Torrance Jamie, Russell Alex M T, Heath Conor, Newall Philip
School of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
Addiction. 2025 May;120(5):1028-1039. doi: 10.1111/add.16732. Epub 2025 Jan 14.
Gambling advertising is nowadays prevalent in multiple jurisdictions and can take multiple forms, such as TV adverts and social media promotions. However, few independently designed interventions for gambling advertising have been empirically tested. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of an inoculative intervention video for gambling advertising, which was developed based on previous interventions for alcohol and tobacco, and which used input from academics and experts by experience.
Between-participants randomised online experiment.
UK.
UK-based gamblers aged 18-29 years (n = 1200) were recruited via Prolific.
Participants either saw a novel inoculative intervention video (7.2 mins) aimed at increasing resistance against gambling advertising strategies (n = 595) or a neutral control video (7.2 mins) on healthy eating (n = 605).
Participants completed pre- and post-test measures of gambling advertising scepticism and persuasion knowledge immediately before and after video exposure. They also answered the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) and reported their past-month engagement with gambling promotional offers. A random subset of participants (n = 797) recompleted these measures at one-month follow-up.
The intervention group's post-test scores were statistically significantly higher than control for scepticism [estimated marginal means (EMM) = 40.32 vs. EMM = 34.72; P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.90-6.29, ηp2 = 0.17] and persuasion knowledge (EMM = 20.77 vs. EMM = 16.71; P < 0.001, 95%CI = 3.61-4.50, ηp2 = 0.21). One-month follow-up scores also remained statistically significantly higher in the intervention group compared with control for both scepticism (EMM = 38.26 vs. EMM = 34.73; P < 0.001, 95%CI = 2.70-4.36, ηp2 = 0.08) and persuasion knowledge (EMM = 18.63 vs. EMM = 17.21; P < 0.001, 95%CI = 0.88-1.95, ηp2 = 0.03). Within the intervention group, 21% of participants had stopped engaging with gambling promotional offers at one-month follow-up, reflective of a statistically significant reduction compared with control (EMM = 0.48 vs. EMM = 0.87; P < 0.001, 95%CI = -0.53 to -0.26, ηp2 = 0.04). Overall, the control group showed no statistically significant changes in any of their scores throughout the study period.
An inoculative intervention video appears to increase young gamblers' resistance to gambling advertising and reduce their self-reported engagement with promotional offers.
如今，赌博广告在多个司法管辖区盛行，且形式多样，如电视广告和社交媒体推广。然而，很少有针对赌博广告的独立设计干预措施经过实证检验。我们旨在衡量一段针对赌博广告的预防接种干预视频的效果，该视频是在先前针对酒精和烟草的干预措施基础上开发的，并借鉴了学者和有经验专家的意见。
组间随机在线实验。
英国。
通过Prolific招募了1200名年龄在18 - 29岁的英国赌徒。
参与者要么观看一段旨在增强对赌博广告策略抵抗力的新型预防接种干预视频（7.2分钟）（n = 595），要么观看一段关于健康饮食的中性对照视频（7.2分钟）（n = 605）。
参与者在视频曝光前后立即完成赌博广告怀疑态度和说服知识的预测试和后测试。他们还回答了问题赌博严重程度指数（PGSI），并报告了过去一个月与赌博促销活动的接触情况。一个随机抽取的参与者子集（n = 797）在一个月随访时重新完成了这些测量。
干预组的后测试分数在怀疑态度方面在统计学上显著高于对照组[估计边际均值（EMM）= 40.32对EMM = 34.72；P < 0.001，95%置信区间（CI）= 4.90 - 6.29，ηp2 = 0.17]，在说服知识方面也是如此（EMM = 20.77对EMM = 16.71；P < 0.001，95%CI = 3.61 - 4.50，ηp2 = 0.21）。在一个月随访时，干预组在怀疑态度（EMM = 38.26对EMM = 34.73；P < 0.001，95%CI = 2.70 - 4.36，ηp2 = 0.
