See more of G&M News on Google
Add as a preferred source
By Diana Guerrero, journalist at G&M News.
From your perspective, what are the most pressing questions that current gambling research needs to address?
That depends on who you ask, but from the conferences I’ve attended or hosted with ICRG and the stakeholders I’ve talked to, the most pressing question seems to be: “What actually improves people’s lives?” At a fundamental level, we still need to better understand who develops gambling problems, why those problems emerge, and which responses or interventions help people at particular points in their lives. I would also like to see more research focused on understanding the success of current responsible gambling programming. A message being delivered or a tool being used tells us something about reach and engagement but doesn’t necessarily establish whether people experience greater control, fewer harms, or improvements in well-being. For research, this means continuing to support fundamental science alongside practical studies of prevention, treatment, and responsible gambling tools, while creating stronger connections between them. ICRG’s funded research portfolio reflects that breadth. Our Centers of Excellence allow researchers to investigate an area in depth. For example, we have Sally Gainsbury’s work at the University of Sydney on engagement with technology-based consumer protection tools, and Lia Nower’s work at Rutgers on risk pathways among emerging adults. Independent research is essential to answering pressing questions honestly, including when the findings challenge existing practice.
Have the industry’s rapid digital transformation and the expansion of online gaming changed research priorities?
Most definitely, as it has created more questions for research! Digital gambling has changed the environments we need to study, the speed at which products evolve, and the opportunities to deliver support. There are factors and features in the digital environment that need to be examined, including continuous access, rapid betting opportunities, and personalized promotions. We need to understand how these features interact with people’s motivations and circumstances. Doing so can help distinguish the effects of particular features from the characteristics of the people who use them. Digital environments also create new opportunities to test interventions within the actual gambling experience. With technology, a prompt, an activity statement, or a limit-setting invitation can be delivered at a particular moment and evaluated over time. However, I would also caution that research needs to be both responsive and cumulative. While we have to investigate emerging products, we need to continue researching the underlying processes that make gambling risky for some people.
Research into problem gambling has evolved significantly over the years. What are the most important advances in understanding gambling-related harm, and what gaps in scientific knowledge still need to be addressed?
Developing research, we have a better understanding of the different pathways through which gambling problems can emerge. Biological vulnerability, learning, emotional difficulties, social circumstances, and the gambling environment can interact in different ways. We have also built a more useful evidence base for identifying problems and providing support. For example, psychological approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy offer practical ways to address gambling-related thoughts and behaviors. However, evidence that an approach can help does not resolve questions about access, sustained benefit, or how to engage people who are reluctant to seek help. The gaps I would emphasize are long-term outcomes, the effectiveness of prevention in everyday settings, and how well findings apply across communities. Addressing these gaps requires sustained investment, because following people over time and evaluating programs across different settings takes considerable time, funding, and collaboration.
One of the industry’s biggest challenges is translating scientific findings into effective responsible gambling policies. How can operators, regulators, and other stakeholders better incorporate research evidence into their everyday practices and decision-making?
ICRG works to address this challenge by funding independent research and bringing that evidence into education through our conference, webinars, and other resources. However, I understand that knowledge translation can be difficult and involves more than distributing findings at a conference. At a fundamental level, researchers need to understand the practical decisions stakeholders face, and stakeholders need to be willing to change course when the evidence warrants it. This exchange requires ongoing opportunities for researchers and stakeholders to learn from one another, something ICRG works to support through its educational programs. One aspect that may immediately help is to build evaluation into research and decisions from the beginning. Before introducing a policy or intervention, involve researchers to help define the problem, explain why the proposed response should help, and decide how improvement will be measured.
As online gaming platforms collect increasingly sophisticated player data, what opportunities does this create for identifying risky gambling behaviors and intervening earlier? What safeguards are necessary to ensure these tools are effective and responsible?
With player data, you can observe changes over time and potentially identify moments when early support may be useful. However, I would stress that account records provide only part of the picture. They do not directly tell us how someone feels, what they can afford, or what is happening elsewhere in their life. Any algorithm or AI system using these data needs to be evaluated to determine whether it identifies meaningful risk, how often it misses people or flags them incorrectly, and whether it works across different groups. The next step is then to evaluate any interventions as well, to ensure they actually help. The safeguards I would expect include clear limits on data use, strong privacy and security protections, independent scrutiny, and appropriate human oversight. Most importantly, information collected to protect a player should not be repurposed to exploit that person. Any intervention needs to be proportionate, understandable, and respectful.
How important is education in preventing gambling-related harm, and which audiences should be prioritized?
Education is an essential component of prevention, but we should be precise about our expectations. For example, someone can understand the odds and still struggle to control their betting. To be effective, education needs to connect knowledge with practical skills, accessible tools, and a clear route to support. In terms of audiences, I think young people and emerging adults deserve particular attention. This would also include parents, educators, coaches, and others who influence their environments. The key is to reach young people early, in developmentally appropriate ways, so they can critically understand gambling and gambling-like products they may encounter. Education can open a conversation, help people recognize concerns, and make it easier to seek support before problems escalate.
What role should gaming operators, regulators, academic institutions, and industry associations play in building a stronger culture of responsible gambling?
That’s a big question, but I think each group has a distinct responsibility. Operators can embed player protection in everyday decisions, provide access to data for independent research, and evaluate the effects of their practices. Regulators can establish clear expectations and require credible evidence of responsible gambling implementation and outcomes. Academic institutions can help create evidence based on which operational and policy decisions are made, as well as conduct rigorous evaluations, train researchers, and make findings accessible. Finally, industry associations can help spread learning and champion best practices across organizations. This cooperation requires clear boundaries that protect scientific independence. At ICRG, proposals undergo independent peer review, and final funding decisions rest with our independent Scientific Advisory Board. Donors do not select grant recipients or control research findings, and researchers retain the freedom to conduct and publish their work. Those safeguards are central to the value we bring. Lastly, I think we also need more meaningful participation from people with lived experience, treatment providers, and communities, including respect for Tribal sovereignty and community priorities. To build a culture of responsible gambling, people should have a role in shaping the questions and responses that affect them. People with lived experience should have meaningful opportunities to shape research from the outset, including the questions asked, the outcomes measured, and how findings are interpreted and applied.
