Dr. Alex Blaszczynski

Professor and Director, Gambling Treatment Clinic and Research

University of Sydney

Breaks in play: An irresponsible strategy?

Are imposed ‘breaks in play’ effective in

achieving their objectives?

Director, Gambling Treatment Clinic & School of Psychology

Alex Blaszczynski & Kate Hinsley

Funding Disclosures

› Research grants from direct & indirect gambling-related agencies:

- National & international state, provincial & federal governments

- Australian & international gambling industry operators

- Industry philanthropic grants

› Consultations to:

- Government & industry operators

- Senate submissions to State & Federal governments

› Will accept funding from any source for gambling research: all

donations gratefully accepted5

Why the title of this presentation?

› Assumptions on which presentation is based:

- A proportion of the gambling public suffer significant gambling-

related harms

- All harms are caused by individuals gambling more money

&/or time than affordable

6

Why the title of this presentation?

- Responsible gambling policies & strategies are therefore designed to assist individuals gamble within affordable limits

- These policies & strategies are based on either empirical data or opinions:

“Something needs to be done;This is something;Therefore, this should be done”

7

RG strategies directed to:

› Enhancing INTERNAL player control

- Education/awareness

- Correcting erroneous cognitions

- Stimulus control to avoid temptations

› Imposing EXTERNAL player control

- Mandatory limit & total loss limits

- Venue shutdown periods

- Removal of ATMs

- BREAKS IN PLAY

8

9

Why did we select ‘breaks in play’?

Acknowledgement: Study based on Kate Hinsely’s Honours research project

10

11

› It Makes You Wait

› “…The most genius element of Candy Crush is its ability to

make you long for it. You get five chances (lives).... Once you

run out of lives, you have to wait in 30-minute increments to

continue play. Or, if you’re impatient, you can pay to get back

in the game…”

› …It’s much better from an entertainment point of view to

create a more balanced experience where you have natural

breaks.”

Australian Hotels Association (SA) (undated): Response to Code of Conduct Consultation

› …highly probable that gamblers might increase size or rate of gambling in

anticipation of pending break in play (similar to the “six o’clock” swill in hotels).

› Features: pop up reminders of time spent playing after 60, 90 and 120 minutes, 5-

minute cash out warning at 145 minutes, & mandatory cash out at 150 minutes.

Mandatory cash out is essentially an enforced break in play.

› Researchers from Dalhousie University and Focal Research Consultants, found that

on average:

- Gamblers reduced amount of time spent playing

BUT

- Increased their rate of expenditure such that overall expenditure remained the

same

12

13

Impetus for

reflections on the concept of

‘Break in Play’

If ‘breaks in play’ increase the urge to continue

play in gaming, why do they decrease the urge

in gambling?

14

Theoretical models: increased urges

Can breaks in play be counterproductive?› McConaghy’s (1980) Behaviour Completion Mechanism Model

- Neuronal representation of habitual behaviour established

- Once triggered, drive to complete behaviour (urge/craving) persists until behaviour is completed

- Reduction in urge/craving reinforces neuronal representation

› Tiffany’s (1990) model of drug craving: Arousal & heightened craving when intention to use is thwarted.

- Results in increased focus on object of addiction & intensify craving

- Heightened focus may amplify dissociative experience on resumption & hence act to reinforce behaviours

15

Break in play productive

› Narrowed focus of attention Anderson & Brown (1984)

› General Theory of Addictions

- Hyper- or hypo- arousal states

- Homeostatic equilibrium achieved

through dissociation & escape

from aversive arousal state

- Results in loss of awareness16

(Jacobs,1986)

Theoretical models: Dissociation

Dissociative effects

- Trance-like states induced by immersive electronic gaming machine play

& gaming: Emotional escape

• Diskin & Hodgins (1999), Wood et al. (2007)

• Hussain & Griffiths (2009), Beranuy et al. (2013)

• “Internet gambling highly interactive, minimal distractions, involvement

encouraged through promotions (bonus offers, free credit), capacity to

play multiple games & use of multimedia to enhance entertainment

value”

Gainsbury (2014)

17

What is the implication of dissociation for

responsible gambling policies?

18

Breaks in Play: Responsible Gambling

19

Decision-making: Aim is to have player evaluate behaviour

Loss of

tracking of

money & time

Dissociation

Immersion

Absorption

(Jacobs, 1986)

Break in playAppraisal of

behaviour

20

What constitutes a ‘break in play’?

Types of ‘breaks in play’

1. Suspension of play for unspecified time

- Voluntary

- Imposed

- Suspension play after period of continuous play (30 or 60 min or ‘x’

number of spins)

- Termination of play once precommitment threshold reached

Definition of break in play not clearly specified:

21

Play terminated: Pre-set limit reached

What is a ‘break in play’

22

2. Interference

- Play suspended briefly for pop-up

or scrolling message to appear on-screen

3. Distraction

- Player accessing player information display on screen

- In-venue announcements

Distractions & interference strategies

- Time-related announcements: ‘Courtesy bus will leave at 5:00pm’

Announce morning tea or other non-gambling event

- Require patron to obtain drinks from bar or self-service beverage

- Offer promotions which require patrons to leave their seat

23

Queensland Responsible Gambling Resource Manual (Clubs) (Department of Justice &Attorney-General) & Australian Hotels Association RG Code of Conduct

What is a ‘break in play’

24

2. Interference

- Play suspended briefly for pop-upor scrolling message to appear on-screen

3. Distraction

- Player accessing player information display on screen

- In-venue announcements

4. Interruption

- Social or staff interactions while gambling

What is the evidence for optimal structure & timing of ‘break in play’?

25

• Schellinck & Schrans (2002): Pop-up message froze play for 15

sec after 60, 90, 120 minutes continuous play

• 60 min – small reduction in session length & expenditure

• 50% of participants did not read message & continued play

• 25% suggested pop-reminder had positive effect

• Ladouceur & Sevigny (2003): message appeared 7 sec every 15

trials causing break in play

• Fewer games with break in play with and without message

26

Responsible Gaming Player Protection:

› 888: Global leaders of online gaming entertainment:

› If, at any stage, you become concerned about your gambling behavior, you can request one of the following:

- “Take a Break” for one day

- “Take a Break” for seven days

- “Take a Break” for two weeks

- “Take a Break” for one month

- “Take a Break” for two months

- “Take a Break” for three months

- A six-month self-exclusion period

27http://www.888responsible.com/play-responsibly/player-protection.htm

› Monaghan (2008; 2009); Monaghan & Blaszczynski (2009;2010)

- 15 sec pop‐up during a forced break in play accurately recalled by majority of participants

› Griffiths (2012): 5 minute forced breaks every 60 minutes

› Other studies included additional educational or other interventions

• Overall consensus is that messages & breaks in play are effective in moderating gambling behaviour

28

29

What is the mechanism of action of ‘breaks in

play’?

Content, break in play or interaction?

Informed

choice

Personal

appraisal

Accurate & timely information:

correcting cognitive distortions

Break in play Interrupt

dissociative

state

+/-

Current study: Candy Crush & break in play

Hypotheses tested:

1. That length of break is associated with intensity of cravings

2. That greater dissociation during initial play, the stronger the

craving at beginning of break

3. That increased cravings during break will result in greater

dissociation on resumption of play

31

Aim: To evaluate impact of break in play in absence of monetary

rewards or personal appraisal messaging

Study design

Three minute break

Six minute break

Nine minute break

Continued play

123 undergraduate

students

43%

Age = 19.5

Candy Crush

Random allocation

• 31% play video games daily

• 31% a few times per week

• 38% every few weeks

• 22% had not played Candy Crush

Q1

Dissociation

Craving

Q2

Arousal

Craving

6 min: Q1 4 min Q2

9 min: Q1 6 min Q2

15 minutes play

Baseline

demographics

15 minutes play

3 min: Q1+Q2

Q1

Dissociation

Study findings

› No between group differences on key variables (age, gaming experience)

› Mean Problem Video Game Playing Score = 42.2: comparable to King et al.’s (2011) sample of Australian undergraduates

› Mean playing time = 7.7 hrs. (SD= 10.4)

› Mean Dissociation score = 2.1 (SD=0.83)

34

Results

› Hypo 1: That length of break is associated with intensity of

cravings

- Partial support: Significant increase in cravings found at 9 but not 3 & 6

minute breaks

- Arousal & cravings:

- At low arousal, no change in craving

- Increased craving associated with moderate & high arousal

35

Cravings

Findings

36

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

3 6 9

Ch

an

ge i

n C

rav

ing

Breaks in Play (minutes)

Low Arousal (-1SD)

Moderate Arousal

High Arousal (+1SD)

Results

› Hypo 1:

- Supports theoretical models that externally imposed break is associated with frustration & cravings

- ? Not clear if this applies to subjective &/or physiological arousal

- ? Negative valenced (frustration) or positive valenced (anticipation) arousal states

› Consistent with Jacob’s (1986) theory that hyper-aroused individuals may experience increased cravings in breaks triggered by desire to re-instate homeostatic balance of arousal

37

Cravings

Results

› Hypo 2: Supports Jacob’s (1986) theory

› That greater dissociation during initial play, the stronger the craving at

beginning of break

- Level of dissociation at first session associated with stronger cravings

- Problem gaming scores better predictor of dissociation

- Findings for gaming similar to that postulated for gambling

38

Dissociation

Results

› Hypo 3:

› That increased cravings during break will result in greater

dissociation on resumption of play

- The larger the craving change scores the greater the dissociation at

second session

39

Dissociation

Blackjack

› Blackjack pilot study

› 141 university students (mean age 21 yrs; 45% males)

- Similar design & measures but used: no break, 3 & 8 minute breaks

- Highest score awarded $40 prize to enhance motivation

› Preliminary results

- Craving highest in long break condition

- Short break significantly higher craving scores than no break

- No support found for break in play to reduce feelings of dissociation

- Dissociation positively correlated with craving to continue play40

Cowley, Anthony, Blaszczynski & Hinsley (2015)

Conclusions

› Externally imposed break in play may increase craving &

result in greater experience of dissociation in subsequent

session thereby reinforcing habitual behaviours

› Support for Jacob’s (1086) model that hyper-aroused

individual experience greater cravings when frustrated with

break in play

› Break in play per se may be effective if player initiated, i.e., in

setting voluntary limits (hypothesis to be tested)41

Breaks in play: An irresponsible strategy?

Are imposed ‘breaks in play’ effective in

achieving their objectives?

Director, Gambling Treatment Clinic & School of Psychology

Alex Blaszczynski & Kate Hinsley

To provide session feedback:

• Open New Horizons app

• Select Agenda tile

• Select this session

• Select Take Survey at bottom of screen

If you are unable to download app,

please raise your hand for a paper version