Blame it on the fame? The role of celebrity endorsement in gambling advertising

Have any of you reading this ever visited an online poker site because of a celebrity endorsement? Would the presence of Ben Affleck or James Woods make you more likely to play poker? Commercial gambling has only relatively recently got in on the celebrity endorsement bandwagon mainly because gambling advertising has always been very restricted. When a poker company uses a celebrity endorser, they are signing up an image that is itself a gamble. At the very least, gaming companies should get what they pay for but it can all go horribly wrong. When a purple-bearded Billy Connolly was used to promote the National Lottery in 2002/2003, sales decreased. The adverts had high recall by the public but were hated by a large proportion of the British public who found Connolly highly irritating.

This is all goes to show that any gaming company wanting to use celebrity endorsement as part of its marketing drive has to carefully evaluate a celebrity’s image and reputation. Steps need to be taken to make sure the celebrity’s image and reputation matches the needs of the company. Sales can take a tumble especially if the celebrity used does something that compromises the company’s image. For instance, Vic Reeves drink-driving conviction wasn’t very good for the car insurance company he was promoting! However, in most situations, the relationship between the company and the celebrity will be mutually beneficial. The company receives all of the perks associated with the celebrity such as publicity, positive connotation, recognition, respect and trust. The celebrity – at the very least – benefits financially.

The advertising industry claims that brand recognition, recall and awareness are the most important outcomes of successful marketing campaigns. This, they believe, will result in greater sales and increased revenue. However, as with the Billy Connolly example above, this isn’t always the case. Celebrity endorsement is perhaps even more important in online commercial activities like playing Internet poker where identity, trust and reliability equate to potential punters. As a consequence, many online commercial enterprises appear to opt for short-term, high impact celebrity endorsement and ‘buzz marketing’ rather than investing for the long term. These types of marketing tend to create an instant image and reputation but may not necessarily be good for the company’s longevity. To be market leaders amid the competition, online gaming operators will need to couple strategic marketing with solid brand management.

Interestingly, a survey carried out by Marketing UK asked marketers from a sample of the top 1000 British companies which techniques they thought were the most successful in increasing sales and at building long-term relationships with customers. It found that celebrity endorsements ranked last, beneath things like loyalty schemes, sales promotions, and general display advertising. However, it doesn’t make sense to isolate celebrity endorsements, because they are just one of many marketing elements that are used in a successful campaign. What’s more, if marketers didn’t believe celebrities help in generating long-term sales and profits, they wouldn’t keep paying the large fees they command.

While the jury is out on whether celebrity endorsement is a sales winner, one question that has yet to be answered through research is, what type of gambler does a celebrity endorsement impress and/or influence in their decision play? Is it the novices, long-standing players, or both? Maybe different types of celebrities appeal to different clientele. For me, the most interesting development of the celebrity endorsement culture is how the big poker tournament winners have now become celebrities in their own right. For instance, the star after-dinner speaker at an academic gambling conference I was at in Lake Tahoe was World Series of Poker veteran Howard Lederer. This type of celebrity endorsement may be more appealing to players. The fact that someone has become a celebrity through skill and talent in an activity that gamblers are already positively predisposed towards suggests they will want to have more of a psychological association with these celebrities than those the celebrities who just happen to play poker as a hobby. Judging by the front covers of magazines like Inside Poker, the editors clearly believe that it is the big poker winners that sell the magazine rather than Hollywood A-listers or scantily dressed women.

Celebrity endorsements also tap into the psychology of ‘intrinsic association’. This is the degree to which the gambling activity is positively associated with other interests, people and/or attractions. Intrinsic association also taps into the psychology of familiarity and help explain why so may UK slot machines feature themes relating to television shows, films, popular board games, video games or celebrities. It makes punters feel they know something about the product before they have even played it.

Gaming companies have to ask themselves how much they are willing to gamble on celebrity endorsement in trying to carve out a niche in the market. Companies have got to be clear that they are targeting the right product with the right celebrity with the right message. It can be a long hard slog to shape an image or reputation but it can take just a few seconds of celebrity madness to destroy it.

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

Further reading

Binde, P. (2007). Selling dreams – causing nightmares? On gambling advertising and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 167-191.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005).  Does advertising of gambling increase gambling addiction? International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3(2), 15-25.

Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Brand psychology: Social acceptability and familiarity that breeds trust and loyalty. Casino and Gaming International, 3(3), 69-72.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Celebrity endorsement and online gambling: Ten golden rules. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, June/July, p.64.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Media and advertising influences on adolescent risk behaviour. Education and Health, 28(1), 2-5.

Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2003). The environmental psychology of gambling. In G. Reith (Ed.), Gambling: Who wins? Who Loses? (pp. 277-292). New York: Prometheus Books.

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.

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.

Zangeneh, M., Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2008). The marketing of gambling. In Zangeneh, M., Blaszczynski, A., and Turner, N. (Eds.), In The Pursuit Of Winning.  pp. 135-153. New York: Springer.

My Strange Addiction: The wonderful world of the weird

In a previous blog, I examined a case of so-called ‘hair dryer dependence’. The source material for this blog came from one of the people who had appeared on the TLC (The Learning Channel) documentary television series My Strange Addiction. Immediately after I had written the blog I was emailed by one of the researchers on the show asking if I could help getting people on the show for the next series (Season 4).

For those who have no idea what I am talking about, My Strange Addiction is a US TV documentary show that features stories about people with unusual behaviours. Very few of the behaviours they have featured so far would be classed as addictions in the way that I define them. However, some of the behaviours are genuine obsessions and/or compulsions while others have not been the focus of any kind of medical and/or psychiatric diagnosis.

So far, the show has featured people with various obsessive-compulsive disorders (some of which I have examined in my blog) including body dysmorphic disorder, pica (the eating of non-food such as paper, mud, glass, metal), exercise bulimia, trichotillomania (compulsive hair pulling), dermatillomania (compulsive skin picking), thumb-sucking, furry fandom, excessive laxative use, urine drinking, paraphilic infantilism (being an adult baby), and dating cars.

MY STRANGE ADDICTION: A CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS

If anyone out there thinks they have an interesting story that My Strange Addiction might like to hear about, the show’s producers would really appreciate any help they can get in reaching people who may be good potential candidates for their TV show.

• Are you currently struggling to overcome a strange obsession, addiction or compulsive behavior that is taking over your life?
• Do you spend countless hours obsessing about something or engaging in behavior that others would say is strange?
• Have you drained all of your finances into this obsession?
• Are your friends and family members concerned about your wellbeing?
• Would you like to regain control of your life and your health?

If you found yourself answering yes to any of these questions, you may qualify to be a participant in a major documentary series that offers professional assistance for those struggling with a strange obsession, compulsion, or addiction.

For consideration, please reply to this advert with your name, age, contact information, and brief explanation of how a strange addiction is taking over your life. You can also contact us directly at 312-467-8145 or 20westcastingteam@gmail.com. All submissions will remain confidential. Thank you for sharing your story.

Postscript: Alternatively, if you would like to tell me your story as part of my own academic research, then feel free to contact me at my academic email address: mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk.

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

Further reading and viewing

Griffiths, J. (2011). Review: My Strange Addiction. US Weekly January 25. http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/review–my-strange-addiction-2011251#ixzz1tYHsItPh

Internet Movie Database. My Strange Addiction. Located at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1809014/

My Strange Addiction Official Website. Located at: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/my-strange-addiction

TV.com. My Strange Addiction. Located at: http://www.tv.com/shows/my-strange-addiction/

Warming Glow. The 10 strangest addictions from  ‘My Strange Addiction’. http://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2012/02/10-strangest-my-strange-addictions#page/1

Wikipedia. My Strange Addiction. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Strange_Addiction

Wikipedia. List of My Strange Addiction episodes. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_My_Strange_Addiction_episodes

Let’s talk about sex: A brief overview of narratophilia

Narratophilia is a sexual paraphilia in which an individual derives sexual pleasure from the use of dirty, pornographic and obscene words or sexual story telling with a sexual partner (and is akin to the watching of filmed obscene and/or pornographic material). This can occur face-to-face with a person or via other synchronous media (such as on the telephone [including telephonic sex chat line services] or via Skype on the internet). This is different from telephone scatophilia as all parties are consenting adults (whereas in telephone scatophilia, the person on the receiving end of the obscene and dirty language is a victim who did not give consent for their involvement). In an internet essay on narratophilia, Michael Furlong says that the different ways in which an individual may achieve narratophilia are:

“Story telling by one partner to another during or before sex, erotic literature, cyber sex, audio tape, or phone sex (Blasingame 2005). Texting has also become a very popular way to cause arousal for the both the person sending and receiving. These stories can occur in a casual or common place, but the stories must also be genito-erotically essential (meaning that the narrative must specifically focus on imagery of the genitalia)”

According to (the late) Professor John Money, narratophilia can also be used to describe the reciprocal condition where an individual’s sexual focus is on the hearing of someone speak erotic, obscene, or pornographic words or stories. Some people have argued that narratophilia also includes the reading and writing of obscene and pornographic material particularly if it is used in synchronous electronic media such as online bulletin boards, online chat rooms and mobile phone texting services (so called ‘sexting’). Obviously, definitions of narratophilia were formulated before the advent of the internet age.

However, as Dr Joel Milner, Dr Cynthia Dopke, and Dr Julie Crouch note in a 2008 review of paraphilias not otherwise specified:

“When the criteria for narratophilia are met, the mode of communication can take any form, including telephone sex services, computer-based erotic bulletin boards, and Internet emails. Thus, although a new paraphilia, “chat-scatophilia,” has been proposed to describe an erotic focus on sending obscene words over the Internet (Abal, Marin, & Sanchez, 2003), we do not believe that a new category for Internet transmission of obscene messages is warranted. Furthermore, the degree of overlap between the existing paraphilic categories of narratophilia and telephone scatophilia remains to be determined”

At present, narratophilia is listed as a “paraphilia not otherwise specified” in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). Paraphilia listed in the ‘not otherwise specified’ category are said to occur much less frequently than the paraphilias that are individually listed (e.g., necrophilia, zoophilia, klismaphilia) in this category. However, it is thought that many couples use narratophilic elements during their sexual behaviour. Here the use of spoken obscene words or pornographic language heightens the sexual arousal but is not a necessary prerequisite for sexual arousal to occur. As a consequence, narratophilia can be classified into one of three types

• Exclusive narratophiia: In this type, the individual is unable to get sexually aroused without the telling of a sexual story or obscene language being used. It is thought that this is extremely rare.
• Preferred narratophilia: In this type, the individual has a preference for narratophilic activities to ‘normal’ and conventional sex. They can still become sexually aroused and have sex without the use of obscene words and/or pornographic stories but would simply prefer to be engaged in narratophilic activity when possible. Again, this is thought to be relatively rare although more common than exclusive narratophilia.
• Optional narratophilia: In this type, the individual may just engage in narratophilic behaviour as a form of sexual experimentation in an attempt to enhance and facilitate conventional sexual behaviour. This is thought to be fairly common and widespread among consenting sexual couples.

In their 2008 review of paraphilias not otherwise specified, Dr Joel Milner and colleagues said that there was only one other paraphilia that narratophilia potentially overlapped with (i.e., telephone scatophilia). They also differentiated paraphilias into one of four categories: (i) nonhuman objects, (ii) suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, (iii) children or other non-consenting persons, and (iv) atypical focus involving human subjects (self and others). Milner and colleagues classified narratophilia as being in the second category (i.e., suffering or humiliating of oneself or one’s partner). This was presumably because of the humiliation that the individual or their consenting partner might go through by engaging in the story telling or listening of unreal sexual fantasies. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that most individuals (and their partners) experience no feelings of humiliation so being classed in this category seems to be misguided. Personally, I would class it under the ‘atypical focus’ category.

As there are no empirical data on narratophilia, it is thought to be rare. In the 1986 book Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin, Ashley Montagu claims that narratophilia is more common in men (which based on other paraphilic behaviour would seem reasonable to assume). However, there is no research evidence to empirically confirm the observation. Michael Furlong says that because paraphilias are stimulated by the brain and not by touch, narratophilia is more likely to occur in men. He argues that:

“Because narratophilia can be achieved without even another person being present, this is why it is most common among men. Feel and contact are essential to a woman’s arousal. Because narratophilia is done through verbal communication, women are not as easily aroused by this”

Given that so many couples appear to use narratophilic elements within the context of their conventional sex lives, there has been controversy as to whether narratophilia should even be considered as a paraphilia. The American Psychiatric Association would only consider narratophilia a disorder if the individual was experiencing personal distress or impairment, or harm to others. An example of where narratophilia might be considered a disorder is when the behaviour leads to marital discord. Furlong briefly recounted one of Professor John Money’s case vignettes:

“A man in Minnesota lost his family and job after he was arrested for engaging in homosexual activity in a men’s bathroom. He acted as a bisexual by having sex with his wife once every Saturday and he would later admit that he aroused himself with his wife by narrating military stories to himself from his days of military service about the masturbatory exploits of soldiers”.

Personally, I feel the negative impact (i.e., loss of job and family) was due to repeated homosexual infidelity rather than the narratophilia. However, this does not mean that narratophilia cannot be considered a bona fide paraphilia in some circumstances.

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

Further reading

Abal, Y.N., Marin, J.A.L., & Sanchez, S.R. (2003). Nueva parafilia del siglo XXI: Chat-escatofilia. Archivos Hispanoamericanos de Sexologia, 9, 81-104.

Blasingame, G. (2005). Developmentally disabled persons with sexual behavior problems: Treatment, management, and supervision (2nd ed.). Oklahoma City, OK: Wood & Barnes Publishing.

Dalby, J.T. (1988). Is telephone scatalogia a variant of exhibitionism? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 32, 45-50.

Furlong, M. (2011). Narratophilia. Located at: http://sexual-communication.wikispaces.com/Narratophilia

Milner, J.S. Dopke, C.A. & Crouch, J.L. (2008). Paraphilia not otherwise specified: Psychopathology and Theory In Laws, D.R. & O’Donohue, W.T. (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment (pp. 384-418). New York: Guildford Press.

Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. New York: Harper & Row.

Money, J. (1986). Lovemaps: Clinical concepts of sexual/erotic health and pathology, paraphilia, and gender transposition in childhood, adolescence, and maturity. New York: Irvington.

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.

Network premiere: Can Facebook be addictive?

Back in 1995, I published a paper entitled ‘Technological Addictions” that (as far as I am aware) was the first ever paper published using the term to encompass a wide range of activities that involved the potentially addictive use of technology. In that paper, I mainly made reference to slot machine addiction, video game addiction and television addiction (with a cursory mention of internet addiction thrown in for good measure). I never would have predicted that years later I would be writing on topics such as “social networking addiction”.

This month sees the publication of a new scale in the journal Psychological Reports that measures “Facebook Addiction”. The scale was led by a good research colleague of mine (Dr. Cecilie Andraessen at the University of Bergen, Norway) who I have have recently been working with on some research into other behavioural addictions (e.g., workaholism, shopaholism).

The measure has been named the ‘Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale’ (BFAS). The scale initially comprised a pool of 18 items, three reflecting each of the six core elements of addiction (salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse) that I overviewed in my very first blog. The scale was constructed and administered to 423 students together with several other standardized self-report scales (e.g., including various measures that assess personality and sociability characteristics, attitudes towards Facebook, the Addictive Tendencies Scale and questions about sleep). The items within each of the six addiction elements with the highest correlation were retained in the final scale. Scores on the BFAS converged with scores for other scales of Facebook activity. The scale was also shown to positively relate to various personality traits (e.g., neuroticism, extraversion), and negatively related to others (e.g., conscientiousness). High scores on the new scale were also associated with going to bed very late and getting up very late.

While I have no problem with the paper by Dr. Andraessen and her colleagues, I believe there are a number of wider issues that require further consideration and comment. As a consequence, I wrote a response to their paper published in the same issue of Psychological Reports – not so much a critique of the paper but a commentary on the field of those working in the area of ‘Facebook addiction’.

Over the last five years, the field of research into online social networking has developed rapidly (there is even a journal – Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking – that publishes papers dedicated to the topic). As with the introduction of other new technological phenomena and activities, research papers examining excessive, problematic, and/or addictive use of such new technological phenomena typically tend to follow. My research colleague (Daria Kuss, Nottingham Trent University, UK) and I recently wrote a comprehensive literature review on ‘social networking addiction’ and we have also published a number of articles examining particular sub-groups use of social networking sites (such as teenagers).

The development of the BFAS is most likely a proactive response to the fact that researchers studying problematic Facebook use currently have no psychometrically validated tool. On this level, the new BFAS is clearly of use to those in the field. However, there are a number of key issues that must be addressed for the ‘Facebook addiction’ field to move forward. These are the things that I have commented on in my new paper responding to the publication of the BFAS.

Firstly, I argued that from the spate of academic papers that have appeared over the last five years that Facebook has become almost synonymous with social networking. However, I made the point that researchers need to remember that Facebook is just one of many websites where social networking can take place. Therefore, the BFAS has been developed relating to addiction to one particular commercial company’s service (i.e., Facebook) rather than the whole activity itself (i.e., social networking).

Secondly, I argued that the real issue concerns what people on social networks are actually addicted to and what a Facebook Addiction Scale actually measures. These arguments are almost identical to those I have made in relation to Internet addiction and mobile phone addiction. I am the first to admit that Facebook is the biggest site for social networking activity in the world but there are other sizeable ones but which cater for a different demographic (e.g., Bebo, is a social networking site primarily used by young teenagers). Therefore, the new scale may only be relevant and/or applicable to people that are socially networking of the Facebook website.

Thirdly, I argued that although Facebook was originally set up to facilitate social contact between individuals, it is now a site on which people can do so much more than just communicate with other people. For instance, Facebook users can play games like Farmville, can gamble on games like poker, can watch videos and films, and can engage in activities such as swapping photos or constantly updating their profile and/or messaging friends on every minutiae of their life. In short – and just like the term ‘Internet addiction’ – ‘Facebook addiction’ as a term may already be obsolete because there are many activities that a person can engage in on the medium. Therefore, ‘Facebook addiction’ is not synonymous with ‘social networking addiction’ – they are two fundamentally different things as Facebook has become a specific website where many different online activities can take place.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a fundamental difference between addictions on the Internet and addictions to the Internet. The same argument now holds true for Facebook as well as activities such as mobile phone use. What this suggests is that the field needs a psychometrically validated scale that specifically assesses ‘social networking addiction’ rather than Facebook use. In the new scale, social networking as an activity is not mentioned, therefore the scale does not differentiate between someone addicted to Farmville or someone addicted to constantly messaging their Facebook friends.

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

Further reading 

Andraessen, C.S., Tosheim, T., Brunberg, G.S., & Pallesen, S. (2011). Development of a Facebook Addiction Scale. Psychological Reports, 110, 501-517.

Choliz, M. (2010). Mobile phone addiction: A point of issue. Addiction, 105, 373-374.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (1999). Internet addiction: Internet fuels other addictions. Student British Medical Journal, 7, 428-429.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Gaming in social networking sites: A growing concern? World Online Gambling Law Report, 9(5), 12-13.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Facebook addiction: Concerns, criticisms and recommendations. Psychological Reports, 110, 2, 518-520.

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

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

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 Environment 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.

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

Net loss? A brief overview of online gambling

Last month, Daria Kuss and I published a systematic review of the world wide online gambling literature (2001-2011). The aim of our literature review was to highlight the research that had examined (i) Internet gambling behaviour and (ii) Internet gambling addiction. A total of 39 studies met our inclusion criteria (i.e., the study included primary empirical data, was published in a peer reviewed journal after 2000, and specifically addressed gambling on the Internet). Based on previous research we argued that a combination of individual, situational and structural characteristics would determine whether and to what extent individuals engaged in Internet gambling. Our review attempted to review which characteristics were most important based on the empirical evidence to date.

Individual characteristics include things such as socio-demographic variables, attitudes and motivations. In terms of socio-demographics related to internet gambling, being male, of young age, single (i.e., not in a stabe relationship), and being of higher education were associated with gambling on the Internet. With regards to attitudes, opinions in the published research studies diverged; some viewed Internet gambling as more dangerous than land-based gambling, whereas for others, it was preferable due to anonymity. The motivations reported, for the most part, related to enjoyment and social activities.

Situational characteristics consist of the physical and social environments Internet gamblers are in when they gamble. The studies we reviewed indicated that situational characteristics (i) have an impact on the ways in which people gamble including the stakes they set and (ii) are likewise impacted by the ways in which people gamble on the Internet. However, it must be noted that research into the situational characteristics associated with pathological gambling on the Internet is still relatively scarce compared to studies assessing the structural characteristics. Therefore, in order to present a comprehensive picture of Internet gambling addiction, future research may be informed by particularly addressing the physical and social environments in which gambling on the Internet occurs.

Structural characteristics comprise both the technology of the Internet itself and the gambling types and behaviors that can be performed within it. The former also incorporates the factors that differentiate online gambling from land-based gambling, such as anonymity, convenience and access, levels of trust, gambling-reinforcing factors, and implemented safeguards. The latter addresses the specific types of games that are played online, and the ways in which different people can engage in their preferred gambling activities on the Internet. In sum, relative to situational characteristics, a large amount of research has been conducted specifying and investigating the structural characteristics of the Internet with regards to online gambling. Such studies have examined the technology of the Internet as enabling gambling relative to land-based venues as well as ways in which gambling on the Internet is reinforced

From those who gambled online, a minority appeared to develop a problem and/or an addiction to Internet gambling. With regards to the reported prevalence of Internet gambling addiction, the results of the various studies varied substantially. Of Internet users, 12-23% appeared to have online gambling problems, whereas 5-20% were found to be pathological gamblers. Student Internet gamblers, on the other hand, had higher prevalence rates suggesting that 18-77% suffer from pathological gambling online. Medical and dental patients also fell within higher ranges with approximately 66% gambling online in a pathological way. Finally, the prevalence rates for adolescents suggested that between 8% and 25% of those who gambled on the Internet were problematic gamblers. However, most of the survey studies had major methodological limitations.

Firstly, a large majority of studies included in our review did not comprise samples that were representative of the general population (i.e., self-selected samples were mostly used). As a consequence, this limits the external validity of results. (In fact, only two pieces of published research have used a large representative national sample – the two most recent British Gambling Prevalence Surveys – see one of my previous blogs concerning the implications of the online gambling data from the latest BGPS findings). Secondly, the methodologies applied to assess Internet gambling addiction were diverse and researchers used a number of different classifications. Thirdly, the reliance on self-reports brought into question the reliability of the reported findings. A solution to this problem may be to include significant others of problem/pathological gamblers in determining whether and to what extent the latter’s gambling behaviours can be classified as being clinically relevant.

Despite these shortcomings, it appears that in general, the results supported the prevalence estimates for land-based pathological gamblers, indicating that the prevalence of pathological gambling was higher in adolescents and college students. The dissimilarity of findings for prevalence rates may therefore be related to (i) measures and conceptualizations, (ii) cut-off points, and (iii) samples used. Valid comparisons are only possible when similar diagnostic tools for problem and pathological gambling are used. Future researchers are therefore advised to conduct cross-cultural studies in order to control for the effect of culture on pathology status.

With regards to specific risk factors for the development of pathological gambling online, it appears that those identified in our literature review were very similar to the results of other studies concerned with land-based pathological gambling. Specifically, the findings that Asian and African ancestry and substance abuse increase the odds for pathological gambling as did the number of gambling types engaged in, and the frequency of gambling. Furthermore, the results with regards to specific personality and socio-demographic characteristics as well as mood status associated with pathological Internet gambling were in line with the findings regarding pathological gambling. More specifically, we found that impulsivity, younger age, male gender, emotional distress, being single, and having higher rates of depression and maladaptive coping, were associated with both online and land-based pathological gambling.

Based on the results of the studies reviewed, gambling on the Internet appeared to be associated with problematic gambling more than land-based gambling is. A reason for this may be the structural characteristics of the Internet inherent to this technology, namely availability, ease of access, anonymity, and convenience. In line with this, the Canadian researchers Robert Wood and Richard Williams point out that although “Internet gambling is an exacerbating rather than a causal factor for most problem gamblers who gamble on the Internet, the nature of online gambling still makes it inherently more problematic than most other forms of gambling”. Therefore, the prevalence of problematic gambling among Internet gamblers is likely to be higher than in land-based gamblers. Therefore, the Internet cannot be claimed to be addictive per sé, but rather to facilitate the engagement in addictive behaviours, such as gambling. Future research is needed to highlight the addictive potential of other Internet applications in addition to gambling. This will inform both prevention efforts and potential treatment modalities.

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

Additional input from Daria J. Kuss (Nottingham Trent University)

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Gambling addiction on the Internet. In K. Young & C. Nabuco de Abreu (Eds.), Internet Addiction: A Handbook for Evaluation and Treatment. pp. 91-111. New York: Wiley.

Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2003). The environmental psychology of gambling. In G. Reith (Ed.), Gambling: Who wins? Who Loses? pp. 277-292. New York: Prometheus Books.

Griffiths, M.D., Parke, J. & Derevensky, J. (2011). Online gambling among youth: Cause for concern? In J.L. Derevensky, D.T.L. Shek & J. Merrick (Eds.), Youth Gambling: The Hidden Addiction (pp. 125-143). Berlin: DeGruyter.

Griffiths, M.D., Wardle, J., Orford, J., Sproston, K. & Erens, B. (2009). Socio-demographic correlates of internet gambling: findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 199-202.

Griffiths, M.D., Wardle, J., Orford, J., Sproston, K. & Erens, B. (2011). Internet gambling, health. Smoking and alcohol use: Findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 1-11.

Kuss, D. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012).  Internet gambling behavior. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior (pp.735-753). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

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.

Wardle, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Defining the ‘online gambler’: The British perspective. World Online Gambling Law Report, 10(2), 12-13.

Wardle, H., Moody, A., Griffiths, M.D., Orford, J. & and Volberg, R. (2011). Defining the online gambler and patterns of behaviour integration: Evidence from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. International Gambling Studies, 11, 339-356.

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.