beliefs among lottery players who may be at risk for gambling disorder.
  • Determine innovative methods to reach and connect lottery players with educational resources or treatment providers.
  • Understand the role that technology plays in the promotion of Positive Play attributes or treatment of gambling disorder among lottery players.
  • Examine the implementation of responsible gaming principles, especially those with the least amount of research specific to lotteries; specifically employee training, stakeholder engagement, and program evaluation.

The other grant category is for student research on gambling disorder and responsible gambling. Eligible applicants are PhD and master’s degree program students. Applicants will be invited to apply for up to $5,000 for research projects focused on any aspect of gambling disorder, including prevention strategies such as responsible gambling.

To download the detailed announcements and application forms, go tohttps://www.icrg.org/research-center/apply-icrg-funding

ICRG staffResearch UpdateLottery Gamblinggambling research grants

Over the past few years, esports betting and skin gambling have taken off as a new wave of gambling and gambling products. Esports are professional video gaming competitions, and skin gambling is the betting of in-game digital items such as visual enhancements to characters that have monetary value. There has been an increase in both esports events and skins use in recent years as video game play has gained in popularity, and these innovations can be bet on or used as a prop for gambling. Gambling operators accept wagers on esports events much like they would accept bets on sports.

Aims

Greer et al., 2022 completed a cross sectional (a study that looks at data from a population at one specific point in time) online survey of esports participants aged 18+. Their main aim was to test the conceptual relationships between video gaming involvement, video-game betting, traditional gambling and the impacts of gambling. The core research questions that guided the research were: are video game behaviors associated with greater frequency of esports or skin gambling; does greater frequency of esports betting or skin gambling mean higher involvement in traditional gambling activities and vice versa; and how much gambling-related harm do esports and skin gamblers experience?

What did they do?

The researchers completed a cross sectional online survey of adults that had gambled in the last 6 months on esports cash betting, esports skin betting or skin gambling on games of chance. The sample was made up of 737 adults 18+ from the US, UK, and Canada. Demographic information was collected, including age, gender, marital status, education level and personal income. Video game and esports consumption was measured by frequency of video gaming, video game purchases, frequency of esports viewing and esports playing by type. Gambling disorder was measured using the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (Orford et al., 2010) and gambling harms were measured using the Short Gambling Harms Screen (Browne et al., 2017). The PGSI is a scale from 0-27 that categorizes gamblers by scores into different risk groups. The SGHS measures how many gambling-related harms a participant has experienced, from 0-10. Statistical measures were then executed to understand relationships between involvement and game-related gambling.

What did they find?

The study authors found that purchasing skins within a video game was associated with greater frequency of esports skin betting and skin gambling on other games of chance, while more frequent esports viewing predicted more frequent esports betting. Esports cash betting frequency predicted higher frequency of traditional gambling activities such as casino table games, sports betting and fantasy sports betting. The main takeaways from the research: “Skin gambling is directly implicated in gambling problems and harm, whereas cash betting on esports is only indicative of interest in many forms of potentially harmful gambling” (Greer et al., 2022, p. 1).

Limitations

This article, while informative on an emerging realm of gambling activity, is not without limitations. Limitations include the cross-sectional nature of the research design because the researchers could not infer causation from associations, as the data is just a snapshot in time. Additionally, the sample size is small and made up of only adult esports/ skins bettors, and thus these results are not generalizable to the general adult population. Another issue, which could be related to the sample of only bettors, is the high percentage of the sample that scored as “Problem Gambling” on the PGSI (30.4%). The prevalence of gambling addiction in the US is around 1%, so it is important to keep in mind this sample is only of esports gamblers. However, this is one of the first studies to try to understand how new gambling products may be associated with gambling harms and paves the way for future studies.

Browne, M., Goodwin, B., & Rockloff, M. (2017). Validation of the short gambling harm screen (SGHS): A tool for assessment of harms from gambling.Journal of Gambling Studies,34(2), 499–512.

Greer, N., Rockloff, M., Hing, N., Browne, M., & King, D. (2022). Skin gambling contributes to gambling problems and harm after controlling for other forms of traditional gambling.Journal of Gambling Studies,Online.

Orford, J., Wardle, H., Griffiths, M., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2010). PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey: Reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement.International Gambling Studies,10(1), 31–44.

ICRG staffResearch Updateesportsgambling problemsskin gambling

The current debate about responsible gambling (RG) focuses on individual consumer accountability versus the responsibility of gaming operators to make the use of their product “safe.” Three of the leading scientists on RG issues published a commentary on this topic, “Moving away from individual responsibility: A comment,” which defends their seminal article on the Reno Model (Blaszczynski et al., 2004) and addresses the question of personal responsibility.

Howard Shaffer, Robert Ladouceur and Alex Blaszczynsi published “A Science-Based Framework for Responsible Gambling: The Reno Model” in 2004. This model sought to shape the direction of RG initiatives and stimulate a dialogue about RG initiatives and concepts. A main component of this model is the “Individual versus Industry Responsibility” part, in which the authors argue that the ultimate choice to gamble resides within individuals, but they must have the opportunity to be informed about gambling harms and negative consequences. Overall, they emphasize the need for all key stakeholders to come together to define and coordinate efforts to satisfactorily inform individuals about the risks of gambling and where to seek help.

In recent years, critics of the Reno Model have argued that it overemphasizes the role of personal responsibility and ignores the social settings in which gamblers operate. In response, Shaffer and Ladouceur published a commentary in theJournal of Gambling Studies(Shaffer & Ladouceur, 2021). They argue that this shift in perspective disproportionately attributes gambling harms to the enviornment and minimizes the personal responsibility that comes along with gambling responsibly. They emphasize that personal responsibility is a vital component to understanding both addiction itself and the use of many psychological models for treatment of gambling disorder. Additionally, they attempt to explain the possible reasoning behind this shift away from personal responsibility.

First, the authors address the issues related to responsible gambling by explaining that as a result of the overarching failure to distinguish between stakeholder’s roles and accountability when it comes to protecting consumers, the term “responsible gambling” has yet to be defined and understood adequately. The presentation, or “definition” of RG varies among stakeholders and causes many critics to question whether it is even a valid construct. As a result of this confusion, many have begun to shift away from the notion of personal responsibility. The authors emphasize that social setting can only do so much to push an individual towards gambling responsibly, and the ultimate decision to gamble still resides within the individual.

Movement away from Individual Responsibility

Next, this commentary tackles the movement away from personal responsibility itself. The authors comment that although there is considerable value in studying social settings and it’s influence on choice when it comes to gambling, personal choice must be considered as well. They claim that with total freedom comes total personal responsibility and the fear of this is driving a social movement that prefers to blame social settings.

The Reno Model

This commentary next touches upon how gambling industry critics have recently suggested that the Reno Model places too much emphasis on individual accountability. These critics see the responsibility as all-or-nothing, and that it must all lie with the social setting, or all must lie with the individual. The authors reference the Reno Model and how they charge all stakeholders with responsibility: consumers, operators, health services, community groups, government and related agencies. In short, the Reno Model does not place sole responsibility on the individual. It emphasizes that all involved stakeholders must work together.

Psychological Models

The authors next explain how the movement away from personal responsibility affects psychological models that have been studied for years and relate directly to addictive behaviors. The first model is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that they are able to execute a certain behavior. Therefore, if a person attributes his/her behaviors to external influences and does not see his/her personal capacity to change an excessive behavior, the ability to modify negative behaviors is jeopardized. The second model is the Locus of Control. Locus of Control is the perception of control that an individual has over their behaviors. Those that are able to look within themselves and understand how their actions and performance influence consequences often see positive impacts, compared to those that attribute control to external factors.

Explaining Moving away from Individual Responsibility

The authors of this commentary again emphasize that no one factor is the cause of excessive gambling, and that to assign blame to one thing such as social setting would be short-sighted. Possible reasons that critics are moving away from personal responsibility include the following. Critics of the gambling industry may be using this viewpoint simply to blame the industry for all ails involved with gambling. Second, anti-gambling lobbyists could be purposely shaping the evidence into a viewpoint that makes it easier to blame the gambling industry for all gambling harms. Third, critics of the use of “responsible gambling” have misinterpreted the Reno model to claim that it unfairly puts all blame on the individual. Finally, critics that have adopted an all-or-nothing attitude have shifted away from personal responsibility, because they do not see that there is a balance between environment and individual responsibility.

Conclusion

The authors conclude their commentary with the following: “When individual responsibility is minimized and the social setting exaggerated, we have established a formula for social chaos. To avoid this circumstance, we must… establish a balanced view of gambling and its host, agent, and environment influences” (Shaffer & Ladouceur, 2021, p. 1075).

References

Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A Science-Based Framework for Responsible Gambling: The Reno Model.Journal of Gambling Studies,20(3).

Shaffer, H., & Ladouceur, R. (2021). Moving away from individual responsibility: A comment.Journal of Gambling Studies,37(3), 1071–1078.

ICRG staffResponsible Gamingresponsible gaming

Many individuals that suffer from gambling issues also have co-occurring psychiatric disorders and limited or no adequate treatment options to address all disorders at once. These co-occurring disorders include anxiety, depression and substance use disorders. Because of this problem, the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services created The Ohio Problem Gambling Treatment Model for Adults with Co-Occurring Disorders (Kruse-Diehr et al., 2022), specifically for adults with co-occurring disorders. This manual, aims to fill in the gaps that exist when treating individuals with co-occurring disorders.

Aims

The researchers aimed to create and test the efficacy of a gambling disorder (GD) treatment manual, The Ohio Problem Gambling Treatment Model for Adults with Co-Occurring Disorders (OhPGTM). The main aims of the study were to assess, treat and measure changes in gambling disorder when using the manual and the treatment methods it recommends. This is important for treatment providers because it provides a uniform process to address all co-occurring disorders that are presenting along with a client’s gambling issues. Additionally, the overarching and long-term goal of this study was to address the negative consequences of GD and ultimately reduce its prevalence in Ohio populations.

What did they do?

The Ohio Problem Gambling Treatment Model for Adults with Co-Occurring Disorders (OhPGTM) was developed over a period of five years, drawing from various addiction treatment models including cognitive behavioral treatment, Motivational Interviewing and improvement of life skills. The manual included a 12-week process of modules with each week covering a new topic related to co-occurring disorders and gambling disorder. Participants completed monitoring logs, craving scales, handouts and take home assignments. Each study participant was placed into a group, with each group consisting of between three to 12 participants. Each participant completed a pre-test and post-test assessment to discern the helpfulness of the 12-week process. The scales used to assess the efficacy of the manual included The Gambling Craving Scale (Young & Wohl, 2009); the Problem Gambling Severity Index (Ferris, J., & Wynne, H., 2001), which was used to assess the previous year’s actual GD symptom severity and its effects on both the individual and family members; and The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), which was used to assess participant self-esteem.

What did they find?

Over the course of the study, 122 participants completed the program. Participants that completed the course reported a reduction in gambling, but no change in self-esteem or gambling urges. Two-thirds of the sample that completed the program reported a co-occurring mental disorder, and three fourths had a substance use disorder. The researchers concluded that this manual represents a significant improvement in GD treatment for at risk communities. As with many pilot studies, efficacy is not always immediately clear but the authors believe further research can help solidify its usefulness for both treatment providers and the clients that they serve.

Limitations:

The study authors stated that improvements in gambling behaviors cannot be confirmed as a result of the manual itself; participants may have had other factors in their life that affected their gambling actions over the course of the study. The researchers also noted that the study participants were almost predominantly white, which does not provide a representative sample of the population of Ohio.

Further Direction:

The ICRG was lucky enough to talk with Derek Longmeier,Executive Director, Problem Gambling Network of Ohio, who commented on his excitement over this manual:

We’ve found that screening at intake is not the most effective method for identifying those in need of gambling support services and that there is a strong connection between disordered gambling and substance use disorder. We are confident that this program will be a catalyst for identifying and serving individuals with co-occurring disorders. We know that there are many roads to recovery for those with a gambling disorder and we are hopeful that through broad distribution and utilization of the manual throughout Ohio, we can make the process as smooth as possible for both counselors and the clients they serve.

References

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001).The Canadian Problem Gambling Index(Final Report; p. 59). Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research.

Kruse-Diehr, A., Shamblen, S., & Courser, M. (2022). Longitudinal assessment of a manualized group treatment program for gambling disorder: The Ohio problem gambling treatment model for adults with co-occurring disorders.Journal of Gambling Studies.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale.APA PsychTests.

Young, M., & Wohl, M. (2009). The Gambling Craving Scale: Psychometric validation and behavioral outcomes.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,23(4).

ICRG staffResearch UpdateCo-occurring disordersGaming DisorderThe Ohio Problem Gambling Treatment Model

Brief screens can help people decide whether to seek formal evaluation of their gambling behavior. The 3-item Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen (BBGS) is based on the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria for Gambling Disorder. A “yes” response to any single item indicates potential gambling-related problems and the need for additional evaluation. The ICRG is proud to have played a role in the development of this evidence-based screening tool.

The ICRG is also a proud supporter of Gambling Disorder Screening Day (Screening Day), a one-day event held annually on the second Tuesday of March. Established by the Division on Addiction at Cambridge Health, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, Screening Day has included supporters and screeners from Cambridge Health Alliance, Massachusetts and New England, the United States and around the world. Screening Day has helped identify individuals in those regions who might have Gambling Disorder and should seek further assessment.

The ICRG is participating in Screening Day by distributing for free the BBGS in magnet form—suitable for affixing to your file cabinet—to treatment providers. To request magnets, contact nmancini@icrg.org.

Organizations are encouraged to host a screening event on Screening Day. The Division’s Screening Day Toolkit contains a variety of free online tools and resources, including a printable and customizable Screening Day Flyer, BBGS e-Screener (Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen) and a one-page article What Is Gambling Disorder? The Division encourages organizations and individuals to share these tools and resources to educate staff and patients. To host Screening Day on Tuesday, March 8th, 2022, email info@divisiononaddiction.org.

bbgs_magnet.jpg

ICRG staff Responsible Gaming gambling disorder Division on Addictions