The ‘In’ Crowd: Is there a relationship between ‘in-play’ betting and problem gambling?

For those of us who watch football on the television in the UK, it is almost impossible to watch a game without seeing the many gambling adverts alerting us to the fact we can now bet on over 60 ‘in-play’ markets while watching the game. Should I wish to, I can bet on everything from who is going to score the first goal, what the score will be after 30 minutes of play, how many yellow cards will be given during them game and/or in what minute of the second half the first free kick will be awarded.

‘In-play’ betting is arguably the fastest growing form of gambling in the UK and the UK’s leading ‘in-play’ bookmaker Bet 365 made over £500 million last year. One of the issues I have been asked by the press is to what extent ‘in-play’ betting can be problematic. One of the interviews I did recently was with the Mail on Sunday who published some of my comments yesterday in an article entitled ‘Risky business: With the advent of online gambling, are we creating an epidemic of addiction? ’I was quoted as saying:

‘What the in-play markets have done is take what was traditionally a discontinuous form of gambling – where you make one bet every Saturday on the result of the game – to one where you can gamble again and again and again. You cannot become addicted to something unless you are constantly being rewarded. If the reward only happens once or twice a week, it’s impossible to become addicted. In-play has changed that”

This indeed was a good summary of the interview I did. In-play betting is something that many of us in the problem gambling field are keeping an eye on because it’s taken something that has traditionally been a non-problem form of gambling to something that is more akin to betting on horse racing. At a typical Gamblers Anonymous group, you will get horse racing addicts, slot machine addicts, casino addicts, but it was rare that you got anyone ever having problems with things like football betting, mainly because football betting opportunities were once a week on the pools or betting before the match on a Saturday afternoon.

As I noted in my published quote above, if the reward for gambling only happens once or twice a week, it is completely impossible to become addicted. In-play has changed that because we now have football matches on almost every day of the week making a daily 2-hour plus period of betting seven days a week. As a psychologist who has researched problem gambling for over 25 years, I would assess the structural characteristics of this type of activity and associate it with the type that causes problem gambling for those that are vulnerable and susceptible. So why do I think this?

When considering speed and frequency of gambling in relation to problem gambling, concepts such as event duration, event frequency and payout interval can often be misunderstood and applied in the wrong context. Often, these are mistaken for having the same meaning. Furthermore, concepts such bet frequency and event duration are often ignored despite their importance of their role in the speed and frequency of betting. All of these terms refer to slightly different aspects of gambling although they are all implicated factors that affect speed and frequency.

Event duration essentially refers to how fast the “event” is (i.e., the speed of a gambling activity such as a reel spin on a slot machine that typically lasts for a few seconds). Professor Alex Blaszczynski and his colleagues at the University of Sydney (Australia) noted that gamblers prefer faster speeds and find fast speeds while playing more enjoyable. Therefore, they argued that gamblers’ motivation to play could encourage more persistent gambling activity. Another study by Professor Ladouceur and Dr. Serge Sevigny at the University of Laval (Quebec, Canada) investigated the effects of slot machine game speed on concentration, motivation to play, loss of control, and number of games played on people randomly assigned to either a high-speed (5 seconds) or a low-speed (15 seconds) gambling condition. Their results showed that high-speed gamblers played more games and underestimated the number of games played more than low-speed gamblers. However, speed didn’t influence concentration, motivation, or loss of control over time or money. Despite many methodological limitations they concluded that speed had limited impact on occasional slot machine gamblers.

A paper by Dr Kevin Harrigan and Dr. Mike Dixon (University of Waterloo, Canada) estimated the speed of slot machine play on slot machines. On a machine with a reel spin of every six seconds, players can play 10 times per minute, (i.e., 600 spins per hour) whereas those on a machine with a reel spin of every three seconds, players can play 20 times a minute (i.e., 1200 spins per hour). I also found similar results in research I carried out on British slot machines in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

It is important to acknowledge that duration of the betting event is different from event frequency. However, they may be inextricably linked in so much as the length of a betting event will obviously limit the frequency with they can take place. For example, a betting event lasting two hours (e.g., wagering only on the final outcome of a football game) could not have an event frequency greater than one in any 2-hour period, but a roulette spin (lasting approximately 5-6 seconds) may have an event frequency of several hundred in the same two-hour period. Furthermore, as a result of the introduction of in-running or situational betting (i.e., ‘in-play betting’) this relationship is even less clear.

Event frequency refers to the number of events that are available for betting in any given time period. For example, a lottery draw may occur twice a week but an electronic keno lottery draw may occur 100 times per hour. In this example, a keno lottery draw has a higher event frequency. Bet frequency, on the other hand, refers to the number of bets or wagers placed in any given time period. Using the lottery again as an example, multiple tickets (e.g., 10 tickets) can usually be purchased as frequently as desired before any single lottery draw. So here bet frequency would be equal to 10 but event frequency would be equal to 1. Therefore, bet frequency can often be higher than event frequency and hence, it is possible to spend more than one can afford even with a low event frequency.

The relationship between bet frequency and event frequency needs further empirical investigation. As researchers and clinicians, we often make the assumption the two have a strong relationship; the higher number of betting events – the higher the frequency of betting. Until more research is forthcoming a definitive answer is currently not available. Although, players can place many bets on just one gambling event, the outcome of this event can influence future betting activity. By outcomes, we are essentially referring to winning or losing. Losing can often create financial and emotional motivation to continue betting (i.e. chasing). It could be speculated that the satisfaction from winning may reduce motivation for further betting in the short-term, or it may increase betting as a result of increased bankroll, illusions of control and/or cognitive biases. Therefore, a higher event frequency not only offers more opportunity and choice for betting, but also affects motivation for betting through revealing consequential wins and losses at the end of each event. However, it should also be noted that betting frequency is also impacted by other factors (e.g., peer pressure, time constraints to gamble, etc.).

So does the speed of a game influence the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling? Based on the relationship between event duration, event frequency, bet frequency, and payout interval, empirical research has consistently shown that games that offer a fast, arousing span of play, frequent wins, and the opportunity for rapid replay are those most frequently cited as being associated with problem gambling. The actual prevalence rate of problem and pathological gambling will of course depend on many other factors than speed of the game alone, but games with high and rapid event frequencies such as slot machines are most likely to impact on increased rates of problem and pathological gambling. In-play betting appears to be an activity that is starting to blur the lines between continuous and discontinuous forms of gambling.

Frequency of opportunities to gamble (i.e., event frequency) also appears to be a major contributory factor in the development of gambling problems. The general rule is that the higher the event frequency, the more likely it is that the activity will result in gambling problems. Addictive behaviours have been shown to be associated with the rewards and the speed of rewards and payout rates. Therefore, the more potential rewards there are, and the higher the amount of the rewards, the more problematic the activity is likely to be. Given the time, money and resources, a vast majority of gambling activities are “continuous” in that people have the potential to gamble again and again. Therefore, in relation to problem gambling, in-play betting is an activity that we really need to keep an eye on.

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

Additional input by Dr. Jonathan Parke (Salford University, UK)

Further reading

Blaszczynski, A, Sharpe, L., & Walker, M. (2001). The Assessment of the Impact of the Reconfiguration on Electronic Gaming Machines as Harm Minimization Strategies for Problem Gambling. Report for the Gaming Industry Operators Group, University of Sydney Gambling Research Group, Sydney

Griffiths, M.D. (1993). Fruit machine gambling: The importance of structural characteristics. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 101-120.

Griffiths, M.D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351-369.

Griffiths, M.D. (1999a). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 265-283.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Impact of high stake, high prize gaming machines on problem gaming. Birmingham: Gambling Commission.

Harrigan, K. & Dixon, M. (2009). PAR Sheets, probabilities, and slot machine play: Implications for problem and non-problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23, 81-110.

Ladouceur. R., & Sévigny, S. (2005a). The impact of video lottery game speed on gamblers. Journal of Gambling Issues, 17.

Loba, P., Stewart, S. H., Klein, R. M. & Blackburn, J. R. (2002). Manipulations of the features of standard Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) games: Effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 297-320.

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). The psychology of the fruit machine: The role of structural characteristics (revisited). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 151-179.

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.

Blog eat blog: Can blogging be addictive?

Unless you are one of my followers on Twitter, you probably have no idea that yesterday’s blog was the hundredth one I had published since I began my blog at the end of November 2011. I try to post a blog on every week day and the only time that I have not done this is when I don’t have internet access while on my travels or when I am on holiday. I’ve had a few emails asking how I manage to blog so frequently and/or whether I am “addicted to blogging”!! In honour of my century of blogs, I thought I would use today’s blog as an excuse to take a (not so-serious) look at blogging addiction.

As a psychologist there seems to be a predictable set of questions that I am asked by people when they first meet me. Things like “Oh God, you’re not analyzing me are you?”, “It’s all common sense isn’t it?” and “What’s my body language saying then?” spring to mind. However, for those that know me, my passion for publication, and my love of appearing in the media, I now seem to receive a set of predictable questions that other psychologists tend to ask me at conferences. These consist of variations on a theme: “Would you describe yourself as a ’writaholic’?”, “Are you a publicity junkie?”, “Have you written more papers than you’ve read?” and “Are you addicted to writing/appearing in the media?”. I’m sure you get the general picture.

I ought to say that I really don’t think I am addicted to writing and/or appearing in the media but can I really be sure? If you are a regular reader of my blog you will only be too aware that my specialist research interest is behavioural addiction. I talk about addiction all the time (to my students, to my colleagues, to my friends, to the media, and on this blog). I like to write or appear in the media as much as I can. I keep a detailed diary and I seem to be at my word processor or on the telephone to journalists a disproportionate amount of time. I write about writing. I write articles on productive writing. The fact that I’m writing this blog on this topic tells you something. Therefore what follows is a little bit of light-hearted self-analysis.

To begin with, I have asked myself the following questions. When did I first get into print? When did I first appear in the media? What is it about these activities that could be addictive? What are the rewards? Why don’t other people seem to get sucked in the way that I do? Well there’s no doubt that seeing your name in print can give you a little buzz. The first time I can remember seeing my name in print was when I was nine years old and I had a poem published in a poetry magazine called Cornucopia (a very alliterative poem entitled “Kung-Fu Karate Kim”. I kid you not!). I also remember seeing my name and photograph in the local newspaper which (at the young age of eight years old) also gave me a big buzz (although I don’t think I had ever heard of the word “buzz” at that tender age). My first proper radio appearance was at the age of 10 years old on a BBC Radio Leicester programme called Conkers (I was there to talk about a county Road Safety competition I had won). As early adolescence kicked in, I didn’t care about smoking, drinking, playing slot machines or the opposite sex. I wanted to do things that would get me into print.

So there you have the roots of my possible addictive tendencies towards seeing my name in print. I suppose it also partially explains why I like doing so much media work whether it be TV, radio or the press. I love writing. I write a diary. I write poetry. I write songs. I write academic papers. I write fiction. I write letters. I write, write, write. There is no doubt that I now require something special to give me a big buzz like getting a book published or seeing an article I’ve written in a top quality journal or a wide circulation publication. I find it quite amazing that someone like Sigmund Freud never had a thing published until he was 39 years old. There’s hope for me yet.

It may come as a surprise but some people (including a small percentage of academics) may be addicted to writing. Those who have an “ink problem” undertake ritualistic behaviour engaging in the activity and experience intense “highs” on the acceptance of an article or seeing the article finally in print. Tolerance occurs quickly with writers having to write longer and longer articles or books to get intense “highs” (a stage at which the writing is well and truly “booked”). Irritability and withdrawal effects are experienced when they (a) get an article rejected, (b) go more than a few weeks without getting anything published, (c) run out of ideas to write about (many writers fear developing a “think problem” and some may even resort to “clue sniffing” for inspiration) or (d) are on holiday without access to a word processor. This last problem can sometimes be avoided by carrying a writing implement. Anecdotal evidence suggests such addicts show cross-tolerance to pencils and biros but not to crayons.

So here I am writing the ending to another a blog that I know will be published. Admittedly not the best blog I’ve ever written but one that will help me feel as though I’ve been at least a little bit productive today. Some might say it’s been therapeutic. I’m certainly not the only blogger to consider the issue of ‘blogging addiction’. Check out the links below if you don’t believe me!

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

Further reading

Flodner (2012). Guest blogging addiction. February 27. Located at: http://flodner.com/guest-blogging-addiction/

Mitchell, J. (2008). Blogging: Addiction or conviction? Blogcritics Culture, October 2. Located ar: http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/blogging-addiction-or-conviction/

Online quiz: How addicted to blogging are you? Located at: http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/blog_addiction

Salkin, L. (2011). Why blogging is addictive. Blazing Minds, February 28. Located at: http://blazingminds.co.uk/blogging-addictive/

Vahni (2010). Are you addicted to blogging? Independent Fashion Bloggers, November 19. Located at: http://heartifb.com/2010/11/19/are-you-addicted-to-blogging/

Identity cards: The psychology of online personas in poker

In my role as research consultant for an online poker company, I was involved in a survey of 2000 people on poker names. The results revealed that around 45% of men and women are using (or would use) alternative names when playing online poker to give them some kind of advantage. I found these results somewhat predictable as (a) many people use alternative names in online activities, and (b) most people will adopt strategies if they feel it has a material advantage for them. As online poker grows, more people will use bluff tactics (such as changing their gender online) that they couldn’t do in an offline gambling environment.

There are many parallels between playing online poker and other online gaming activities such as online computer gaming. However, online role-playing computer gamers by definition, take on different online social personas. In online activities, online social personas are created purely by what is typed on screen. These are known as ‘text-based virtual realities’ and the name that a person chooses to play under is just one strategy that people can adopt when playing against opponents if they believe it offers them an advantage.

The survey found that 11% males and 25% females would use a name that suggested they were members of the opposite sex in order to give themselves an advantage. In most online arenas, females are more likely to change their gender or use masculine versions of their real name (e.g., ‘Chris’ instead of ‘Christine’ or names like ‘Charlie’). There are good reasons for this. In male-dominated chat rooms, it is not uncommon for females to receive lots of unwanted male attention the moment they log on. Many females adopt male personas as a way of avoiding the unwanted attention. In online game playing arenas, females often adopt male personas as they usually feel less psychological intimidation and/or alienation by doing so. Our own research has also shown that females have more positive attitudes toward online gambling because the Internet is a gender-neutral environment unlike the more male-dominated offline environments like betting shops and casinos.

Online poker permits players to create a false identity. For others it allows players to retain anonymity. As a player you can pretend to be a young attractive novice female player when in fact you are actually a very experienced recognised professional. On a psychological level, the key to a ‘hustle’ or manipulating other players in poker is by projecting a character and hiding your identity. Essentially it is about representing a façade, whether it is for one hand or the whole of the game. While playing poker online, a player can adopt any ‘character’ they wish to suit any game in which they engage in. For instance, if you are playing with novices it may be profitable to portray an experienced professional in order to intimidate players into submission.

Using the Internet relay chat (IRC) band provided, it is easier for online poker players to develop their persona(s). The tone and pitch of what a player “says” is not revealed in the text on the screen. At a fundamental level all players are acting with their most unemotional ‘poker face’. In these situations, players can exude confidence as they go all in on a psychological bluff, when in reality they may have shaking hands and be sweating like a pig. The key to winning on a psychological level is by inducing emotional reactions from other players, so with knowledge of the opponent, it is possible to ‘tailor’ interactions to induce the desired response.

Image has become all-important in the commercial arena and for some online poker players it is no different. One of the most important things about poker names is that they may help players define their self-image and who they are – at least on some psychological level. For some people, this ‘personal branding’ may be more important than their social identities within a playing community. What you gamble on and what name players choose can be an extension of this. At the very least, names are important in initial impression formation. However, whether they have any longer lasting effect remains speculative and questionable.

Some people do clearly think about the name that they use and the image it projects. For instance, one well-known player who has worked with our research unit used to go under the online name ‘Dostoyevsky’. Dostoyevsky, of course, was the famous Russian novelist who wrote the semi-autobiographical book ‘The Gambler’ based on his own experiences. The use of the online name suggests an air of intellectuality and knowingness. Whether it actually makes a difference to the playing behaviour of Dostoyevsky’s opponents is highly questionable.

Having said that, our own research at Nottingham Trent University suggests the names that people choose has a minimal effect online. It appears to be given more credence by amateur players. Experienced players say that because of the micro-limits and mass of novice players, the bluff of name change and/or image makes negligible difference to their playing behaviour.

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D., Parke, J., Wood, R.T.A. & Rigbye, J. (2010). Online poker gambling in university students: Further findings from an online survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 82-89.

Hussain, Z. & Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Gender swapping and socialising in cyberspace: An exploratory study. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11, 47-53.

McCormack. A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). What differentiates professional poker players from recreational poker players? A qualitative interview study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, in press.

Parke, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Poker gambling virtual communities: The use of Computer-Mediated Communication to develop cognitive poker gambling skills. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 1(2), 31-44.

Wood, R.T.A.  & Griffiths. M.D. (2008). Why Swedish people play online poker and factors that can increase or decrease trust in poker websites: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 21, 80-97.

Wood, R.T.A., Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2007). The acquisition, development, and maintenance of online poker playing in a student sample. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 354-361.

Internet addiction: How big a problem is it?

Yesterday, a study was reported in the British media that Chinese scientists had observed differences in the brains of people who obsessively use the internet similar to those found in people who have substance addiction. This led to the question of whether this was “proof that internet addiction exists”. I was asked for my comments by both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph and I thought I would use my blog to put forward my own view on the topic.

There is currently a debate among psychologists and psychiatrists as to whether ‘Internet addiction’ constitutes a true addiction and should therefore be recognized as a psychiatric disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s fifth edition of the forthcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The past 15 years have produced many empirical studies demonstrating that a significant number of individuals appear to report psychological problems associated with excessive Internet use. The extent and severity of these problems may be somewhat overestimated because of the relatively low methodological quality of many studies in this area. Most studies have utilized inconsistent criteria to identify Internet addicts and/or have applied recruitment methods that may have caused serious sampling bias. More specifically in relation to Internet addiction criteria used in most studies, I have asserted in a number of my publications that the main problems with the measures used is that they tend to (i) have no measure of severity, (ii) have no temporal dimension, (iii) overestimate the prevalence of problems, and (iv) take no account of the context of Internet use.

In a number of published literature reviews, I have also argued that those working in the Internet addiction field need to distinguish between addictions on the Internet, and addictions to the Internet. My view is that most ‘Internet addicts’ are not addicted to the Internet itself, but use it as a medium to fuel other addictions. I have also used case study evidence to argue that some very excessive Internet users may not have any negative detrimental effects as a consequence of their behavior and therefore cannot even be classed as addicted. In short, a gambling addict who uses the Internet to gamble is a gambling addict not an Internet addict. The Internet is just the place where they conduct their chosen (addictive) behavior. However, I am the first to concede that I have also observed that some behaviors engaged on the Internet (e.g., cybersex, cyberstalking etc.) may be behaviors that the person would only carry out on the Internet because the medium is anonymous, non face-to-face, and disinhibiting.

For these reasons, it is often argued that problematic Internet behaviors may be more appropriately conceptualised within existing known psychopathologies such as depression or anxiety. Nevertheless, a number of researchers (including myself) have argued that Internet addictions do exist and can arise from unhealthy involvement in a range of online activities. These activities may include browsing websites, online information gathering, downloading or trading files online, online social networking, online video gaming, online shopping, online gambling, and various online sexual activities such as viewing pornography or engaging in simulated sexual acts.

While there is no consensus regarding the clinical status of Internet addiction, there appears to be significant demand for treatment for Internet-related problems, particularly in China, Taiwan and South Korea, where the estimated prevalence of Internet addiction problems among adolescents ranges from 1.6% to 11.3%. The South Korean government has reportedly established a network of over 140 counselling centres for treatment of Internet addiction, and have introduced treatment programs at almost 100 hospitals. In addition, numerous ‘boot camp’-style programs for Internet-addicted adolescents have emerged in both China and Korea. In Western countries, clinics specializing in the psychological treatment of computer-based addictions have also emerged, including: the Center for Online and Internet Addiction located in Bradford, Pennsylvania, United States; the Computer Addiction Study Center, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, United States; the Broadway Lodge residential rehabilitation unit located in Somerset, England; and the Smith & Jones 12-step (Minnesota Model) clinic located in Amsterdam, Holland. Additionally, there are some online providers of treatment services for Internet addiction (e.g., www.netaddiction.com; www.netaddictionrecovery.com; www.onlineaddiction.com.au), many of which are modelled on 12-step self-help treatment philosophies including specific types of groups such as Online Gamers Anonymous.

Available evidence suggests that, internationally, a large number of individuals with Internet-related problems have received some form of treatment from a mental health or medical service provider. However, very few studies have examined the effectiveness of any such treatments, including counselling, psychotherapy, or pharmacological interventions. The number of studies in this area is not as large as the number of studies examining the general features and correlates of Internet addiction, or as the number of studies of psychological treatment for other behavioral addictions, such as pathological gambling.

Very recently, I – along with colleagues from the University of Adelaide (Dr Daniel King and Professor Paul Delfabbro) – published a systematic review of the Internet addiction treatment literature. Our review investigated the reporting quality of treatment studies according to the 2010 Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Our evaluation of the studies we reviewed highlighted several key limitations, including (a) inconsistencies in the definition and diagnosis of Internet addiction, (b) a lack of randomization and blinding techniques, (c) a lack of adequate controls or other comparison groups, and (d) insufficient information concerning recruitment dates, sample characteristics, and treatment effect sizes.

There were also wider issues as to whether the people being treated in the studies evaluated were actually bona fide ‘Internet addicts’ as some of the people treated may have been addicted to a specific application or activity on the Internet (e.g., gaming, gambling, social networking) rather than being addicted to the Internet itself. We also stressed that research is also needed into whether addicts who use a particular medium to engage in their activity require different types of intervention and/or treatment. For instance, do Internet gambling addicts need or require different treatment interventions than gambling addicts who do not use the Internet to gamble?

Finally, there appears to be a significant need for consensus concerning the clinical definition of Internet addiction and possible sub-forms relating to particular Internet applications and/or activities. This theoretical obstacle, which has existed for over 15 years, has hindered progress in all areas of this field, including the development and validation of a recognised diagnostic tool. Our evaluation of the literature using the CONSORT criteria identified many areas of study design and reporting in need of improvement. In particular, there is a need for more randomized, controlled trials, in both the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention literature.

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

I would also like to thank Dr Daniel King and Professor Paul Delfabbro (University of Adelaide) for their additional input

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Technological addictions. Clinical Psychology Forum, 76, 14-19.

Griffiths, M.D. (1998). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Applications. pp. 61-75. New York: Academic Press.

Griffiths, M.D. (2000). Internet addiction – Time to be taken seriously? Addiction Research, 8, 413-418.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Internet abuse and internet addiction in the workplace. Journal of Worplace Learning, 7, 463-472.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H., Griffiths, M.D. & Gradisar, M. (2011). Assessing clinical trials of Internet addiction treatment: A systematic review and CONSORT evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1110-1116.

Widyanto, L. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Internet addiction: A critical review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 31-51.

Widyanto, L. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? (Revisited). In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Applications (2^nd Edition), pp.141-163. New York: Academic Press.

Widyanto, L. & Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Unravelling the Web: Adolescents and Internet Addiction. In R. Zheng, J. Burrow-Sanchez & C. Drew (Eds.), Adolescent Online Social Communication and Behavior: Relationship Formation on the Internet. pp. 29-49. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Publishing.

Widyanto, L., Griffiths, M.D. & Brunsden, V. (2011). A psychometric comparison of the Internet Addiction Test, the Internet Related Problem Scale, and Self-Diagnosis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 141-149.

Are parents right to worry about their children’s time online?

In households across the country the scene is the same. Hundreds of thousands of youngsters are spending countless hours on social networking sites like Facebook or on internet sites such as YouTube. Indeed, a survey published last year during National Family Week reported that among eight to 15-year-old children, 40% of girls claimed Facebook was the most important thing in their lives (compared to just 6% of boys). Meanwhile, another survey reported that only 10% children had ever penned a handwritten letter. So should these findings be a concern to parents, or to society in general?

Well, when I was at school, if I fancied someone I’d send them a handwritten note. Nowadays, teenagers have SMS, Twitter and Facebook. The youth of today are just using the technologies of the day in the same way we did when we were their age. I love it when I’m working abroad and my children send me emails and texts. Snail mail couldn’t (and wouldn’t) work in these situations. When I was a teenager I passively watched a lot of television. For today’s teenagers, television viewing appears to have been displaced by various forms of interactive social media. They probably spend as much time in front of the screen as I did – it’s just they have more choice and are more proactive than I ever was.

I have three children – one teenager and two ‘tweenagers’ – although I like to call them ‘screenagers’. Like me, all of them spend a significant amount of daily time in front of the Internet, video games, television, mobile phone screen and their iPads. But my daughter watching the latest Lady Gaga video on YouTube is really not that far removed from me waiting a whole week to see my favourite bands on Top Of The Pops. I just wish I’d had in my teenage years what my children have today.

Some have argued there’s a technological generation gap between parents and their children. For some, this may be so but as socially responsible parents we need to play a proactive role in our children’s lives and get to know what they’re up to online. Almost all of my childrens’ online computer use takes place in front of me. Whether I’m watching my young son play with his virtual friends on Club Penguin or my daughter dressing up cartoon girls on Star Dolls or watching my oldest son play Farmville on Facebook, I try to take an active interest in their online use.

The fact social networking sites appear to be so popular among girls is really no surprise. Comparing boys and girls, research has shown females tend to have better social skills and males often have better spatial ability. If this translates to online behaviour, I’d expect to see more girls engaged in social networking and more boys playing video games (which is what the empirical literature seems to show).

When I started researching the psychology of Internet behaviour back in 1994, there were isolated instances of people using the web to meet and date other like-minded users. Such behaviour was classed as strange and bizarre and these people were called ‘geeks’ and ‘anoraks’. Nowadays, the Internet is just another tool in peoples’ social armoury and used in almost every area of our lives.

Whether it’s work, romance or simply keeping in touch, it’s part of modern life and teenagers should be adept in using state-of-the-art technology – they’re certainly going to need it in the future. That’s not to say there aren’t downsides to children and teenagers using the Internet (such as the small minority who seem to be addicted to some online activities). One of the main reasons why behaviour online is very different from offline is because it provides a disinhibiting experience (a well known psychological phenomenon). This is where people lower their emotional guard and become much less restricted in their actions. The main reason for this is because when people are interacting with others online it’s non-face-to-face, non-threatening, and people perceive themselves to be anonymous.

On the positive side, this process can lead people to develop long-lasting friendships and sometimes fall in love online. On the negative side, people might do things online that they’d never dream of doing offline including, in some instances, criminal behaviour such as cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking. These people are engaged in text-based virtual realities and sometimes take on other personas and social identities as a way of making themselves feel good and raising their own self-esteem. Despite the negative side of online behaviour, there’s lots of evidence suggesting the Internet has a positive effect in most people’s lives. In short, for the vast majority of people, including screenagers, the advantages of being online, and on social networking websites, far outweigh the negatives.

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

Further reading

Bocij, P., Griffiths, M.D. & McFarlane, L. (2002). Cyberstalking: A new challenge for criminal law. The Criminal Lawyer, 122, 3-5.

Griffiths, M.D. (2000). Cyber affairs – A new area for psychological research. Psychology Review, 7(1), 28-31.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Trends in technological advance: Implications for sedentary behaviour and obesity in screenagers. Education and Health, 28, 35-38.

Griffiths, M.D. & Kuss, D. (2011). Adolescent social networking: Should parents and teachers be worried? Education and Health, 29, 23-25.

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.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Addiction to social networks on the internet: A literature review of empirical research. International Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 8, 3528-3552.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Excessive online social networking: Can adolescents become addicted to Facebook? Education and Health, 29. 63-66.

 

(Don’t) Get Off My Cloud! Where will Cloud Computing take the Gaming Industry?

Over the last 18 months, I’ve been asked on more than one occasion what I think about Cloud Computing (CC) and implications for the gaming industry. To be very honest, I had been bluffing my way through these conversations for some time and it wasn’t until I was at a video game conference in Malta earlier this year that I really got to grips with what CC is all about.

For those of you who still have no idea what I am talking about, at a very basic level, CC means that users obtain or use information from another server. In practical terms it refers to software hosted and accessed online, rather than on physical hardware or servers (Google Docs being the software application that I am – and probably most other academics I know are – most familiar with). In essence, CC involves an external third party storing and/or hosting data and/or applications for the company using the service. Although CC is a relatively new term, the underlying idea (and arguably the technology) has been around for some time.

So what does this all mean for the gaming industry? In the last decade online gambling has started to take off and is slowly displacing offline gambling activity. Although the number of people who gamble online are in a small minority, internet access has become cheap and other external factors (such as national smoking bans and online gambling being seen as providing ‘good value’ for players) are starting to impact on the offline leisure industry (including gambling).

There are of course a number of reasons why gaming companies are moving into Cloud Computing. Advocates of CC are almost evangelical in their praise for what it can offer companies. Many commentators refer to CC as “a game changer”. In relation to video gaming, I have even seen CC described as a “console killer” as gamers will be able to play from anywhere on any device that has internet access (such as their iPads). In this context, “cloud gaming” can stream ‘on-demand’ games to players who don’t want to buy expensive and/or bespoke hardware. For instance, the millions of Farmville players on the social networking site Facebook shows the impact of games using CC can potentially have. Furthermore, as Eric Knipp (Principal Research Analyst at Gartner Research) says:

“Companies use a variety of tactics to crack the golden egg. Some include basic table stakes – easy to use, well-documented programming and/or packaging interfaces, reliable monetization mechanisms, digital rights management, and reasonable revenue splits with game publishers and developers. Additional tricks of the trade include support for game-enriching hosted capabilities (like multiplayer, matchmaking, player-to-player relationship management (a.k.a. “friends”), product recommendation engines, and player ranking systems). Marketplaces must balance their efforts to attract both the gamer and the creator” (http://gametheoryonline.com/2010/09/03/cloud-computing-changes-video-games/)

Almost every article I have read typically asserts that if implemented and used correctly, CC brings a number of immediate benefits to commercial online companies to help them “stay ahead of the curve and the competition” including (i) increased performance and efficiency savings, (ii) enhanced security, (iii) increased reliability, and – arguably the most important – (iv) reduced financial costs. The reduced costs primarily come from companies being able to try out new applications without having to invest in potentially expensive information technology infrastructure. Additionally, company start-up costs are likely to be lower, and the cost of using CC storage and services are likely to be cheaper than the cost of maintaining its own servers.

Gaming businesses will need to offer services in the way that customers want them. In the gambling market, the most obvious application will be when large amounts of people want to gamble or bet on a particular high profile sporting event simultaneously and/or at short notice such the FA Cup final or the Grand National. The other area where CC is likely to be of help in the gambling arena is for gamblers who play games in multiple media including the internet, mobile phones, and interactive television. CC allows gambling to be available 24/7 even when people are on the move. Other benefits include (i) the opportunity for social gameplay (i.e., playing along with many other gamblers), (ii) the opportunity for servers to be added on a daily basis, (iii) games can be reconfigured automatically, and (iv) services can be corrected with relative ease.

The move towards cloud computing in the gaming industry is starting to happen. Earlier this year, Bet 365 (the British online casino operator) adopted a cloud computing solution to reduce the latency of its core betting system as a way of improving gamblers’ experiences on its website. In layman’s terms, it speeds things up for those accessing the website and can handle large simultaneous demand. The use of CC in Bet 365’s ‘In-Play’ betting system now means that punters can increase their stake in less than two seconds and can support up to a few million gamblers concurrently.

Successful gaming companies are likely to be those that cater for what their customers want. There appears to be a demand from gamblers for access to a much larger number of events and markets. Cloud Computing appears to provide the infrastructure for how the demand can be met – even if it is unpredictable!

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Technological trends and the psychosocial impact on gambling. Casino and Gaming International, 7(1), 77-80.

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

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.