The effect of a brief intervention video on gambling advertising resistance: Results of a randomized, on‐line experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 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. DESIGN: Between-participants randomised online experiment. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: UK-based gamblers aged 18-29 years (n = 1200) were recruited via Prolific. INTERVENTION: 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). MEASUREMENTS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: An inoculative intervention video appears to increase young gamblers' resistance to gambling advertising and reduce their self-reported engagement with promotional offers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".