Basic Instinct 2: Counting the cost of blackjack (again)

In a previous blog I looked at the psychology of following ‘basic’ strategy and card counting based on the seminal work by Ed Thorp. Compared with other forms of gambling, there has been very little psychological research into blackjack – about one or two studies per decade by my reckoning. In the 1970s, Dr. Nicholas Bond (who at the time was at the California State University at Sacramento, USA) did some research asking blackjack players some simple questions like ‘When do you take insurance?’ and ‘What do you do when you have 7-7 and the dealer has 6 up?’ Bond’s results showed that most players did not know when to spilt pairs and had the wrong idea about the value of insurance. For instance, players often said that insurance should be taken “when the cards are running right” suggesting that players can predict the run of the cards and when the dealer will turn over blackjack. Although this research revealed strategy errors it didn’t give any insight into why such errors are made.

Dutch psychologists Dr Gideon Keren and Professor Willem Wagenaar went one stage further than Bond and examined in great detail the strategies and beliefs of regular blackjack players. They observed 112 players in the natural environment of a casino and then interviewed 149 players. They found that lots of blackjack players have many erroneous beliefs particularly if they claim they are following basic strategy. The most interesting findings were that players believed (i) a bad player could spoil a game for everyone, (ii) they felt worse if they lost on 20 than if they did with 13, (iii) they only knew if their decisions were correct after the round was over, and (iv) that if they were very unlucky on a particular day they should quit playing. While some of these beliefs may be understandable (and I’ll explain why below), if blackjack players follow basic strategy, none of these beliefs should exist. In short, the findings suggest that players believe in luck and conservatism as a legitimate strategic approach rather than the principles of basic strategy.

It is clear from players’ feelings about “bad” players that they are displaying what we psychologists call a ‘self-serving bias’. Put more simply, when good players win they attribute the outcome as something that was deserved whether or not it came about through other players’ incorrect play. However, when another player plays badly by asking for too many cards, the game may be spoiled for the other (better) players. It will be spoiled when a good player loses because a poor player has taken one card too many. Such players ignore the role of the bad player when the “wrong” cards they receive lead to a win.

These findings also shown that regular blackjack players have the illusion that they can control luck by playing when their luck is in and quitting when their luck is out (although such a finding is not unique to blackjack and can be found among gamblers more generally). What is interesting is that blackjack players appear to conceptualise ‘luck’ as a personal characteristic that can come and go like emotional mood states. It is therefore little surprise if players believe bad players can spoil the game for others – they believe bad players can change the run of good luck for others simply by taking too many cards.

According to the late Australian psychologist, Dr Michael Walker (University of Sydney, Australia), another interesting implication of Keren and Wagenaar’s research is that players are clearly unconcerned about the long-term correctness of decisions but see each hand as a contest with the dealer that may be won or lost depending on the decision made by the player. Take the case of a player who has a hand of 13. Players in such a position will make a judgement concerning the likelihood that the next card will be a 10. Most players will not hit 13 against a dealer’s 7 or 8 if there has been a run of small value cards, but will hit 13 if they are convinced that the next card is not a 10. In such situations, players find out the accuracy of their decisions once the round is over. Most players (including myself) dislike holding on 13 – it is too far from 21 to be psychologically comfortable but there is still the possibility of busting if a 9 or 10 is drawn. If we are dealt 20, there is an elated state because we feel the dealer is unlikely to beat our hand. If the 20 is beaten, we feel psychologically cheated whereas on 13, players can blame themselves for not hitting.

A study by Albert Chau (University of Hong Kong) and colleagues at Monash University (Australia) carried out a blackjack study on a small number of university students. They wanted to investigate whether departures from rational play in blackjack reflected ignorance and/or fatigue. The students were taught basic strategy in blackjack and then asked to play a simplified version of blackjack on computer. Initially the students followed basic strategy but this was eventually discarded for much higher risk strategies. Irrational play didn’t affect ignorance or fatigue (and the student players didn’t perceive basic strategy to be effective). Chau and colleagues argued that “because basic strategy is not a personalized strategy, it seems less likely to be maintained in the face of losses – players were more optimistic that they might win when utilizing their personalized strategies”.

In summary, blackjack is clearly a game that the player can win if basic strategy is used as a starting point. The strategy can be modified as the deck composition changes and good card counters are able to extract an edge over the casino. However, psychological research has shown quite clearly that regular players deviate significantly from basic strategy and make sub-optimal decisions because they perceive themselves as being engaged in a hand-by-hand contest with the dealer. Dr. Walker makes the point that since the characteristics of good play can be specified, blackjack is a good example of the extent to which players can bring about their own losses through the false beliefs that they hold. These false beliefs are held tenaciously, and despite playing countless hands, the beliefs that bring about gambling losses are maintained in the face of failure.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Bond, N.A. (1974). Basic strategy and expectation in casino Blackjack. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 413-428.

Chau, A.W.L., Phillips, J.G. & Von Baggo, K.L. (2000). Departures from sensible play in computer blackjack. Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Physiological, and Comparative Psychology,127, 426-438.

Keren, G.B. & Wagenaar, W.A. (1985). On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 133-158.

Thorp, E.O. (1966). Beat the Dealer: A Winning Strategy for the Game of Twenty-One. New York: Random House.

Wagenaar, W. (1988) Paradoxes of gambling behaviour. London: Erlbaum.

Tech’s appeal: Is there a relationship between addiction to video games and slot machines?

Back in 1987, I began my PhD on slot machine addiction, and one thing that I began to notice as I spent the first few hours of (100s of hours) doing observational research in amusement arcades that there were many similarities between arcade slot machines and arcade video game machines. It wasn’t until 1991 that I finally did a comparative analysis of slot machine gambling and video game playing and published my observations in the Journal of Adolescence. In the intervening years I have published many papers examining the commonalities and similarities between these two behaviours and it wouldn’t surprise me if I am still writing about these issue in many years to come.

My initial insights into the existence of video game addiction arose out of the research I had been doing on slot machine addiction. Both slot machines and video game machines may be considered under the generic label of “amusement machines”. The main difference between the playing of video games and the playing of slot machines are that arcade video games are typically played to accumulate as many points as possible whereas slot machines are played (i.e., gambled upon) to accumulate money. In my 1991 paper, I (somewhat paradoxically) claimed that playing an arcade video game could be considered as a non-financial form of gambling.

Both types of machine require insertion of a coin to play, although the playing time on a slot machine is usually much less than on a video game machine if starting with the same amount of money. This is because on video games the outcome is almost solely due to skill, whereas on slot machines the outcome is much more likely to be a product of chance. However, the general playing philosophy of both slot machine players and video game players is to stay on the machine for as long as possible using the least amount of money. I have also argued that regular slot machine players play with money rather than for it, and that winning money is a means to an end (i.e., to stay on the machine as long as possible). This is exactly what arcade video game players do too.

Besides the generic labeling, their geographical juxtaposition, and the philosophy for playing, it could be argued that on both a psychological and behavioural level, slot machine gambling and video game playing share many similarities (e.g., similar demographic differences such as age and gender breakdown, similar reinforcement schedules, similar potential for “near miss” opportunities, similar structural characteristics involving the use of light and sound effects, similarities in skill perception, similarities in the effects of excessive play, etc.). The most probable reason the two forms have rarely been seen as conceptually similar is because video game playing does not involve the winning of money (or something of financial value) and therefore cannot be classed as a form of gambling.

However, the next generation of slot machines is starting to use video game graphics and technology. While many of these relate to traditional gambling games (e.g., roulette, poker, blackjack, etc.) there are plans for developing video gambling games in which people would win money based on their game scores. This obviously gives an idea of the direction that slot machines and the gaming industry are heading.

Furthermore, there are a growing number of researchers who suggest that video games share some common ground with slot machines including the potential for dependency. On 1995, Dr Sue Fisher and myself edited a special issue of the Journal of Gambling Studies and wrote a paper examining trends in slot machine gambling. We pointed out that arcade video games and slot machines shared some important structural characteristics, these being:

• The requirement of response to stimuli that are predictable and governed by the software loop.
• The requirement of total concentration and hand–eye coordination.
• Rapid span of play negotiable to some extent by the skill of the player (more marked in video games).
• The provision of aural and visual rewards for a winning move (e.g., flashing lights, electronic jingles).
• The provision of an incremental reward for a winning move (points or money) that reinforces “correct” behaviour.
• Digitally displayed scores of “correct behaviour” (in the form of points or money accumulated).
• The opportunity for peer group attention and approval through com- petition.

As with excessive slot machine playing, excessive video game playing partly comes about by the partial reinforcement effect. This is a critical psychological ingredient of video game addiction whereby the reinforcement is intermittent – that is, people keep responding in the absence of reinforcement hoping that another reward is just around the corner. Knowledge about the partial reinforcement effect gives the video game designer an edge in designing appealing games. Magnitude of reinforcement is also important. Large rewards lead to fast responding and greater resistance to extinction – in short to more “addiction.” Instant reinforcement is also satisfying.

Video games rely on multiple reinforcements (i.e., what I call the “kitchen sink” approach) in that different features might be differently rewarding to different people. Success on video games comes from a variety of sources and the reinforcement might be intrinsic (e.g., improving a personal high score, beating a friend’s high score, putting a name on the “hall of fame,” mastering the machine) or extrinsic (e.g., peer admiration). As early as the 1980s, Dr. Thomas Malone reported that video game engagement is positively correlated to (i) a presence or absence of goals, (ii) the availability of automatic computer scores, (iii) the presence of audio effects, (iv) the random quality of the games, and (v) the degree to which rapid reaction times enhance game scores.

In 2007, Dr Jonathan Parke (Salford University, UK) and I developed a new taxonomy of structural characteristics related to gambling, listing all the known structural characteristics that have been shown to influence gambling behaviour in some way. All the 60+ structural characteristics were grouped into one of six types of characteristic:

• Speed and frequency characteristics: Factors relating to the frequency, duration and expediency of the game or reward.
• Playability characteristics: Factors that make gambling fun, interaction and/or engaging.
• Payment characteristics: Factors that relate to how one pays to gamble
• Reward characteristics: Factors relating to how one receives financial rewards or winnings.
• Educational characteristics: Factors that educate, protect, or provide information to players.
• Ambient characteristics: Factors that may influence the immediate situation of the game or may contribute to other factors already mentioned (e.g., the use of colour and sound).

Using this typology, Dr Parke and I argued that future research and policy initiatives may be to focus on regulating structural factors relating to payment (spending) and player awareness/education and focus less on structural factors relating to playability (which may also include reward, ambient, and speed characteristics). In this way, slot machines can continue to be fun, exciting, and play inducing, but with the eventual aim of minimizing harm.

It wasn’t until 2010 that I – along with Dr Daniel King and Dr Paul Delfabbro (both at the University of Adelaide, Australia) – developed a separate taxonomy of structural characteristics related to video game playing (published in the International Journal of Mental health and Addiction). We used some earlier empirical work that I had done with Dr Richard Wood (GamRes Ltd, Canada) back in 2004 and published in the journal CyberPsychology and Behavior. We devised a list of structural features by (a) playing a variety of video games, (b) examining and comparing known gambling structural characteristics, (c) discussing these features with players of video games, and (d) examining relevant research in the area of video game design. Our framework included the following characteristics:

• Sound, including sound effects, speaking characters and background music.
• Graphics, including high-quality realistic or cartoon-style graphics and full motion video (FMV).
• Background and setting, including whether the game is based on a story, film, or television program, and the use of realistic or fantasy settings.
• Duration of game, referring to how long the game usually takes to complete.
• Rate of play, referring to how quickly the player “absorbs” or “gets into” the game. & Advancement rate, referring to how quickly the game play advances.
• Use of humour in the game.
• Control options, referring to what the player can control in the game (including sound, graphics, and skill settings, choice of control methods, and physical feedback). &
• Game dynamics, including exploring new areas, elements of surprise, fulfilling a quest, skill development, AI interactions, collecting things, avoiding things, surviving against the odds, shooting, different ending options, different modes of transport, solving puzzles, beating times, cheats/Easter eggs, solving time limited problems, building environments, mapping, and linear/non-linear game format.
• Winning and losing features, referring to the potential to gain or lose points, finding bonuses, having to start level again, and ability to save regularly.
• Character development, referring to character development over time and character customization options.
• Brand assurance, referring to brand loyalty and/or celebrity endorsement.
• Multiplayer features, referring to various multi-player options, communication methods, building alliances, and beating other players.

Using this paper, and the gambling structural characteristics taxonomy, we developed our new video game structural characteristics taxonomy comprising five types of feature. These were: (a)

• Social features (i.e., social aspects of video game playing)
• Manipulation and control features (i.e., the role of user input in influencing in-game outcomes)
• Narrative and identity features (e.g., the role of character creation and interactive storytelling)
• Reward and punishment features (i.e., the ways in which players win and lose in video games)
• Presentation features (e.g., the visual and auditory presentation of video games).

Since developing the taxonomy, we have started to test it out empirically. Dr. King, Dr. Delfabbro and myself recently published a study investigating our structural characteristic taxonomy among 421 video game players (aged between 14 and 57 years). Our results showed that the reward and punishment features, such as earning points, finding rare game items, and fast loading times, were rated among the most enjoyable and important aspects of video game playing. There was some evidence that certain structural characteristics were stronger predictors of problematic involvement in video games than factors such as gender, age, and time spent playing. This included the use of adult content in the game, earning points, getting 100% in the game, and mastering the game. Our latest research supports the notion that some structural characteristics in video games may play a significant role in influencing problem video game playing behaviour.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Fisher, S.E., & Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Current trends in slot machine gambling: Research and policy issues. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 239-247.

Griffiths, M.D. (1991). The observational analysis of adolescent gambling in UK amusement arcades. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 309-320.

Griffiths, M.D. (1991). Amusement machine playing in childhood and adolescence: A comparative analysis of video games and fruit machines. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 53-73.

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Adolescent gambling. London: Routledge.

Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence. Leicester: British Psychological Society/Blackwells.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005). The relationship between gambling and videogame playing: A response to Johansson and Gotestam. Psychological Reports, 96, 644-646.

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling.  In G. Smith, D. Hodgins & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and Measurement Issues in Gambling Studies. pp.211-243. New York: Elsevier.

Griffiths, M.D. (2011).  A typology of UK slot machine gamblers: A longitudinal observational and interview study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 606-626.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H., Derevensky, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). The classification of video games with gambling themes and content: An Australian perspective. International Gambling Studies, in press.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 90-106.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The convergence of gambling and digital media: Implications for gambling in young people. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 175-187.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). The role of structural characteristics in problematic video game play: An empirical study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 320-333.

Malone, T.W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.

“I can’t believe it’s not a flutter”: Are television quizzes and television game shows a form of gambling?

Yesterday the front page of the Mail on Sunday led with the story that “Hit game shows like Deal or No Deal and Play Your Cards Right could be forced off the air after gambling watchdog claims that they break the law”. I was interviewed at length for this particular story but as usual my long interview was reduced to a few soundbites. I argued that a lot of television quiz game shows feature different forms of gambling. Even if the contestant starts of with no money, once they have won some money in the programme, the money becomes theirs and they are (to all intents and purposes) gambling with their own money. I also argued that the boundary between gambling and games is blurring all the time and that there is a growing trend of convergence between gambling and other media.

Over the past decade I have written a number of papers on various forms of television gambling. I have noted that various interactive television (i-TV) services are increasingly being linked to actual television programmes. Over the last few years in the UK, there has been a significant increase in the number of television shows raising revenue through the use of interactive programming. One of the most popular methods has viewers call into the television show using a premium-rate telephone service to either answer simple quiz questions. I have argued that this form of television programming is gambling in another guise.

This innovative form of interactive viewing experience raises many questions about whether viewers are being exploited or whether such programming is just another enjoyment-enhancing dimension of the viewing experience. However, there is a fine line between customer enhancement and customer exploitation. Programmers will argue that when viewers ‘put their money where their mouth is’ the viewing experience is enhanced. This is very similar to the gambling industry’s maxim that ‘it matters more when there’s money on it’. However, callers are charged at a premium rate (usually between 75p and £1.50 per call) even if they fail to get through to register their answer. Typically, on failing to connect, callers get a recorded message saying, ‘Even though you haven’t got through this time, we still want you to be a winner’. There are two possible routes that i-TV gambling/gaming can take. Firstly, there is television quiz show participation, which may feature gambling and/or gambling-like experiences. Secondly, there is the option of using the television as a medium on which to gamble.

To grow fast in an evolving digital landscape, television companies are formulating strategies for targeting particular segments of the industry. Platform operators appear to be deploying consumer-driven applications such as gaming (including both i-TV participation quizzes and more traditional forms of gambling via the medium of television). An environment has been created where content originators and channel operators can innovate and profitably create interactive broadband content. I-TV is seen as a way of rapidly expanding gaming and gambling because of its naturalness and ease of use. I-TV gaming can span a wide range of activities. This includes non-gambling activities such as playing video games like Tetris on the television, playing along with game shows like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? via television remote control, and directly gambling on sports events such as horse racing and football via television remote control.

I-TV quiz shows share many of the dimensions of i-TV gambling and also raise the same concerns when talking about vulnerable and susceptible populations. The combination of gambling’s impulsive nature, the general public’s appetite for quiz trivia, and the ubiquity of television may prove hard to resist for many viewers. There are two main reasons why i-TV quiz shows could be viewed as a form of gambling.

Firstly, at a very simple level it could be argued that in many i-TV quizzes, viewers are participating in a lottery. For instance, viewers are typically asked to call a premium-rate telephone line to answer a very simple question (e.g., ‘Rearrange the following letters to make the name of a top rock group—STOLLING RONES’). A winner is then chosen from all those viewers with the correct answer. This, to all intents and purposes, is a lottery. However, unlike lotteries, those participating do not know what their probability of winning is. Secondly, it could also be argued that viewers are staking money (through the cost of the premium-rate telephone call) on the outcome of a future event (i.e., whether they will get the correct answer). Such a scenario could be defined as a form of gambling.

Whether i-TV quiz participation is a bona fide form of gambling or not, there are a number of reasons why the social impact of i-TV quizzes should be monitored. For instance, i-TV quiz shows appear to be being introduced with little concern for the psychosocial implications that may affect a small percentage of the population. Bringing such activities to a television set in the home carries with it a special social responsibility. For instance, there are issues about consumer protection for vulnerable populations, e.g., adolescents, problem gamblers, and the intoxicated.

It could be argued that the viewers who participate in late-night and ‘through-the-night’ interactive quiz programming (like The Mint, Make Your Play, Quiz Call, The Great British Quiz) may be some of the most vulnerable and susceptible. These viewers are more likely to be those who do not work and therefore are on low incomes and can least afford to participate (e.g., the unemployed, the retired and elderly). Viewers may also be making decisions to play in an intoxicated state (as these programmes typically start just as people get in from an evening’s drinking) and/or in a state where they are not fully alert (i.e., at 3 in the morning). They may also be participating because they think their chances of winning are better in the belief that there are very few other people awake at 4 a.m. In fact, this latter point highlights the fact that no-one participating has any idea what the odds are of winning.

As there is little to stop innovative developments in i-TV gaming from moving forward, all interested stakeholders must start to think about the potential psychosocial impacts, and all companies (who, in effect, are gaming operators) must have social responsibility codes in place to ensure that viewers are not being exploited, that games are fair, and that there are protective measures in place for vulnerable individuals. I-TV gaming and gambling (including both i-TV quiz participation and more traditional i-TV gambling) are likely to bring about new and more immediate interactive opportunities. Viewers will eventually be able to make spontaneous bets during sporting events, everything from whether someone will score from a penalty in the World Cup final through to whether someone will sink a particular putt in the US Open Golf Championship.

A 2002 ‘white paper’ (Design guidelines for interactive television gambling) by Stephen Voller of TV Compass at least try to address some of the issues raised by the introduction of interactive gaming services. As Voller notes, when interactive gaming technology is brought into households, the operators have a duty to act responsibly. This applies equally to i-TV quiz participation. Voller has argued that systems that allow gaming access should have a particular requirement to provide controls that reduce the risk of gaming-related social problems. The six broad design criteria are access, reality checks, separate payments, messages, information, and self-exclusion periods.

In future, television viewers are more likely to participate in a much wider array of events than interactive quizzes and sporting events. This is likely to be via credit payment directly through their digital interactive service. This may include popular UK television events like betting on who will win the Eurovision Song Contest, who will be evicted from the Big Brother house, or who will pick up an Oscar. Such non-sport gambling may also bring in new clientele such as female television viewers. The take-up of i-TV quiz participation and/or i-TV gambling may also be very popular with those people who would not dream of going to a casino or betting shop. The use of i-TV quiz participation and/or i-TV gambling may help change people’s attitude about gambling by destigmatizing and demasculinizing it. These new types of gambling and gaming experiences could lead to a more social experience shared by clientele across the demographic spectrum.

The issue of i-TV quiz participation can also be framed more widely in a contemporary society that is increasingly governed by virtual processes. The kind of manipulation that is involved in getting people to respond to an event, even if they have to pay to respond, is achieved by offering a prize that the individual is very unlikely to win. In getting people to respond through this kind of process, the entrepreneurial operators are assured that they will have increased financial revenue through the money they raise by facilitating people to voluntarily behave in these ways. This opens up a discourse examining the ways that people are intentionally manipulated to behave in ways that cost while promising an improbable outcome. This may help us construct useful models which could help us understand and provide insight into gambling behaviours. It also invites discussion of what policies should inform the ways that media such as television and the Internet engage and prime people who have become ‘enchanted’ by a theatrical experience to behave in ways that, if not inevitable, are statistically predictable. There may even be factors of vulnerability that correlate with the likelihood that people will act that way.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Interactive television gambling: Should we be concerned? World Online Gambling Law Report, 3 (3), 11–12.

Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Interactive television and gaming. World Online Gambling Law Report, 5 (2), 12–13.

Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Interactive television quizzes as gambling: A cause for concern? Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 269-276.

Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Interactive television quizzes as remote gambling. World Online Gambling Law Report, 6(4), 14-15.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Convergence of gambling and computer game playing: Implications. E-Commerce, Law and Policy, 10(2), 12-13.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Digital impact, crossover technologies and gambling practices. Casino and Gaming International, 4(3), 37-42.

Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2010). Adolescent gambling on the Internet: A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 22, 59-75.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2000). Risk factors in adolescence: The case of gambling, video-game playing and the internet. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 199-225.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The convergence of gambling and digital media: Implications for gambling in young people. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 175-187.

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Gaming convergence: Further legal issues and psychosocial impact. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 14, 461-464.

Out of charm’s way? Psychology, superstition and gambling

Hands up. How many of you reading this article are superstitious when you gamble? If you are, you are not alone. Even the most skilful of gamblers can hold superstitious beliefs. The fallibility of human reason is the greatest single source of superstitious belief. Sometimes referred to as a belief in ‘magic’, superstition can cover many spheres such as lucky or unlucky actions, events, numbers and/or sayings, a belief in astrology, the occult, the paranormal, and/ or ghosts. When it comes to gambling it’s probably best to view superstition as a belief that a given action can bring good luck or bad luck when there are no rational or generally acceptable grounds for such a belief.

Surveys suggest that around a third of the UK population are superstitious. The most often reported superstitious behaviours are avoiding walking under ladders, touching wood, and throwing salt over your shoulder. There’s also a stereotypical view that there are certain groups within society who tend to hold more superstitious beliefs than what may be considered the norm. These include those involved with sport, the acting profession, miners, fishermen and (of course) gamblers.

The majority of the population tend to have what are called ‘half-beliefs’. On the whole, people are basically rational and don’t really believe in the effects of superstition. However, in times of uncertainty, stress, and/or perceived helplessness, they seek to regain personal control over events by means of superstitious belief. This often happens in gambling situations.

The Dutch psychologist, Professor Willem Wagenaar proposed that in the absence of a known cause, gamblers attribute events to abstract causes like luck and chance. Professor Wagenaar differentiates between luck and chance and suggests that luck is more related to an unexpected positive result whereas chance is related to surprising coincidences. Other psychologists suggest that luck may be thought of as the property of a person whereas chance is thought to be concerned with unpredictability. Gamblers appear to exhibit a belief that they have control over their own luck. They may knock on wood to avoid bad luck or carry an object such as a rabbit’s foot for good luck. Another US psychologist, Professor Ellen Langer argued that a belief in luck and superstition not only accounts for causal explanations when playing games of chance, but may also provide a desired element of personal control.

So are gamblers really superstitious? Well believe it or not there have been surprisingly few studies that have examined this. A study that I carried out with Carolyn Bingham here at Nottingham Trent University examined the beliefs that players have regarding superstition and luck and how these beliefs are related to their gambling behaviour. In a study of over 400 bingo players we found significant relationships in many areas. Many gamblers reported beliefs in luck and superstition. However, a greater percentage of players reported having ‘everyday’ superstitious beliefs, rather than those concerned with gambling activity.

We found that 81% of bingo players had at least one superstitious belief. These beliefs included not opening an umbrella indoors (49%), not walking under ladders (55%), not putting new shoes on a table (60%), touching wood (50%) and not passing someone else on the stairs. However, only 10% of the gamblers were superstitious while actually gambling (with a further 13% claiming they were “sometimes” superstitious while gambling). This was reflected in such behaviours and beliefs as having a lucky night of the week (5%), having a lucky friend (4%), having a lucky mascot (6%), sitting in the same seat for luck (21%), believing certain numbers are lucky or unlucky (13%), and changing pens or ‘dobbers’ to change bad luck (29%). We also found that 27% of gamblers believed in winning and losing streaks.

When examining our findings in greater detail, we also found that the heaviest spending gamblers were more likely to be superstitious while playing bingo, be more likely to have a lucky friend, be more likely to have a lucky seat, and be more likely to believe that some numbers are lucky/unlucky. However, some casino gamblers consider that going on the same night with the same friends, or sitting in the same seat are not associated with luck, but merely part of a ‘familiar’ social routine. It’s clear that what some people deem as luck or superstition is not universal across gamblers.

Even if people don’t have strongly held luck and superstitious beliefs, there is some evidence that having these beliefs add more fun and excitement to the game being played (“It’s my lucky night”, “I’m on a winning streak”, “I’m in my lucky seat”, or “My stars said I’d win”). It’s clear that a large percentage of gamblers in our study reported beliefs in luck and superstition and that having superstitious beliefs may be simply part of the thrill. What we can’t say is whether other types of gambler would behave in the same way but my own observations in casinos throughout the world is that many skilful players have lucky charms and/or have superstitious beliefs.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Darke, P. & Freedman, J. (1997) Lucky events and beliefs in luck Paradoxical effects on confidence and risk-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 378-388.

Griffiths, M.D. & Bingham, C. (2005). A study of superstitious beliefs among bingo players. Journal of Gambling Issues, 13, 95-107.

Keren, G. & Wagenaar, W. (1985) On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 114, 133-158.

Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. London: Sage.

Vyse, S. (1997) Believing in magic: The psychology of superstition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wagenaar, W. (1988) Paradoxes of gambling behaviour. London: Erlbaum.

Wiseman, R. & Watt, C. (2004) Measuring superstitious belief: Why lucky charms matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1533-1541.

It’s all in the game: The psychology of Game Transfer Phenomena

Back in September, one of our research studies on video gaming – more specifically a paper on game transfer phenomena (GTP) that I co-authored with Angelica Ortiz de Gortari (Nottingham Trent University) and Karin Aronsson (Stockholm University) – received a lot of national and international press coverage. Some of the press coverage – particularly that published in the Daily Mail and the Metro – was both sensationalist (“Gamers can’t tell real world from fantasy, say researchers”) and misleading (“How video games blur real life boundaries and prompt thoughts of violent solutions to players’ problems”) and angered some of the gaming community. This is not the first time that I have been on the receiving end of misleading media coverage but I knew from the initial interviews I did with the journalists at the Mail and the Metro that they had already decided what their story was going to be even before talking to me. So what was the real story and what did we say in our research?

The heart of the GTP story lay in our findings that some video game players appear to be so immersed in their gaming that when they stop playing, they sometimes transfer some of their virtual experiences to the real world.  Our published study was a qualitative study and comprised 42 in-depth interviews with Swedish gamers aged between 15 and 21 years old. We categorized player experiences into two main categories – GTP that occurred involuntarily, without premeditation, and those that were intentional.

Almost all the participants had, at some point, experienced some type of involuntary thoughts in relation to videogames. They thought in the same way as when they were gaming, with half of participants often looking to use something from a video game to resolve a real-life issue. In some cases these thoughts were accompanied by reflexes – such as reaching to click a button on the controller when it wasn’t in their hands – while on other occasions gamers visualised their thoughts in the form of game menus. Some gamers reached for the search button when looking for someone in a crowd or saw energy boxes appear above people’s heads. One gamer reported seeing a menu of topics that were available for him to think about, while another, after a lengthy gaming session, created a list of possible responses in their head after being insulted. Another gamer reported witnessing a maths equation appearing in a bubble above a teacher’s head while another reported health bars hovering over players from a rival football team. Players also reported using videogames for interacting with others as a form of amusement, modelling or mimicking video game content, and daydreaming about videogames.

Our findings suggest that some video game players experience intrusion in their cognitive processing and learn from videogames to react and perceive things in real-life, at least for a few seconds, in ways informed by virtual life. In some cases these automatic actions are triggered by a similarity between real-life and the video game, and on other occasions they occur when the players react to real-life stimuli similar to that seen in the game. One of the things we pointed out is that GTP have been reported in the gaming literature before, the most well know example being the ‘Tetris effect’ where players see Tetris pieces falling at the edges of their visual fields or when they close their eye. Other examples include players hearing auditory hallucinations related to the game when not playing.

Despite instances of GTP elsewhere in the psychological and medical literature, we argue that there are important reasons for not using the “Tetris effect” concept when studying game transfer effects. Among the most important are that: (i) the ‘Tetris effect’ definition is very broad and does not emphasize the importance of the association between real life stimulus and video game elements as a trigger of some of the transfer experiences, (ii) it does not make a clear distinction between sensorial modalities in the game transfer experiences or talk about players’ experiences across sensorial modalities (e.g., hear a sound and visualize a video game element), and (iii) the name itself is inspired by a one specific stereotypical puzzle game (i.e., Tetris). This simple name indicates that it is repetition that triggers the transfer effects but there are other factors involved in game transfer experiences. Furthermore, modern video games use more than abstract shapes and offer more flexible scenarios compared to Tetris and similar games.

We believe our study is the first to attempt to systematically explore these type of experience and to conceptualize the experiences within a wider framework (i.e., game transfer phenomena). Our initial findings have proved extremely interesting and almost all the players in our first study reported some type of GTP. However, they were experienced in different ways and with varying degrees of intensity. As we outline in this week’s New Scientist (December 24 issue), we are now following this up with further studies on a much larger number of gamers across many different countries. You can also check out Angelica’s dedicated game transfer phenomena website (http://www.gametransferphenomena.com/).

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Gackenbach, J.I (2008). Video game play and consciouness development: A transpersonal perspective. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 40(1), 60-87.

Ortiz de Gotari, A., Aronnson, K. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Game Transfer Phenomena in video game playing: A qualitative interview study. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 1(3), 15-33.

Parfitt, B. (2011). Metro “can’t tell real world from fantasy”. MCV. September 21. Located at: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/metro-can-t-tell-real-world-from-fantasy/085065

Purchase, R. (2011). Prof clarifies Game Transfer Phenomena. Eurogamer.net. September 21. Located at: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-09-21-game-transfer-phenomena-authors-defence

Spence, S.A. (1993). Nintendo hallucinations: A new phenomenological entity. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 10, 98-99.

The Tetris Effect. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect

Is playing poker a sport?

This morning I was interviewed by BBC Radio Ulster on their Sunday Sequence show about whether poker should be classed as a sport. Personally, I don’t view poker as a sport even though skill is quite clearly involved in playing. However, chance still has a part to play. I would also argue that blackjack is a skilful game (especially if you are a card counter) but again, I wouldn’t class blackjack as a sport. To me, poker is more akin to games like chess than traditional sporting competitions.

Over the last few years, one of the most common questions I have been asked by the media is whether the poker boom is going to last. It is easy to see why the press would ask such a question because there were – and still are – countless instances of games and toys flourishing for brief periods of time, reaching unprecedented heights of popularity – only for them to disappear without a trace (the Rubik Cube being a good example). However, I truly believe that poker will have a long shelf life because it shares fundamental similarities with other long lasting leisure activities.

These factors that determine whether games like poker become firmly established or simply fade away include the capacity for skill development, a large bibliography, competitions and tournaments, and corporate sponsorship. Let’s look at these briefly in turn.

Firstly, all good games are relatively easy to play but can take a lifetime to become truly adept. I would therefore argue that the capacity for continued skill development is important for poker’s continued popularity and future existence. In short, there will always room for improvement.

Secondly, for games of any complexity there must be a bibliography that people can reference and consult. Without books and magazines to instruct and provide information there will be no development and the activity will die. The sheer number of books on poker and the emergence of monthly poker magazines again demonstrates how healthy the state of the poker industry is!

Thirdly, there needs to be competitions and tournaments. Without somewhere to play (and likeminded people to play with) there will be little development within the field over long periods of time. Although playing poker isn’t an Olympic sport, there are those who think it should be. This is very much linked to the capacity for skill development as the best players in any activity will want competitive arenas in which they can demonstrate their dexterity, prowess, physical and mental reactions, problem solving ability and overall game play.

Finally – and very much a sign of the times – no leisure activity can succeed today without corporate sponsorship of some kind. The poker industry is a multi-billion pound industry so corporate sponsorship in this particular area shouldn’t be too much of a problem! Connected with this is the fact that poker has also moved onto the small screen and into our living rooms. When I’m channel hopping late at night I seem to do nothing but flick from one poker programme to another.

Televised poker is similar to reality TV, but poker players are really competing for a million dollars and are not acting. When people watch professional sports they may project themselves as being able to “play with the pros,” but they know it is a fantasy. Viewers of poker can think along with the players and really feel that if they had the opportunity, they might be one of the players at the final table. There seems little doubt that the media blitz of television poker shows has contributed to the surge in poker popularity. Today’s youngsters are the first generation in history under the age of 25 years, to grow up in a gambling permissive society. It is a cultural change that has taken a game that was once largely limited to card rooms and gaming halls to casinos, the Internet, and national television.

In addition to these factors is the psychological appeal of poker itself. Poker has the same appeal that chess (or any other game of strategy) has. It’s the psychological and intellectual “game within the game.” Like chess, you’re also thinking further ahead than the next card. The number of things to think about is virtually limitless. It’s an intellectual game that never has an ending. There is no perfect strategy and everything you do is contingent upon a hundred other factors, so it never gets boring for players. Every table is different, every game is different, every hand is different. And – if you do it well – you can win a lot of money!

Sean Carroll from University of Chicago goes a little further. He thinks that the secret of the allure (and challenge) of poker is that it’s a game of incomplete information. Gamblers know the cards they already have, and they (should) know the probabilities of various further cards coming their way, but they have to infer their opponents’ hands from tiny hints (such as their bets, their positions at the table, their personal styles, etc). Carroll says Texas Hold-Em is so popular because it manages to accurately hit the mark between “enough information to devise a consistently winning strategy” and “not enough information to do much more than guess.” The psychological charm in such games is that there is no perfect strategy, in the sense that there is no algorithm guaranteed to win in the long run against any other algorithm. The best poker players are able to use different algorithms against different opponents, as the situation warrants.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK