Skip to main content
Log in

Blame It on Reno: a Commentary on Hancock and Smith

  • Commentary
  • Published:
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we provide a commentary on Hancock and Smith’s critique of the Reno model of responsible gambling. In our view, Hancock and Smith raise many legitimate concerns about the progress of gambling policy reform. Most attempts at minimising the harm associated with higher risk gambling products such as EGMs have been based on responsible gambling principles rather than a true consumer protection framework. As a result, much of the emphasis has been on modifying individual behaviour rather than significant reforms relating to industry operations, practices and the nature of the products. On the whole, we endorse these views. However, we argue that the paper depicts developments in research and policy a bit too selectively and also imputes too many causal links between the Reno model and other activities in the gambling sector. Some reforms and research topics identified in the paper have been discussed, investigated or implemented in some jurisdictions. Other issues including the slow replacement cycle of gambling technology and the structure of the gaming industry may also need to be considered as barriers to reform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., & Walker, M. (2001). The assessment of the impact of the reconfiguration on electronic gaming machines as harm minimisation strategies for problem gambling. University of Sydney, Gambling Research Unit.

  • Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: the Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, M., Honeyfield, N., & Whitehead, G. (2003). Change in bank note acceptors on electronic gaming machines in Queensland: outcome evaluation. Brisbane: Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfabbro, P. H., & King, D. (2017). Gambling is not a capitalist conspiracy: a critical examination of literature on the ‘industry state gambling complex’. International Gambling Studies.

  • Delfabbro, P. H., & Winefield, A. H. (1999). Poker machine gambling: an analysis of within session characteristics. British journal of psychology, 90, 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, M. G. (1993). Internal and external determinants of persistent gambling: problems in generalising from one form of gambling to another. Journal of gambling studies, 9, 225–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, M. G., Hinchy, J., England, S. L., Fabre, J., & Cunningham, R. (1992). On the determinants of persistent gambling behaviour. High-frequency poker machine players. British journal of psychology, 83, 237–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eadington, W. (2003). Trends in gambling and responsible gambling in the United States and elsewhere. www.unr.edu/gaming. Retrieved May 15, 2017

  • Ladouceur, R., & Mayrand, M. (1984). Evaluation of the illusion of control: type of feedback, outcome sequence, and number of trials amongst regular and occasional gamblers. Journal of Psychology, 117, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, C., & Woolley, R. (2007). Risky business: a few provocations on the regulation of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 7, 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham, F., & Young, M. (2014). “Big gambling”: the rise of the global industry-state gambling complex. Addiction Research and Theory, 23, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reith, G. (2007). Gambling and the contradictions of consumption: a genealogy of the “pathological subject”. American behavioral scientist, 51, 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockloff, M., Hing, N., Donaldson, P., Li, E., Browne, M., & Langham, E. (2014). The impact of electronic gaming machine jackpots on gambling behaviour. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schottler Consulting. (2014). Impact of the structural characteristics of electronic gaming machines (EGMs). Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, G. D. (2004). Is addiction to gambling relevant in sentencing? Criminal law journal, 28, 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A., Pfeifer, J., Moore, S., Meyer, D., Yap, L., & Armstrong, A. (2013). Evaluation of the removal of ATMs from gaming venues in Victoria, Australia. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuffin, A. & Parr, V. (2008). Evaluation of the 6-hour shutdown of electronic gaming machines in NSW. Report prepared for the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing by Bluemoon Research.

  • Williamson, A., & Walker, M. (2001). Strategies for solving the insoluble: Playing to win Queen of the Nile. In G. Coman (Ed.), Lessons of the past: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies (pp. 444–452). Mildura.

  • Young, M., Markham, F., & Doran, B. (2012). Too close to home? The relationships between residential distance to venue and gambling outcomes. International gambling studies, 12(2), 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Delfabbro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delfabbro, P., King, D.L. Blame It on Reno: a Commentary on Hancock and Smith. Int J Ment Health Addiction 15, 1203–1208 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9777-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9777-4

Keywords

Navigation