1. Toward a fuller understanding of drivers of online gambling intention
Jirka Konietzny, PhD student,
Industrial Marketing, Luleå University of Technology
[SAY]
Hello everyone,
Who of you has every played on an online gambling website? It doesn’t matter if it’s Poker, Bingo, Lottery, Casino… etc. (show of hands). Thank you!
Those of you who showed your hands will know that there are loads of different online gambling websites out there - more than 3600 last time I checked! - and their number is growing.
I am interested in what drives us to visit and revisit gambling websites - Why do we play? - and aim to find out by using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

2. Disclosure PhD student at Luleå University of Technology, Sweden
Working in the gambling industry
No funding received

3. Introduction Growth of online entertainment services
Tougher regulation of online gambling
Increasing concerns about fairness
Enjoyment and entertainment
CRM Manager
Growth of online entertainment services
Changes in website design and technology have facilitated the rise of so-called “Web 2.0”
More user-generated content - the likes of MySpace, Facebook, Youtube… but also more responsive and interactive websites for entertainment purposes
Adult entertainment usually earlier adopters and pioneers when it comes to new technology (VR pornography case in point)
Online gambling is a service
intangible;
it is virtually inseparable, because customer has to actively play in order to benefit from the service (pre-betting may be an exception),
produced ‘live’ and prone to considerable service variability (outcome of games) that renders the development of strong brands difficult (Palmer 2014) -
Perishable, because it’s produced and consumed at the same time - excess capacity cannot be stored
In other words: value is co-created
Online gambling industry is a lucrative and growing business, especially in Europe.
Main markets: Sweden, Finland, Norway, UK, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany
Increasing regulation of online gambling
Malta regulated since 2001 (first in Europe!)
UK Gambling Commission 2005
Tough!
Denmark regulated since 2010
Sweden 2019
Norway/Finland?
Escalating concerns about fairness
Questionable pastime, however many people enjoy gambling and most of the population are casual gamblers.
Promotions may sometimes be unfair, terms and conditions may be misleading, the way bonuses are granted to customers is invisible to the customer and may thus be perceived as unfair.
People think that there’s an “On/Off” switch, that the casino can turn to make more profit
Customers are concerned about monetary transactions, fairness of games and products as well as reputation of firm
Enjoyment and entertainment
Yet, customers also enjoy playing/betting
It’s a form of entertainment, after all
There’s research that suggests that there might even be a sort of therapeutic value in the monotony of gambling (Binde, 2005)
CRM Manager
I work for an online gambling company and have been working in the industry since 2014

4. Theoretical foundation
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
TRA
TpB
C-TAM-TPB
TAM 2
UTAUT
UTAUT2
TAM
TRA (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975)
TpB (Ajzen 1985)
TAM (Davis 1985)
Combined TAM and TpB (Taylor and Todd 1995)
TAM 2 (Venkatesh and Davis 2000)
UTAUT (Venkatesh et al. 2003)
UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al. 2012)

6. Enjoyment
Enjoyment and gambling in information systems (TAM) (Ernst, Hock, Rothlauf, 2015)
Enjoyment positively influences behaviour intention (Cyr, et al., 2007; Hassanein and Head, 2004)
Hedonic vs. utilitarian systems (Van der Heijden, 2004)
Gambling can be hedonic and utilitarian (Ackermann & Teichert, 2016)
Anticipation of fun and enjoyment in gambling (Young & Wohl, 2009)
Enjoyment as immediate outcome of gambling (Gillespie, Derevensky & Gupta, 2007)
Fun and enjoyment as markers for recreational gambling vs problem gambling (Egerer & Marionneau, 2015)

7. Fairness
Fairness is defined as “an individual’s perception about the output/input ratio, the procedure that produces the outcome and the quality of interpersonal treatment” (C.-M. Chiu, et al., 2009, p. 349)
Distributive
Procedural
Interactional
UKGC and the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) announced an investigation into the fairness of the terms and conditions offered by online betting firms (Rodionova, 2016)
UKGC fined operator £300,000 for unfair advertising
“Gambling operators must treat customers fairly” (Gambling Commission chief executive Sarah Harrison, 2017)
In a business where random-number generators, or slot machines, dominate, it is not surprising that players request assurance that they are being treated fairly and in a transparent manner. Lawmakers, regulators and licensing bodies also look at fairness and transparency as important features.

9. Original constructs + additions
(1) Performance Expectancy (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012)
(2) Effort Expectancy (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
(3) Facilitating Conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2012);
(4) Social Norms (Moore & Ohtsuka, 1999)
(5) Hedonic Motivation (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
(6) Price Value (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
(7) Habit (Venkatesh et al., 2012)
Two additional constructs are proposed to better explain gambling intentions:
(1) Anticipated Enjoyment (amended after van der Heijden, 2004)
(2) Perceived Fairness (inspired by Chiu, Lin, Sun, & Hsu, 2009)
(1) Performance Expectancy (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012) assesses the utilitarian value of online gambling; (2) Effort Expectancy gauges the expected ease of use of online gambling websites; (3) Facilitating Conditions capture whether customers have the means to use gambling websites (Venkatesh et al., 2012); (4) Social Norms (Moore & Ohtsuka, 1999) condition the extent to which customers are impacted by how significant others look at online gambling; and (5) the Habit construct (Venkatesh et al., 2012) accounts for how accustomed customers are with using gambling websites. In addition, this research proposes two additional constructs to UTAUT 2 that can potentially better explain betting intentions. These are: (1) Anticipated Enjoyment (amended after van der Heijden, 2004) which considers the hedonic motivations for gambling online, and (2) in response to increasing concerns about fairness (Ahmed & Megaw, 2016; UKGC, 2017), the multidimensional construct Perceived Fairness (inspired by Chiu, Lin, Sun, & Hsu, 2009) is also incorporated.

10. Outline
(1) Performance Expectancy (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012) assesses the utilitarian value of online gambling;
(2) Effort Expectancy gauges the expected ease of use of online gambling websites,;
(3) Facilitating Conditions capture whether customers have the means to use gambling websites (Venkatesh et al., 2012);
(4) Social Norms (Moore & Ohtsuka, 1999) condition the extent to which customers are impacted by how significant others look at online gambling; and
(5) the Habit construct (Venkatesh et al., 2012) accounts for how accustomed customers are with using gambling websites.
In addition, this research proposes two additional constructs to UTAUT 2 that can potentially better explain betting intentions. These are:
(1) Anticipated Enjoyment (amended after van der Heijden, 2004) which considers the hedonic motivations for gambling online, and
(2) in response to increasing concerns about fairness (Ahmed & Megaw, 2016; UKGC, 2017), the multidimensional construct Perceived Fairness (inspired by Chiu, Lin, Sun, & Hsu, 2009) is also incorporated.

11. Demographics Gender (n = 696): 65% male Age (n = 691): 39 (SD = 10)
No. gambling websites (n = 635):
5 (SD = 3)
Experience (n = 705):
7 (SD = 5)
Started to gamble (n = 688):
32 (SD = 11)
COO (n = 700):
39% UK; 18% Finland; 17% Sweden
Education (n = 683):
36% secondary school; 33% university; 23% diploma/vocational
Occupation (n = 698):
29% Skilled manual employee; 22% Unemployed/Homemaker/State dependent; 20% middle or senior manager; 11% Semi-skilled/Unskilled manual employee

13. Structural Model Results: UTAUT 2, and amended UTAUT 2 (UTAUT 2 G)
DV: Gambling Intention
UTAUT 2 (D only)
UTAUT 2 (D + I)
UTAUT 2 G (D only)
UTAUT 2 G (D + I) R2
0.172
0.237
0.261
0.316
Adj. R2
0.162
0.178
0.25
0.26
Performance Expectancy (PE)
0.007
0.015
-0.028
-0.024
Effort Expectancy (EE)
0.284***
0.291***
0.222***
0.218***
Social Norms (SN)
-0.048
-0.057
-0.043
-0.051
Facilitating Conditions (FC)
0.076
0.084
0.067
0.081
Hedonic Motivation (HM)
0.117
0.111
-0.017
Price Value (PV)
-0.069
-0.075
-0.104*
-0.111
Habit (HAB)
0.103*
0.069
0.117**
0.078
Anticipated Enjoyment (AntEnj)
0.374***
0.364***
Perceived Fairness (PerFair)
-0.02
-0.009
Gender (GEN)
0.133
0.339
Age (AGE)
0.145
0.254
Experience (EXP)
-0.105
0.493

14. DV: Anticipated Enjoyment
DV: Effort Expectancy
UTAUT 2
(D only)
(D + I)
UTAUT 2 G R2
0.125
0.149
Adj. R2
0.124
0.145
Experience (EXP)
0.097*
Perceived Fairness (PerFair)
0.354***
0.367***
PerFair x EXP
-0.085
DV: Anticipated Enjoyment
0.225
0.223
0.474***
Social Norms (SN)
0.019
DV: Social Norms
0.092
0.09
0.303***
D only = direct effects only; D + I = direct and indirect interaction terms
* p <.05
** p <.01
*** p <.001

15. HTMT Ratio
Construct PE EE SN
SN_Fam
SN_Fnds FC HM PV
HAB
AntEnj
PerFair DF PF IF
Performance Expectancy (PE)
Effort Expectancy (EE)
0.171
Social Norms (SN)
0.379
0.175
Social Norms Family (SN_Fam)
0.314
1.104
Social Norms Friends (SN_Fnds)
0.366
0.133
1.015
0.649
Facilitating Conditions (FC)
0.241
0.552
0.263
0.228
0.242
Hedonic Motivation (HM)
0.335
0.443
0.186
0.159
0.174
0.558
Price Value (PV)
0.447
0.238
0.467
0.407
0.428
0.491
0.582
Habit (HAB)
0.424
0.235
0.157
0.191
0.081
0.31
0.323
0.17
Anticipated Enjoyment (AntEnj)
0.306
0.384
0.184
0.172
0.403
0.578
Perceived Fairness (PerFair)
0.395
0.405
0.351
0.311
0.315
0.604
0.611
0.743
0.19
0.515
Distributive Fairness (DF)
0.518
0.348
0.459
0.402
0.419
0.532
0.535
0.843
0.148
0.489
0.953
Procedural Fairness (PF)
0.308
0.305
0.254
0.221
0.233
0.485
0.473
0.596
0.434
0.998
0.695
Interactional Fairness (IF)
0.162
0.389
0.169
0.161
0.138
0.563
0.439
0.391
0.871
0.527
0.657
Gambling Intention (GI)
0.408
0.042
0.035
0.04
0.258
0.276
0.084
0.216
0.42
0.198
0.146
0.142
0.226
All constructs meet the conservative criteria of HTMT.85 (Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2015)*.
* The HTMT for Social Norms and Perceived Fairness with their dimensions are close to or greater than 1 because these are conceptualised as second order constructs and their dimensions cannot therefore be highly discriminating.

16. Thank you