Arthur B. Paikowsky: “Self-exclusion works, but it doesn’t work for everyone”

Self-exclusion programs are a hot topic in regulated markets. Today, we have the opportunity to speak with International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG) President Arthur B. Paikowsky who explains how self-exclusion programs have evolved over time and what they have been able to achieve.

In short, self-exclusion programs have been a helpful tool for some but not all people experiencing gambling harm and problems controlling their habits. Even in the instances involving people violating self-exclusion programs, gamblers have reported getting better over time thanks to the decision to join the self-exclusion program.

To make a more significant impact in helping vulnerable gamblers, however, more research is necessary to understand self-exclusion and consumer habits. Paikowsky discusses this with us today, offering his unique insight into the matter.

Q: Arthur, self-exclusion programs are an almost universal tool in tackling problem gambling around the world. Do you think they are efficient?

The question should be is voluntary self-exclusion safe and is it effective in helping reduce gambling problems. The research we have indicates that it is safe, and it can be an effective means of starting recovery for some, not all, people. But we lack studies that look at the long-term effects, that determine who is most likely to benefit from self-exclusion, or what additional support is helpful.

Q: Have self-exclusion programs been evolving in the way they try to help consumers stay protected?

Thinking about the length of the ban from the gaming venue has evolved. In the beginning, lifetime bans were common. But as addiction research shows, that is a daunting prospect for someone who may be ambivalent about quitting the addictive behavior—and most people with addiction are ambivalent. The result is that a person may reject this strategy because the prospect of a lifetime commitment is overwhelming. Consequently, operators and regulators have shortened the duration of the ban and even provided a mechanism by which a self-excluded person could request reinstatement. Although leaving behind a lifetime ban is progress, there remain many questions. What is the optimal length of time for a ban? Should people who self-exclude receive therapy or brief interventions?

Q: What do you think can still be improved to make these programs a more efficient tool in helping people who suffer from gambling-related harm overcome the issues?

Some research indicates that people do best when treatment is provided. But we need more research to establish that.

Q: One suggestion is continued support and addressing problem gambling as a complex issue – do you think national exclusion programs can one day become these more comprehensive solutions or do you think there are challenges that cannot be overcome?

When the ICRG funded a research project on the Missouri self-exclusion program, we learned that many of the enrolled individuals visited casinos without being caught or simply crossed state borders in order to continue gambling. What was significant was that in spite of violating the terms of self-exclusion, most of these people got better over time. This told us that the value of the program was allowing people to make a positive decision about their gambling and not the fear of "trespassing." We should view self-exclusion as a therapeutic program, not a punitive one.

Anyway, a national program would prevent people from crossing state boundaries. But based on the Missouri study that might not be as important as supplying emotional support to people enrolled in the program in the form of traditional therapy or even brief, occasional calls from counselors or peers. The ICRG is fortunate to have received support from GeoComply to fund more research on self-exclusion that will answer these questions.

Q: What is your prediction about the future of responsible gambling at a time when rapid legalization and re-regulation in places is putting an ever-stronger emphasis on responsible gambling?

I think that the industry is more supportive than ever of responsible gambling programs. We have raised money from gaming companies for specific research on responsible gambling and that is a new experience for ICRG. The industry is very committed to learning about what works and what doesn’t work in responsible gambling.

Image credit: Casino Guru News