Supervisors: A/Prof Samantha Thomas and Dr Priscilla Robinson Personal responsibility rhetoric in policy responses to gambling: the views of people with lived experience of gambling addiction Helen Miller PhD Candidate Supervisors: A/Prof Samantha Thomas and Dr Priscilla Robinson

Declaration of Interests Helen Miller is an employee of the Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation and during much of this project was an employee of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. The authors have no other conflicts to declare.

Responsible gambling

Background Gambling addiction has been shown by previous research to be highly stigmatised. There has been limited research on the causes of stigma associated with gambling addiction. Research in other areas has shown that a focus on personal responsibility may increase stigma. Social marketing campaigns for gambling based on responsible gambling have not been evaluated, including for unintended consequences such as stigma.

Methodology In depth interviews with 26 people with lived experience of problem gambling on gaming machines All working in peer support and advocacy Interviews covered Public discussions of gambling Responsible gambling Community views of people with gambling problems Consumer consultation to test findings and interpretations

Responsible Gambling and personal responsibility All participants understood responsible gambling to refer to the behaviour of individual gamblers. Participants thought discussions of responsible gambling were used to emphasise the role of gamblers in producing gambling harm, and avoiding an emphasis on the addictive nature of EGMs. It just takes away from the product and puts it on the person. As opposed to saying these machines are highly addictive... It's more about just taking personal responsibility for the product. (Male, PGSI 0)

Contrasting problem and Responsible gambling Those who gambled responsibly were portrayed by messaging strategies positively as being “in control”, “self-restrained” and “sensible”. As a result of public discussions of responsible gambling, participants perceived that the that those who developed problems with gambling were “irresponsible” and “weak” because they had “lost control” over their gambling.

Impact of focusing on personal responsibility Focusing on personal responsibility created a public perception that gamblers should be able to control their gambling. Focusing on responsible gambling led to negative public attitudes towards people with gambling problem as “stupid”, “idiots” or “morons”. This led to participants being blamed and shamed for the gambling problems: It's putting all the emphasis on the gambler... instead of taking some ownership of the issues that many people have. They just blame the person for being weak, really. You know? If you can't gamble responsibly, then it's your fault. (Female, PGSI 0)

Impacts of stigma Some participants internalised responsible gambling messages and as a result experienced feelings of self-stigma. Participants said gamblers felt “weak” and “irresponsible” as a result of these messages. Participants thought that responsible gambling messages made them feel they were to blame for their gambling problems,: [People with gambling problems] feel that there's something wrong with them... that they're not gambling responsibly (female, PGSI 4)

Effectiveness of responsible gambling Participants universally thought that promoting responsible gambling was ineffective in reducing harm from gambling. One participant said: If somebody is being impacted in a negative way by gambling, then it’s just a ludicrous term. Once you’re there and you’re in front of that machine, you’re going to access whatever you can to do whatever you can to be there for as long as you can. (Female, PGSI 5)

Implications Focusing on responsible gambling is likely to increase stigma associated with gambling addiction and may not be effective in reducing harm. Social marketing campaigns for gambling should avoid focusing on personal responsibility. Social marketing campaigns for reducing harm from gambling should be comprehensively evaluated, including for unintended consequences and impact on stigma.