Richard Wood
Dr Richard Wood is a psychologist and the President of GamRes Limited, an international research and consultancy company that develops and evaluates responsible gambling initiatives. Over the last 20 years, he has published numerous gambling related research papers, presented at conferences around the world and undertaken responsible gambling projects for more than 50 gaming companies, regulators and government organizations. He has developed, cutting edge responsible gambling tools such as Gamgard www.gamgard.com, that informs the development of socially responsible game design, as well as www.gamtalk.org a not-for-profit service that provides free online support for people with gambling related issues. Most recently, Dr Wood has spearheaded the concept of Positive Play, which shifts the focus on to encouraging positive, responsible gambling beliefs and behaviors amongst players and he led the development of the Positive Play Scale that helps to optimize responsible gambling strategy
less
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Richard Wood
the critique that such research necessarily involves a conflict of interests. It also offers four
areas that need attention in order to improve transparency in gambling-related research.
players with behavioural feedback about their gambling. Data was obtained from 779
people (n ¼ 694 male; n ¼ 85 female) who gambled online with Svenska Spel (the
Swedish gambling operator) and who opted to receive behavioural feedback via an RG
tool (Playscan). Importantly, data was also obtained from a matched sample of 779
players who did not opt to receive behavioural feedback. Feedback took the form of a
colour-coded risk rating (Green ¼ no issues, Yellow ¼ at-risk, Red ¼ problematic),
which was determined by a proprietary algorithm. Additionally, gambling expenditure
data (amounts deposited and wagered) was gathered for the week in which players
enrolled to use the RG tool, the subsequent week and 24 weeks later (this data was also
gathered for the matched sample). Results showed that Yellow (i.e. at-risk) players who
used the tool significantly reduced the amounts of money deposited and wagered
compared to players who did not use the tool – an effect observed the week following
enrolment as well as 24 weeks later. Thus, informing at-risk players who have opted to
receive feedback about their gambling appears to have a positive impact on subsequent
expenditures.
19) and recovered problem gamblers (n=20). The most highly recommended RG features could be divided into three groups: 1) Player initiated tools focused on aiding player behavior;
2) RG features related to informed-player choice; 3) RG features focused on gaming company actions. Overall, player control over personal limits were favoured more than gaming company
controlled limits, although mandatory use of such features was often recommended. The study found that recommended RG features varied considerably between game types, according to
their structural characteristics. Also, online games had the possibility to provide many more RG features than traditional (offline games). The findings draw together knowledge about the effectiveness of RG features for specific game types. This should aid objective, cost-effective, evidence based decisions on which RG features to include in an RG strategy, according to a
specific portfolio of games. The findings of this study will available via a web-based tool, known as the Responsible Gambling Knowledge Centre (RGKC).
were focused on leisure (e.g., playing for fun, being entertained, and/or winning a prize). By contrast, problem gamblers were much more focused upon modifying mood states (e.g.,
excitement, relaxation, depression and playing when bored or upset). The present study also suggests that online gambling is not, by default, inherently riskier than gambling in more
traditional ways, as online gambling was the most popular media by which positive players gambled. Furthermore, most positive players reported that it was easier to stick to their limits
when playing the National Lottery online compared to traditional retail purchasing of tickets. Problem players were significantly more likely than positive players to gamble with family and friends, suggesting that, contrary to a popular RG message, social play may not be inherently safer than gambling alone. It is proposed that players (generally) may identify
more with the term ‘positive play’ than the term ‘RG’ which is frequently interpreted as being aimed at people with gambling problems, rather than all players.
the critique that such research necessarily involves a conflict of interests. It also offers four
areas that need attention in order to improve transparency in gambling-related research.
players with behavioural feedback about their gambling. Data was obtained from 779
people (n ¼ 694 male; n ¼ 85 female) who gambled online with Svenska Spel (the
Swedish gambling operator) and who opted to receive behavioural feedback via an RG
tool (Playscan). Importantly, data was also obtained from a matched sample of 779
players who did not opt to receive behavioural feedback. Feedback took the form of a
colour-coded risk rating (Green ¼ no issues, Yellow ¼ at-risk, Red ¼ problematic),
which was determined by a proprietary algorithm. Additionally, gambling expenditure
data (amounts deposited and wagered) was gathered for the week in which players
enrolled to use the RG tool, the subsequent week and 24 weeks later (this data was also
gathered for the matched sample). Results showed that Yellow (i.e. at-risk) players who
used the tool significantly reduced the amounts of money deposited and wagered
compared to players who did not use the tool – an effect observed the week following
enrolment as well as 24 weeks later. Thus, informing at-risk players who have opted to
receive feedback about their gambling appears to have a positive impact on subsequent
expenditures.
19) and recovered problem gamblers (n=20). The most highly recommended RG features could be divided into three groups: 1) Player initiated tools focused on aiding player behavior;
2) RG features related to informed-player choice; 3) RG features focused on gaming company actions. Overall, player control over personal limits were favoured more than gaming company
controlled limits, although mandatory use of such features was often recommended. The study found that recommended RG features varied considerably between game types, according to
their structural characteristics. Also, online games had the possibility to provide many more RG features than traditional (offline games). The findings draw together knowledge about the effectiveness of RG features for specific game types. This should aid objective, cost-effective, evidence based decisions on which RG features to include in an RG strategy, according to a
specific portfolio of games. The findings of this study will available via a web-based tool, known as the Responsible Gambling Knowledge Centre (RGKC).
were focused on leisure (e.g., playing for fun, being entertained, and/or winning a prize). By contrast, problem gamblers were much more focused upon modifying mood states (e.g.,
excitement, relaxation, depression and playing when bored or upset). The present study also suggests that online gambling is not, by default, inherently riskier than gambling in more
traditional ways, as online gambling was the most popular media by which positive players gambled. Furthermore, most positive players reported that it was easier to stick to their limits
when playing the National Lottery online compared to traditional retail purchasing of tickets. Problem players were significantly more likely than positive players to gamble with family and friends, suggesting that, contrary to a popular RG message, social play may not be inherently safer than gambling alone. It is proposed that players (generally) may identify
more with the term ‘positive play’ than the term ‘RG’ which is frequently interpreted as being aimed at people with gambling problems, rather than all players.