arbiter
JournalsAccount

(Mis)Comprehension and (Mistaken) Attractiveness of Financial Gambling Inducements among UK Bettors

Jamie Torrance et al.

Journal of Gambling Studies2026https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-026-10491-6article
ABDC A
Weight
0.50

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.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-026-10491-6

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jamie2026,
  title        = {{(Mis)Comprehension and (Mistaken) Attractiveness of Financial Gambling Inducements among UK Bettors}},
  author       = {Jamie Torrance et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Gambling Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-026-10491-6},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

(Mis)Comprehension and (Mistaken) Attractiveness of Financial Gambling Inducements among UK Bettors

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.