The study consisted of three key elements including a literature review of key insight on behavioural change, in particular as applied to gambling, a discrete choice experiment, and a randomised controlled trial.
The research found that only a minority of regular gamblers had deposit limits in place though most gamblers that had limits found them useful. Higher-risk gamblers are more likely to set limits, though many do not want to limit their gambling. Gamblers may not set limits as they are easier to circumvent and not all gamblers are aware they can set limits.
The limit type was the most influential message feature, followed (in order) by terminology and purpose, information to help set limits, message personalisation, message framing and message targeting. Receiving the optimal message had no significantly better effect on participants’ attitudes towards, intention to set, or actually setting of a deposit limit. Initiating a deposit or other type of limit during the four-week RCT period had a small but significant effect on decreasing the frequency of race betting, but no significant effect on sports betting frequency, betting expenditure or the experience of gambling harms.
The study was led by researchers at Central Queensland University.