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.

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/

Trust is a must: The role of trust, personalization and context in online gambling

Until recently there appeared to be a commonly held perception that consumers viewed the Internet as an information gathering tool rather than a place to spend money. The explosive growth in online gambling shows this is no longer true. Historically, the two things that have had the power to drive any new consumer technology were pornography and gambling. These activities have helped satellite and cable television, video, and then the Internet. For me, the interesting question is how online gaming companies use as many ways as possible to get punters to log onto their website and how they are going to target new punters in the future.

Let’s look at it from an individual level. A gambler has logged on to the Internet and they are in the process of deciding which online gambling site to make a beeline for. What kinds of things influence their decision? A recommendation from one of their friends? Advice from a gambling magazine or player forum? An advert they saw online? From a psychological perspective, research on how and why people access particular commercial websites indicates that one of the most important factors is trust. If people know and trust the name, they are more likely to use that service. Reliability is also a related key factor. Research shows that some punters still have concerns about Internet security and may not be happy about putting their personal details online. But if there is a reliable offline branch like nearby (e.g., a Gala casino), it gives them an added sense of security and what I would call a “psychological safety net”. For some people, trust and security issues will continue to be important inhibitors of online gambling. Punters need assurance and compelling value propositions from trusted gaming operators to overcome these concerns.

One of the growth areas in e-commerce has been personalization and most online ventures now have a personalization strategy as part of its business plan. However, this practice is a double-edged sword that can prove to be a large logistical problem for some companies. Tracking every move for marketing purposes is one thing. Using these data for personalization purposes can prove troublesome. The amount of data is potentially enormous. Producing personalized pages for everyone is also logistically difficult and may even turn punters away. The key is knowing what to ask the punter. Online operators have to think intelligently and creatively about what to ask people who visit their sites in a way that the information gained can be used effectively. Attracting and providing customers with useful information relies on the gaming companies putting punters first.

Integration can also be a factor here. Online gambling companies are going to have to think of creative ways to make the gaming experience more personal and match it more closely to the real gaming experience something that has worked well for online poker sites. Companies may also need special pricing for online customers. Price is just one of the many considerations a gambler weighs up. It is more about a complete service than price alone (although in the gambling world, offering competitive odds and bonuses will obviously make websites attractive to gamblers).

One of the most important marketing strategies that online companies engage in is “imprinting” new customers. Online punters quickly adopt predictable Internet usage patterns and evidence suggests that they don’t switch online allegiances easily. Smart online gambling operators will work at becoming a starting point for the novice gambler and capitalize on this opportunity for capturing player loyalty. The emerging post-teenage market is a key consideration. There is a whole Internet generation coming through who have a positive outlook on online commercial activities. They may be happier to enter credit card details online and/or meet others online. This has the potential to lead to major changes in clientele as the profiles of these people will be radically different from previous punters. The problem is that the young don’t tend to have much disposable income and are less likely to own credit cards. Therefore, another market segment that those in the online gambling business will start to target are the over-50s who are starting to use the Internet for shopping and entertainment use. Early retirees have both time and money, which is why online companies will target the ‘grey’ pound, euro or dollar.

So what’s coming next? Contextual commerce may be one avenue that the online gaming affiliate industry uses more and more. In most retail outlets, shoppers notice what other people are buying and this may influence the purchaser’s choice. Companies are now working on software that allows customers to do this online including interacting with other shoppers. Seeing what everyone else is buying (or betting on) may again influence the decision process. There is also the potential to bring in techniques used on home television shopping channels. Presenters tell viewers how much of a product has been sold with viewers to instil a sense of urgency into the buying process, along with an element of peer review. This could be applied in some online gambling situations if people are gambling as part of a community such as online poker tournaments. I think it’s a case of ‘watch this space!’

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Internet gambling: Issues, concerns and recommendations. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6, 557-568.

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. (2008). Online trust and Internet gambling. World Online Gambling Law Report, 8(4), 14-16.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Twitter and Facebook more ‘addictive’ than nicotine and alcohol?

Last week I was asked by the British media to comment on the story suggesting that using Twitter and Facebook were more addictive than activities like smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Once again this was a classic example of the media – for instance the Daily Telegraph – going beyond the data and not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

Before being interviewed for a radio programme, I had read the newspaper reports about the research but these didn’t seem to tell me very much. I wanted to know the aims of the research, the method that had been used to collect the data, and I wanted to know how the researchers had reported their results and what conclusions they had reached. The research was carried out by psychologists Dr Wilhelm Hofmann (University of Chicago), Dr Kathleen Vohs (University of Minnesota), and Dr Roy Baumeister (Florida State University). I emailed Dr Hofmann and told him that I wanted to write about his study in my blog. He immediately sent me a copy of the paper and a very helpful ‘media summary’. So what was the researchers’ aim and what did they actually do?

The first thing to note was that the research was not about addiction but about desire and temptation. The researchers point out that little is known about what types of urges are felt strongly (or only weakly), which urges conflict with other important things that we should be doing, and the extent to which urges can be resisted. The primary aim of the research team was to compare the various desires and the extent to which they are resisted in people’s day-to-day lives. The researchers used an innovative methodology to assess the frequency, intensity, conflict, resistance, and enactment of peoples’ desires.

The data were collected from 205 people (although interestingly, this turned into 250 in many of the press reports I read). They were aged 18 to 55 years and all living in (and around) Würzburg (in Germany). Two-thirds of the participants were female (66%) and three-quarters of the total sample were university students (73%). All of the people taking part in the study were provided with a handheld Blackberry device and carried it around with them for a one-week period. Each day, they were sent seven messages over a 14-hour period asking them for specific data relating to desires and urges. All those taking part were given a small financial incentive at the start the study and were given additional financial incentives if they completed data entry for more than 80% of the messages sent by the research team. On average, over 90% of messages sent by the research team resulted in data being sent back (so there was an excellent response rate).

After each message was sent, those taking part in the study had to indicate whether they were currently experiencing a desire (explained as a craving, urge, or longing to do certain things) or whether (in the previous half an hour) they had just experienced a desire. If they had a desire, they then had to indicate what kind of desire from a list of 15 domains (i.e., food, non-alcoholic drinks, alcohol, coffee, tobacco, other substances, sexual, media, spending, work, social, leisure, sleep, hygiene-related, or other). Additionally, they had to indicate:

(i) The strength of the desire on a scale from ‘0’ (no desire at all) to ‘ (irresistible)

(ii) The degree to which the desire conflicted with other personal goals on a scale from 0 (no conflict at all) to 4 (very high conflict)

(iii) The nature of the conflicting goals from a list of 20 options (such as sleep conflict, social conflict, work conflict, etc.) and whether they attempted to resist the desire (yes or no), and whether they yielded to the behaviour implied by the desire at least to some extent (yes or no).

Up to three desires could be reported any given measurement occasion. In total there were 10,558 responses and a total of 7,827 desires reported during the one-week period. So what did the results show? The main finding – perhaps unsurprisingly – was that the most frequently described desires related to basic bodily needs (e.g., eating, drinking, and sleeping). More specifically, the researchers reported significantly above-average desires for sleep, sex, hygiene (e.g., needing to go to the toilet), sports participation, social contact, and non-alcoholic drinks. The lowest average desire strength were for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes (and is where the sensationalist headlines came from).

The study also noted that the participants’ desires to work and use media (e.g., Twitter and Facebook) were especially prone to yielding to their urges. However, the authors rightly note that “resisting the desire to work when it conflicts with other goals such as socializing or leisure activities may be difficult because work can define people’s identities, dictate many aspects of daily life, and invoke penalties if important duties are shirked”. They also speculate that checking emails, surfing the web, texting, and/or watching television might be hard to resist in light of the constant availability, huge appeal, and apparent low costs of these activities. They also assert that “media consumption behaviors might, however, turn into strong habits or forms of pathological media abuse”.

I ought to add that I did ask Dr. Hofmann about the media reports and how the press had sensationalized the study. In an email to me he said:

“Our data can only speak to self-control failure rates in the different domains, not to the ‘addictiveness’ of these desires. To study the development of addiction, we would have to sample desires over longer time spans and see whether they become more frequent and pressing over time. Still, I believe our findings tell us that people have a hard time putting desires for media use of, perhaps because we did not really learn well how to control those (plus, given the constant availability of those gadgets). Whether the consequences of frequent media (over)use outweigh those of more risky things such as alcohol and nicotine consumption is a different ballgame, again”.

I was also interested to read the media summary that Dr Hofmann sent me. It said that:

“Our main finding can be summarized in just two words: people want. However, the present data are among the first to paint a clearer picture of what it is people desire, how they feel about it, and how successful they are in dealing with it. Extrapolating our findings to a 16-hour waking day, people on average spend about eight hours desiring things, three hours resisting desire, and a glorious half hour yielding to temptation”

The authors’ claim that based on their findings, their results challenge the stereotype of addiction as driven by irresistibly strong desires. They also claim that the knowledge they have generated can inform understandings about self-control, behavioral change, and addiction. However, there does seem to be one major limitation of the research. I couldn’t find anywhere in the paper that the authors had reported what percentage of the people who took part in the study were either cigarette smokers or drank alcohol. In fact there were no limitations mentioned whatsoever (such as the small non-representative sample – mainly female and mainly university students – from one German locality). If most of the sample were non-smokers/non-drinkers or casual smokers/casual drinkers it wouldn’t be surprising if there were few urges or desires to drink or smoke!

Postscript: Since writing this article, I received a very informative email from Dr Hofmann informing me that 22% of the sample in this study were current smokers (and that a very small minority were ex-smokers). Dr Hofmann informed me that they are doing further analysis on the data set. I look forward to seeing more papers from this interesting research study.

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

Further reading

Hofmann, W, Vohs, K.D. & Baumeister, R.F. (2012). What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everyday life. Psychological Science, in press.

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

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

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.

In for a penny? Why online penny auctions are a form of gambling

Yesterday, I was quoted in The Observer about activity on online penny auction sites such as ‘Madbid’ and whether they were a form of gambling. My first thought when looking at what people do on these sites was basically gambling. To me they are all but gambling in name and they don’t seem to be regulated by any gambling organization or authority.

The basic idea behind online penny auctions is perhaps laudable. They offer the chance to buy brand new products at very competitive prices. On sites like Madbid, a bid is raised by one penny at the time, so when the current price of a product is (for example) £1.10, the bid is raised to £1.11. There is no time limit as such for the sales time, instead whenever no additional bids are made during a product specific time limit (e.g., five minutes) the auction is automatically closed. To give an example, if a bid is made at 1:06pm and there is a five-minute time limit, at 1:11pm the auction is closed, assuming no other bids are made. The opening times of the auctions are often product specific (e.g., 10am-10pm). Should the product not have been sold by 10pm the auction continues again the following morning.

In order for a person to participate in a penny auction, they need to place a bid in an ongoing auction. They can do this by (a) placing a bid by sending a text message from their mobile phone (at £1.50 a bid plus operator’s costs) or (b) placing a bid through the creation of an online account where the person buys a ‘bundle’ of bids (at 75p to £1.40 a bid depending on how big a bundle they buy in advance). To bid by text message, a person sends a message with the code for the specific product that they want to bid on. To bid using an online account, a person clicks on ‘Register’ and follows the online instructions. There is no limit to how many bids that can be submitted on the same auction product. There is also no limit on how many different products can be bid on at any one time.

Here’s an example of a real winning bid. A PlayStation videogame console (retail price of over £300) was won in a penny auction for £8.34. To the winner of the auction this was won at a hugely discounted price. However, what this really means is that there were 834 separate bids for this item all costing between 75p and £1.50 per bid (depending whether it was done online or via mobile phone). Looking at the ‘bid history’, most of the final 50 bids were made by just two individuals who at a minimum spent at least £30 in those final bids trying to secure the item. Although one person won the console, the other person spent a lot of money and got nothing. I think there are many reasons as to why online penny auctions are akin to gambling. Below are some (but not all) of the main similarities between penny auctions and gambling:

• In penny auctions, winning is essentially chance-determined: There may be limitations on the number of text messages operators allow per month but theoretically a person can bid again and again (on either a single product or multiple products) with no certainty that they will ever win the product. In short, a person could make 10 bids for an item on their mobile phone at £1.50 a bid and end up with nothing. Whether a bidder wins the auction or not, it does not seem to depend on any discernable skill and is more like a chance-based lottery. If there is no real skill in participating and is essentially a chance activity, how is this not a form of gambling.

• Penny auction websites utilise the ‘availability bias’: The availability bias occurs when a person evaluating the probability of a chance event makes the judgement in terms of the ease with which relevant instances come to mind (Griffiths, 1994). For instance, lottery winners are highly publicised. This perpetuates the idea that wins are regular and commonplace. Penny auction websites display the winners of each item. This is a way of emphasising winning and minimising the act of losing. Similarly, penny auction websites have a ‘Meet the winners’ webpage highlighting people that have won very expensive items (like a car) for incredibly low amounts of money. These instances are very rare but by publicising them it makes them appear a more common occurrence.

• Multiple staking for no reward is commonplace in penny auctions: It is clear from looking at almost any of the item bidding histories that many people make multiple bids without ever winning the product. Here, peoples’ multiple bids are similar to putting down multiple stakes when there is a high jackpot prize to be won (e.g., buying lots of lottery tickets during a ‘rollover’ week). In penny auctions, all the bidders bar one on each auction fail to win the product (prize).

• Penny auction websites provide tips for winning: As with many Internet gambling websites (especially online poker websites), penny auction website operators feature webpage sections providing tips on winning for its clientele (e.g., “What can I do to improve my chances of winning?”).

• Penny auction websites have responsible gambling-like policies: Instead of ‘responsible gambling’ policies, the more ethically and responsibly minded penny auction websites have ‘responsible bidding’ policies. For instance, Madbid has a helpful FAQ section that included the question “Is there a risk of addiction to the service?” and provided a link to their ‘Responsible Bidding’ page which gives the following advice:

• Take regular breaks between buying activities.
• Decide a monthly budget in advance as your own personal limit. Do not increase the maximum limit that you have decided for yourself later on.
• Before you start participating in a product purchase, decide the number of bids you are willing to place or determine a price at which you will not raise the bid further.
• Never participate under the influence of alcohol or medication, or if you are in a depressive mood.
• Bid only when you are fully rested and concentrated.

This list looks as though the operators have read the responsible gambling guidelines at an online gambling website and simply replaced the words ‘gamble’ and gambling’ with the words ‘bid’ and ‘buying’.

I have tried to argue that penny auction websites are Internet gambling websites in all but name. They appear to be unregulated and there is no gambling watchdog or regulatory body that oversees their operation. At the very least, the British Gambling Commission should at least do their own investigation to determine whether penny auction websites should come under their regulatory jurisdiction. I also think it would be more socially responsible if penny auction websites listed the total amount spent on bids by the person who got the winning item rather than what the final winning bid was.

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Online ‘penny auction’ sites: Regulation needed. World Online Gambling Law Report, 8(1), 3-5.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2001). The psychology of lottery gambling.  International Gambling Studies, 1, 27-44.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2008). Responsible gaming and best practice: How can academics help? Casino and Gaming International, 4(1), 107-112.

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.

Touchpoint (2011). Penny auctions: Costly pastime or online gambling? February 18. Located at: http://www.nsgamingfoundation.org/publications/touchpoint/Touchpoint%20February%2018,%202011.pdf

Gambling online, social responsibility and ‘foot-in the-door’ practices

Bill Gates arrives at the port to heaven and hell. Petrus says “You see Bill, we don’t know what to do with you. You may choose heaven or hell”. Bill peeks in heaven and sees a couple of old boring men sitting around at a table. Bill takes a look in hell and sees really beautiful women, sex, drugs, rock and roll, and most of all, gambling. Bill says “I am a gambling man, I want to go to hell!” Once in hell, Bill is immediately thrown into the fire. Bill says “Hey, what the hell is this, I saw all the gambling, women, and sex?” The devil says ‘That was just a demo version.”

Hopefully this opening joke highlights that online gamblers need to be aware that commercial operators often use subtle psychological ploys to get them to part with their money. For the online gambling industry, it also raises issues around social responsibility and the extent to which operators should be using such tactics.

One of the most common ways that gamblers can be facilitated to gamble online is when they try out games in the ‘demo’, ‘practice’ or ‘free play’ mode. At one level, most would argue that playing for points rather than money is little more than innocuous fun and ‘good value’ to the player. Furthermore, playing games for free online is akin to ‘skill schools’ that exist offline, such as learning poker or blackjack in a casino. Offline, there are many constraints to ‘learning to play’ as the free opportunities may only be available on certain days and at certain times. On internet gambling sites there is a lot of scope for players to practice games for free before they play with real money. However, gaming operators need to realise that in terms of their social responsibility, games – even the ‘demo’ versions – need to be fair to players. Despite the undoubted positives, there are other not so positive aspects that have been identified in the scientific literature.

The use of ‘greater than chance’ win probabilities during ‘demo’ games is one example of the many tried and tested psychological ‘foot-in-the-door’ techniques used widely in the commercial sector. Some research carried out by psychologists at the University of Laval in Canada showed it was significantly more commonplace to win while ‘gambling’ on the first few goes on a ‘demo’ or ‘free play’ game. They also reported that it was commonplace for gamblers to have extended winning streaks during prolonged periods while playing the ‘demo’ version. Obviously, once gamblers to play for real, the odds of winning may be considerably reduced. Related to this are the urban myths that develop around online gambling. For instance, a very common myth is that a gambler’s first bet after opening an online account is very often a winning one.

There is now a growing number of studies highlighting that playing for free online is popular among teenagers. ‘Money free’ gambling appears to play an important role for adolescents in conceptualising and experiencing Internet gambling. In the 2009 British study of gambling among nearly 9000 adolescents aged 11-to 15-years, Ipsos MORI reported that just over a quarter of them had played in ‘money-free mode’ on internet sites in the week preceding the survey. Further analysis of these data by researchers at Salford University showed that gambling in the money-free mode was the single most important predictor of whether the child had gambled for money, and one of the most important predictors of children’s problem gambling. However, the possibility and extent to which money-free gambling is responsible for real gambling participation and gambling-related risk and harm needs further research.

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

Further reading

Forrest, D. K, McHale, I  & Parke, J. (2009). Appendix 5: Full report of statistical regression analysis. In Ipsos MORI (2009)British Survey of Children, the National Lottery and  Gambling 2008-09: Report of a quantitative survey. London: National Lottery Commission.

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.

Sevigny, S., Cloutier, M., Pelletier, M. & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Internet gambling: Misleading payout rates during the “demo” period. Computers In Human Behavior, 21, 153-158.

 

Save all your misses for me: The psychology of the near miss in gambling

One of the most frequent questions that I am asked is why gamblers continue to gamble despite the fact that (in the long run) they consistently lose. The simple answer is that they gamble because they get constant rewards from engaging in the behaviour. To a non-gambler, losing money doesn’t seem like a very rewarding activity. To a gambler, there can be many different kinds of rewards. For instance, they could be financially rewarded (by winning money), physiologically rewarded (through an adrenaline rush by the thrill and the ‘buzz’ of the gambling itself), psychologically rewarded (through an increase of self-esteem) and/or socially rewarded (by getting peer praise from their friends). There are also many other things that can be rewarding in specific gambling settings because they produce excitement, arousal and tension. Obvious examples are things like the pre-race and race sequence at the race track, the flashing lights of a slot machine, or the spinning roulette wheel, the placing of bets.

One of the most interesting psychological rewards is the “near miss”. In simple terms, near misses are failures that are close to being successful. In games of skill, near misses are very helpful as they give us useful feedback and encourages us to continue because we know that we were nearly successful in what we were trying to achieve. However, in activities of pure chance (such as buying a lottery ticket), such information is worthless as it gives absolutely no likelihood as to the chances of future success. Research as shown that gamblers experiencing near misses may view them as encouraging signs by confirming their strategy and by raising their hopes of winning. In gambling situations, near misses encourage and induce continued gambling, and some commercial gambling activities (particularly slot machines and scratchcards) are deliberately designed to ensure a higher than chance frequency of near misses. In some of my own research, I have shown that gamblers appear to get as physiologically excited when they are nearly winning as when they are winning. Therefore, a gambler is not constantly losing but constantly nearly winning! And the near misses are both psychologically and physiologically rewarding. What’s more, it costs the gaming industry nothing to incorporate them into their products.

Unfortunately, because of features like the near miss, some types of gamblers (such as slot machine players) can become very hooked on playing. Characteristics such as the near miss are capable of producing psychologically rewarding experiences even in financially losing situations. On slot machines, the most significant change in near miss design over the last decade involves the types of near misses incorporated by the manufacturers in their machines. On current slot machines, gamblers can win money through the machine’s ‘reel order’ or specialist ‘play features’. (In basic terms they can either win money through the order of symbols on the ‘win line’ such as three melons in a row, or win money via a specialist play feature by progressing up a feature board). The gaming industry appears to have adapted and strengthened the near miss by connecting it more to the ‘feature’ play rather than reel order.

The more features incorporated into the slot machine, the more opportunities for manufacturers to use different types of near miss. For instance, a player can often move their way up the ‘feature board’ without actually winning any money. They might even get themselves up to a point where they are just one spin away from the jackpot or the ultimate prize winning feature. On this final spin having moved right up the feature board, they lose. This is clearly an example of the near miss evolving but is extremely powerful for three reasons. Firstly, the gambler actually had access to several wins along the way but decided not to take them in order to pursue their goal of the jackpot prize. Secondly, the play leading up to the jackpot is extremely arousing and involves intensive gambler involvement that is itself highly rewarding. Thirdly, habitual slot machine players will often continue until they reach the jackpot or top feature no matter what the cost. These factors all give the impression that losing is the player’s fault since they did not collect the winnings when they had the chance.

As with traditional near misses, the gambler feels the excitement of “nearly” winning via ‘feature’ participation. Perhaps more importantly, it may cause frustration or regret that can perpetuate gambling. Often the only way a gambler can get rid of the feeling of frustration and regret is to gamble again. The main point is that the psychology of the near miss appears to be being used now more than ever and in different ways to that with which it was traditionally used. Before I go I ought to add one more thing. Near misses only work up to a point. To increase the proportion of near misses in relation to wins will in the long term be self-defeating. Put simply, it is like crying “Wolf!” – gamblers will very quickly start to realise that near wins don’t pay out. However, from a gaming industry perspective, even a very slight manipulation of near misses may reap huge commercial rewards for them in the very long run.

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

Further reading

Chase, H.W. & Clark, L. (2010). Gambling severity predicts midbrain response to near-miss outcomes. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 6180-6187.

Clarke, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry. Neuron, 61, 481- 490.

Griffiths, M.D. (1991). The psychobiology of the near miss in fruit machine gambling. Journal of Psychology, 125, 347-357.

Griffiths, M.D. (1999). The psychology of the near miss (revisited). British Journal of Psychology, 90, 441-445.

Harrigan, K. (2008). Slot machine structural characteristics: creating near misses using high award symbol ratios. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 353-368.

Harrigan, K. (2009). Slot machines: Pursuing responsible gaming practices for virtual reels and near misses. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7, 68-83.

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Gambling addiction and the evolution of the ‘near miss’. Addiction Theory and Research, 12, 407-411.

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.

Reid, R.L. (1986). The psychology of the near miss. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 32–39.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

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

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

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

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

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

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