ArticleJournal of gambling studies2026
Effects of Anti-Stigma Messages on Public Stigmatisation of Gambling Disorder: a Randomised Online Experiment.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aim of this study was to test the immediate effects of a poster with anti-stigma messages on the evaluation of fictitious individuals with gambling disorder in an online experiment. A one-factor between-subject design with four levels was used, in which participants (N = 2,873, 53% female, 45% male, 1.4% diverse, age: M = 44.0 [SD = 17.1] years) were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups (poster with message 1 vs. poster with message 2) or one of two control groups (poster without message vs. no poster). After a mean exposure time of 14 s, participants were presented with a vignette of a person displaying symptoms of gambling disorder. Main outcomes were desire for social distance, perceived devaluation, emotional reactions, assumed dangerousness, blame, categorical thinking, and perceived otherness. In the intervention group, the stigmatisation sum score and three subscales (desire for social distance, sympathy, blame) were significantly lower compared to the combined control group. No differences were found in the amount or quality of stigmatisation between the two intervention groups. Female gender of the vignette moderated effects, with smaller differences for stigmatisation sum score and two subscales (desire for social distance, blame) compared to the male vignette. Given the short presentation time, it is encouraging that the intervention changed stigmatizing evaluations of an individual described as having gambling disorder, although the specific message might not play a role and the interaction with gender must be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42050263What 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.