PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

370

Title *

How does the phrasing of house edge information affect gamblers’ perceptions and level of understanding? A Registered Reportuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Philip Newall, Richard James, Olivia MaynardPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<p>The provision of information to consumers is a common input to tackling various public health issues. By comparison to the information given on food and alcohol products, information on gambling products is either not given at all, or shown in low-prominence locations in a suboptimal format, e.g., the “return-to-player” format, “this game has an average percentage payout of 90%”. Some previous research suggests that it would be advantageous to communicate this information via the “house edge” format instead: the average loss from a given gambling product, e.g., “this game keeps 10% of all money bet on average”. However, previous empirical work on the house edge format only uses this specific phrasing, and there may be better ways of communicating house edge information. The present work experimentally tested this original phrasing of the house edge against an alternative phrasing that has also been proposed, “on average this game is programmed to cost you 10% of your stake on each bet”, while both phrasings were also compared against equivalent return-to-player information (N = 3,333 UK-based online gamblers). The two dependent measures were gamblers’ perceived chances of winning and a measure of participants’ correct understanding. Preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/5npy9 (date of in-principle acceptance: 28/11/2022). The alternative house edge phrasing resulted in the lowest perceived chances of winning, but the original phrasing had the highest rate of correct understanding. Compared to return-to-player information, the original phrasing had both lower perceived chances of winning and higher rates of correct understanding, while the alternative phrasing had only lower perceived chances of winning. These results replicated prior work on the advantages of the original house edge phrasing over return-to-player information, while showing that the alternative house edge phrasing has advantageous properties for gamblers’ perceived chances of winning only. The optimal communication of risk information can act as an input to a public health approach to reducing gambling-related harm.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Public health; gambling; open science; risk information

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-01-09 14:56:36

Recommender

Charlotte Pennington

Reviewers

Zhang Chen

or Register
Submit a report