ArticleJournal of gambling studies2026
(Mis)Comprehension and (Mistaken) Attractiveness of Financial Gambling Inducements among UK Bettors.
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Regulatory Whack-a-mole: A Rapid Scoping Review of Gambling Marketing Restrictions and their (in)Effectiveness.Current addiction reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Financial gambling inducements such as ‘free’ bets and welcome bonuses involve complex wagering requirements that many consumers miscomprehend. UK regulations cap these wagering requirements at x10 (i.e., users must wager x10 the bonus before withdrawal) but don’t require worked examples to aid comprehension. This study assessed UK bettors’ comprehension of inducement wagering requirements, whether comprehension varied by gambling severity, whether perceived attractiveness differed when worked examples were displayed, and bettors’ broader perceptions of inducements. A between-subjects, mixed-methods online experiment randomised UK bettors (n = 585) to view a welcome bonus inducement either with or without (control) a worked example detailing its wagering requirement. Participants completed measures of comprehension, perceived attractiveness, gambling severity, and qualitative questioning. Participants in the control condition significantly underestimated the inducement’s wagering requirements (p<.001, r=.94), with a median estimate of £500 versus the correct value of £750. Underestimation did not differ by gambling severity. The inducement was rated significantly less attractive (p<.001, η²=.18) when the worked example was displayed (M = 2.39, SD = 1.46) compared to the control (M = 3.75, SD = 1.48). However, this effect was moderated by gambling severity (B=-0.112, p=.005), with the reduction in perceived attractiveness associated with the worked example becoming smaller as gambling severity scores increased. Qualitative analysis identified three overarching perceptions of inducements: as manipulative, economically worthless, and requiring better regulation. UK bettors significantly underestimate inducements’ wagering requirements, while worked examples significantly reduce their mistaken attractiveness. These findings demonstrate how informed choice can be enhanced via worked examples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41879944What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.