Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30145779›Full record

ArticleJournal of gambling studies2019

Where's the Bonus in Bonus Bets? Assessing Sports Bettors' Comprehension of their True Cost.

Nerilee Hing, Matthew Browne, Alex M T Russell, Nancy Greer, Anna Thomas, Rebecca Jenkinson, Matthew Rockloff

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Sports betting around the world: A systematic review.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Gender Differences in Problem Gamblers in an Online Gambling Setting.Psychology research and behavior management · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nerilee HingExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive, Bundaberg, QLD, 4670, Australia. n.hing@cqu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2150-9784
Matthew BrowneExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive, Bundaberg, QLD, 4670, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2668-6229
Alex M T RussellExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive, Bundaberg, QLD, 4670, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3685-7220
Nancy GreerExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive, Bundaberg, QLD, 4670, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6045-1984
Anna ThomasAustralian Gambling Research Centre, Australian Institute for Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia.
Rebecca JenkinsonAustralian Gambling Research Centre, Australian Institute for Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9948-9448
Matthew RockloffExperimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive, Bundaberg, QLD, 4670, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0080-2690

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wagering inducements with bonus bets are prominently marketed and often have play-through conditions requiring further expenditure. However, these conditions are not usually presented in the inducement advertisement and may be difficult to locate. The play-through conditions themselves are complex and may lead bettors to miscalculate the inducement's true cost. Therefore, in relation to inducements with bonus bets, this study aimed to assess: (1) whether their perceived attractiveness varies with the amount and type of information provided about their play-through conditions; (2) bettors' comprehension of their true cost; and (3) whether bettors' comprehension of their true cost varies with problem gambling severity. A sample of 299 Australian sports bettors completed an online survey and rated the attractiveness of three variations of an inducement. Promo1 simply noted that "terms and conditions apply"; promo2 included the terms and conditions immediately below the offer; and promo3 revealed the true cost of the offer. Respondents were asked to calculate the true cost before this was revealed. The study found that detailing key terms and conditions for an offer directly below the advertisement impacts negatively on its perceived attractiveness. Moreover, nearly three in five bettors underestimated the additional amount they would need to bet to access any winnings from the bonus bet. No significant differences were found amongst gambler risk groups. The results imply that current approaches to marketing these inducements are likely to lead consumers to overestimate their attractiveness and underestimate their cost. To enhance responsible gambling practice, these promotional offers should be presented in ways that enable informed decision-making.

Indexed as

ComprehensionMarketingAdultAustraliaGamblingHealth ExpendituresHumansMotivationRisk FactorsSportsAdvertisingConsumer protectionGamblingInducementsInformed choiceMarketingPromotionsResponsible gamblingSports bettingWagering

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.