Robert Ladouceur's presentation "Self-Exclusion and the Court: Recent Developments and their Implications for Responsible Gambling". Part of a panel discussion at the New Horizons in Responsible Gambling conference, January 28-30, 2013 in Vancouver, BC.

1. Self-Exclusion and the Court: Recent Developments
and their Implications for Responsible Gambling
New Horizons in Responsible
Gambling Conference Robert Ladouceur, Ph.D.,
Professor Emeritus,
Laval University,
Québec, Canada.
Vancouver, B.C.,
January 28-30, 2013
Tuesday 29th, 10:50-11:50

2. Outline
1. Brief reminder of what is Responsible
Gambling
• Different pathways to achieve RG
• The most important progress made over the last 3
decades in the field of gambling
2. Main results of Self-Exclusion trials
3. Responsibility issues
4. Conclusions and questions
www.ulaval.ca 2

3. What is Responsible Gambling?
Responsible Gambling is defined as
a set of policies and practices
designed to prevent and reduce
potential harms associated with
gambling
This can be achieved only by
restricting gambling expenditure
to affordable limits.
www.ulaval.ca

4. More specifically…
When we achieve this goal, the
incidence of problem gambling is
eventually reduced (that is, the development
of new cases of problem gamblers over a period of
time).
www.ulaval.ca

5. But how can we achieve this goal?
www.ulaval.ca

6. Tim Stockwell’s pathways
Stockwell (2006) suggested three
pathways, but from a broader
perspective, we have only 2
options or perspectives for
gambling related problems, and
they are not necessarily mutually
exclusive
(Harm minimization can’t be applied to
gambling-related problems)
www.ulaval.ca

7. Supply Reduction: The first pathway
Strategies that are intended to
reduce
the availability or accessibility of a
product.
www.ulaval.ca

8. Demand Reduction: Second pathway
Strategies aimed to motivate users to
consume less overall and/or less per
occasion.
Targeting the individual/gambling
activities.
www.ulaval.ca

9. What is the main difference between
Supply Reduction
and
Demand Reduction
www.ulaval.ca

10. Versus
Internal External
Control Control
www.ulaval.ca 10

11. Demand reduction Supply reduction
Versus
Internal External
Control Control
www.ulaval.ca 11

12. Where should we
MAINLY focus our
interventions?
Internal Control
www.ulaval.ca 12

13. What is the major
progress we have made
over the last 3 decades in
the field of gambling?
www.ulaval.ca 13

14. Beyond any doubt, it is
our commitment to
Empirical research
www.ulaval.ca 14

15. Empirical research as indicated in the
following areas
1. Publication outlets:
International Gambling Studies
Journal of Gambling Studies
Journal of Gambling Issues
Asian Journal of Gambling Issues and Public Health
Addiction and other important Journals
2. Number of grants in the field of Gambling
3. Number of researchers and clinicians
4. The use of empirically validated treatment
5. The number of important conferences and meetings
www.ulaval.ca 15

16. Why is Self-Exclusion an Important RG
procedure?
For at least 3 reasons
1. Based on internal control
2. Few PG will seek professional
help (3% per yr)
3. Some empirical or scientific
support has been found
www.ulaval.ca

17. What is self-exclusion
1. The patron approach an employee of the
venue
2. The patron signs a self-exclusion
agreement and indicates a length of time
3. The patron engages him or herself not
to come back in the venue
4. If the patron breaches, and the staff
identifies the patron, the staff will walk
the gambler out of the venue.
www.ulaval.ca

18. Main Findings of 7 studies
• The urge to gamble is significantly reduced during the SE period
• The perception of control over gambling is significantly
increased
• The amount of time and money spent gambling is reduced
during the SE period
• The intensity of negative consequences from gambling is
significantly reduced
• Scores on the main instruments used to identify and diagnose
gambling disorders (SOGS and DSM-IV) showed a significant
reduction on gambling related problems.
• About 25 to 30% of the pathological gamblers at the
time of entering SE do not meet this criterion after a
period of 6 or 12 months
www.ulaval.ca

19. Main Findings Over Time
Limitations
• At the 6, 12, and 24 month about 40% to
50% had breached their contract at least once.
• One comment expressed by many SE
patrons is that they felt alone during the
SE period.
We can address this issue during the
discussion period
www.ulaval.ca

20. And what about the responsibility…
www.ulaval.ca

21. Responsibility
• We should never forget that the ultimate decision to gamble or
not gamble belongs to the individual.
• Voluntary self exclusion (as labeled in BC) a personal decision,
relying on the individual’s responsibility to comply with it.
• Operators should offer a variety of RG measures on a
voluntary basis.
• Operators have the responsibility to offer RG measures that
are based on a scientific rather than on a political agenda.
www.ulaval.ca

22. Responsibility
• Operators should have some effective procedures
to identify SE breachers.
• Operators have the responsibility to examine which
procedures are the most effective to achieve this
goal
www.ulaval.ca

23. And what about the responsibility…
• When exclusion is filled by a third party, the
operators and/or the policy makers have the
responsibility to evaluate such a procedure in order
to avoid iatrogenic or negative unexpected effects.
www.ulaval.ca

24. Do you agree with me?
Thank You
Robert.Ladouceur@psy.ulaval.ca
www.ulaval.ca 24