(Loot) boxing clever? Has child and adolescent problem gambling really risen in the UK?

A couple of months ago, teenage gambling was grabbing the media headlines. The UK Gambling Commission published its annual statistics showing that based on a self-report survey of 2865 children and adolescents aged 11-16 year-olds, that the prevalence of problem gambling had risen to 1.7% (2% for boys and 1.3% for girls) compared to 0.4% in 2016 and 0.9% in 2017. This lead to predictable headlines such as “Number of child gamblers quadruples in just two years”.

I’ve been researching adolescent gambling for over three decades and was the topic for my first two books in 1995 and 2002. While the figures were concerning, the good news is that the prevalence of adolescent problem gambling has been on the decline in the UK over the past 20 years. For instance, the prevalence of adolescent problem gambling back in 2000 was approximately 5% but by 2016 was less than one-tenth of that. The rise over the past two years is a potential worry although the Gambling Commission’s ‘technical annex’ report about the methodology used to collect the data for the latest survey did suggest that one of the main reasons for the significant increase in problem gambling was likely due to a change in the way data were collected.

In short, the filtering questions in the latest study were changed (so that they more matched the adult gambling prevalence surveys that are carried out) which lead to a doubling of teenagers completing the problem gambling screen that was used to assess problem gambling (18% completing the problem gambling screen in 2017 compared to 34% in 2018). However, it is still worth noting that using the same methodology, there was more than a doubling of adolescent problem gambling from 2016 to 2017 (0.4% to 0.9%).

If there has been a genuine increase in adolescent problem gambling over the past couple of years, I think one of the main factors in this is the playing of simulated gambling games (or gambling-like activities such as the buying of loot boxes) in video games. The Gambling Commission’s report noted that 13% had played gambling-style games online, and that 31% had accessed loot boxes in a videogame or app, to try to acquire in-game items.

The buying of loot boxes takes place within online videogames and are (in essence) virtual games of chance. Players use real money to buy virtual in-game items and can redeem such items by buying keys to open the boxes where they receive a chance selection of further virtual items. Other types of equivalent in-game virtual assets that can be bought include crates, cases, chests, bundles, and card packs. The virtual items that can be ‘won’ can comprise basic customization (i.e., cosmetic) options for a player’s in-game character (avatar) to in-game assets that can help players progress more effectively in the game (e.g., gameplay improvement items such as weapons, armour). All players hope that they can win ‘rare’ items and are often encouraged to spend more money to do so because the chances of winning such items are minimal. Many popular videogames now feature loot boxes and these require the paying of real money in exchange for a completely random in-game item.

At present, the UK Gambling Commission does not consider loot boxes as a form of gambling because (they claim) the in-game items have no real-life value outside of the game. However, this is not the case because there are many websites that allow players to trade in-game items and/or virtual currency for real money. The Gambling Commission appears to acknowledge this point and claim that the buying of in-game loot boxes (and their equivalents) are not gambling but, if third party sites become involved (by allowing the buying and selling of in-game items), the activity does become a form of gambling. Personally, I view the buying of loot boxes as a form of gambling, particularly because the ‘prizes’ won are (in financial terms) often a lot less than that of the price paid.

A study published in the journal PLoS ONE claimed they had evidence for a link between the amount that videogame players spent on loot boxes and problem gambling severity in a large survey of 7422 gamers. The paper concluded that:

“This link was stronger than a link between problem gambling and buying other in-game items with real-world money…suggesting that the gambling-like features of loot boxes are specifically responsible for the observed relationship between problem gambling and spending on loot boxes”

However, this evidence is correlational not causal. I’ve also cited empirical research in my academic papers that engaging in simulated gambling within videogames is a risk factor for both gambling with real money and problem gambling. In November 2018, the Mail on Sunday (MoS) published some of my concerns after they interviewed me about the issue of simulated gambling in online videogames. Although no real money is staked, I have argued that such activities normalize gambling for children and that such activities behaviourally condition children towards gambling.

The MoS claimed that I said that children should be banned from playing online games such as Candy Crush. What I actually said was that children should be prohibited from engaging in gambling simulations within videogames. Candy Crush now features a gambling-type element in the form of a ‘wheel of fortune’ type game (which has also been used in other videogames like Runescape and which I have also argued are gambling when players have to pay to spin the wheel) and that children should be prohibited from accessing such gambling-like features. There is no evidence that the playing of Candy Crush causes problematic behaviour but the playing of simulated gambling-type games has been shown to be a risk factor for problem gambling among adolescents.

The question as to whether there has been a genuine increase in problem gambling among children and adolescents cannot be answered from the Gambling Commission’s latest report but based on other pieces of research there does appear to have been a slight rise over the past couple of years.

(Please note that a different version of this article was first published in The Conversation).

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Calado, F., Alexandre, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Prevalence of adolescent problem gambling: A systematic review of recent research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33, 397-424.

Calado, F. & Griffiths, M.D. (2016). Problem gambling worldwide: An update of empirical research (2000-2015). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5, 592–613.

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

Griffiths, M.D.  (2003). Adolescent gambling: Risk factors and implications for prevention, intervention, and treatment. In D. Romer (Ed.), Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward An Integrated Approach (pp. 223-238). London: Sage.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Adolescent gambling in Great Britain. Education Today: Quarterly Journal of the College of Teachers. 58(1), 7-11.

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Adolescent gambling. In B. Bradford Brown & Mitch Prinstein (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence (Volume 3) (pp.11-20). San Diego: Academic Press.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Adolescent gambling via social networking sites: A brief overview. Education and Health, 31, 84-87.

Griffiths, M.D. (2018). Is the buying of loot boxes in videogames a form of gambling or gaming? Gaming Law Review, 22(1), 52-54.

Griffiths, M.D. & King, R. (2015). Are mini-games within RuneScape gambling or gaming? Gaming Law Review and Economics, 19, 64-643.

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

 

Snap chat: The psychology of selfies

“Barefoot Wine is an advocate of self-expression and as such have introduced the House of Sole, a pop up event space in the heart of Soho [in London] that will encourage people to truly express themselves by taking part in a variety of activities including mind and soul reading, a self-customisation bar, and blindfold wine tasting. Barefoot encourages self-expression and celebrates individualism, from campaigns including ‘Bare Your Sole’ where we encourage individuals to shout about a passion point they have to the ‘House of Sole’ which is the ultimate destination for self-expression”.

This opening quote is from a press release by Barefoot Wine (BW) who a few months ago involved me in a press campaign concerning the psychology of selfies. Today’s blog uses material that I provided to BW about the rise of the selfie on social media and which was featured at length in the press release. The reason I was approached was a result of the massive worldwide press coverage that Dr. Janarthanan Balakrishnan and I received in relation to our research on obsessive selfie-taking (‘selfitis’) that I’ve written about in previous blogs (here, here, and here).

I have come to the view that the selfie is much more than a way to show your friends and family what you’ve been up to, or your new haircut or a celebrity that you’ve meant, and it’s also the most efficient form of self-expression. In research I published last year with Dr. Balakrishnan in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, we identified the reasons behind the ‘selfie’ phenomenon and what it means to an increasingly digitally connected, culturally aware and proud generation.

Our research suggested there were six main motivations for taking selfies. The six motivations are:

• Self-confidence (e.g. taking selfies to feel more positive about oneself)
• Environmental enhancement (e.g. taking selfies in specific locations to feel good and show off to others)
• Social competition (e.g. taking selfies to get more ‘likes’ on social media)
• Attention seeking (e.g. taking selfies to gain attention from others)
• Mood modification (e.g. taking selfies to feel better)
• Subjective conformity (e.g. taking selfies to fit in with one’s social group and peers)

The motivations for taking selfies may be different. However, the selfie in general enables an individual to create a genuine identity or a perceived identity. Either way, this can be a positive source of boosted self-confidence, allowing the individual to express themselves in a way in which adds to their identity or character and showcase who they truly are (or who they believe they are and/or want to be).

The rise in selfie popularity has also allowed to us to be more connected on a personal level. Before the invention of modern day smartphones, sharing personal experiences were restricted to physical social interactions or one-to-one conversations. This trend has seen us being a lot more open and talking about our experiences to an extent where we wouldn’t have before. This has allowed people to celebrate their hobbies, interests, and the aspects that make individuals who they are.

However, as selfies have become a popular form of self-expression, issues around vanity can kick in, the findings of our research showed that excessive selfie-takers were more likely to be motivated to take selfies for attention seeking, environmental enhancement, and social competition (and which emphasises perceived identity).

In recent years, selfies have become a key source of personal expression and are a quick and convenient way for people to instantly satisfy lots of their own personal needs as well as present themselves in a way that they want other individuals to see them. For many people, selfies help create their identity for how they wish others to see them and can be a source of boosting self-esteem. The rise of social media has meant that such self-expressions can be displayed instantly to their followers and the wider world more generally.

The rise of the selfie has put individuals more in control of how they are represented in their wider social community. If a person is not happy with the picture they have taken they can either delete it or use photo editing apps/software to change an image to the way that suits them the best. It has subsequently made the individual more self-aware which for many is a good thing but for a smaller minority it may make them feel worse about how they feel if they are insecure and compare their own selfies with others.

Ten years ago, it was very hard to share personal experiences except on a one-to-one basis or within a person’s immediate social circle. However, social media has allowed social networks to expand in ways never thought possible a decade ago. A selfie can say more about a person than the written word and it’s one of the reasons they have become so popular.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

 Further reading

 Balakrishnan, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2018). An exploratory study of ‘selfitis’ and the development of the Selfitis Behavior Scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 16, 722-736.

Gaddala, A., Hari Kumar, K. J., & Pusphalatha, C. (2017). A study on various effects of internet and selfie dependence among undergraduate medical students. Journal of Contemporary Medicine and Dentistry, 5(2), 29-32.

Griffiths, M.D. (2018). ‘Behavioural addiction’ and ‘selfitis’ as constructs – The truth is out there! Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 730-731.

Griffiths, M.D. & Balakrishnan, J. (2018). The psychosocial impact of excessive selfie-taking in youth: A brief overview. Education and Health, 36(1), 3-5.

Kaur, S., & Vig, D. (2016). Selfie and mental health issues: An overview. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 7(12), 1149

Khan, N., Saraswat, R., & Amin, B. (2017). Selfie: Enjoyment or addiction? Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research, 5, 15836-15840.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 311; doi:10.3390/ijerph14030311

Lee, R. L. (2016). Diagnosing the selfie: Pathology or parody? Networking the spectacle in late capitalism. Third Text, 30(3-4), 264-27

Senft, T. M., & Baym, N. K. (2015). Selfies introduction – What does the selfie say? Investigating a global phenomenon. International Journal of Communication, 9, 19

Singh, D., & Lippmann, S. (2017). Selfie addiction. Internet and Psychiatry, April 2. Located at: https://www.internetandpsychiatry.com/wp/editorials/selfie-addiction/

Singh, S. & Tripathi, K.M. (2017). Selfie: A new obsession. SSRN, Located at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2920945

Eight days a week: Survival in the age of the ‘always on’ culture

Recently, I did some work with a PR agency as part of a campaign to get individuals to use their smartphones more responsibly. Today’s blog comprises the some of the text that fed into their press release based on an interview I did with them. The same campaign also publicised my tips to help reduce reliance on technology which you can find here. The following text comes from a transcription of the interview.

“The first thing to bear in mind is that people are no more addicted to smartphones than alcoholics are addicted to bottles. It the applications on smartphones that are potentially addictive not the phones themselves. It is important to understand too that the number of people who actually suffer to the extent that they have a real addiction is likely to be no more than a handful. However, there are certainly a growing number of people who perhaps wish they didn’t use their apps as much as they do. Obviously as phones have become more advanced and more capable, and the issue of both habitual use and problematic use of smartphones has grown.

We live in the ‘always on’ era and I think many people feel obliged to participate in that culture, and ensure that they are constantly available to interact and respond 24/7. I gave up my smart phone several years ago and, though I am not encouraging everybody else to do the same, you will find that after you get over the initial ‘shock’, you are able to cope just fine without it. Usually after the third or fourth day you’ll find that that you have adjusted to not having it. There are natural circumstances where you will find yourself without your phone by necessity, such as when you go swimming or visit the gym. People tend to manage just fine during these scenarios, but many people often experience anxiety if they find themselves on the bus to work and then realise they’ve left their smartphone at home.

I’d encourage people wishing to use their phone or apps less to consider going without their phone for a few hours, or allocating one day each week when you don’t use it at all. And whilst I have given up my smartphone, I haven’t given up social media, using the internet and sending emails. I simply access these functions through my laptop. Obviously one of the big factors with mobile phones is that they are with you constantly. You can’t put a laptop in a pocket or a handbag, like you can with a mobile phone, and that is obviously quite a significant distinction. 

Many apps and phones themselves now have features that record the amount of time spent using each one, and often the time for many people will escalate into a number of hours over the course of the day or week. For many people this won’t be a concern, because they may be really enjoying using particular apps, but to others it might be a bit of a wake-up call. If you discover that you regularly spend ten hours in a week using a specific app you may begin to consider what else you could have done with that time.

There are also features on phones that allow you to dictate the frequency of notifications you receive as well as limit setting features so that you can control how much time you want to spend on your smartphone. Many apps send notifications very frequently, on the basis that the users will anticipate something good in the message they receive. Like in many spheres of our life, there are specific activities that trigger chemical reactions that manifest themselves as happy feelings, and apps are no different in this respect.

But there are often options to disable these notifications, or to limit them to appear only once an hour. This is one way we can limit the time we spend looking at our phones. The world of social media in particular can be very competitive, and we often crave things like ‘likes’ from our friends and colleagues. Many individuals not only feel good when they get ‘likes’ on the things they have posted on social media but also feel good when they get more ‘likes’ than their friends.

’FOMO’ – fear of missing out – is also an increasing factor in why people spend so much time on their smartphone, constantly checking their social media and messages. Individuals should rationally and objectively consider just what exactly it is that they think they’re missing out on. We are very eager to take selfies and share them, purely for the purpose of attracting ‘like’s and reactions from others. Are we really missing out by not doing that? Over the past few years there has been increasing use of the term ‘digital detox’. A digital detox refers to the period of time during which a person refrains from using electronic devices such as smartphones or computers, regarded as an opportunity to reduce stress or focus on social interaction in the physical world”.

My tips for a successful digital detox can be found here.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Distinguished Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Andreassen, C.S., Pallesen, S., & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). The relationship between excessive online social networking, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 287-293.

Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Can disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on current evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction Reports, 2, 154-162.

Csibi, S., Griffiths, M.D., Cook, B., Demetrovics, Z., & Szabo, A. (2018). The psychometric properties of the Smartphone: Applications-Based Addiction Scale (SABAS). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 16, 393-403.

Emirtekin, E., Balta, S., Sural, I., Kircaburun, K., Griffiths, M.D. & Billieux, J. (2019). The role of childhood emotional maltreatment and body image dissatisfaction in problematic smartphone use among adolescents. Psychiatry Research, 271, 634–639.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013) Social networking addiction: Emerging themes and issues. Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy, 4: e118. doi: 10.4172/2155-6105.1000e118.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Adolescent mobile phone addiction: A cause for concern? Education and Health, 31, 76-78.

Griffiths, M.D. (2018). Adolescent social networking: How do social media operators facilitate habitual use? Education and Health, 36, 66-69.

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

Griffiths, M.D., Kuss, D.J. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Social networking addiction: An overview of preliminary findings. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral Addictions: Criteria, Evidence and Treatment (pp.119-141). New York: Elsevier.

Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M.D. & Sheffield, D. (2017). An investigation in to problematic smartphone use: The role of narcissism, anxiety, and personality factors. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6, 378–386.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction: A literature review of empirical research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 3528-3552.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 311; doi:10.3390/ijerph14030311

Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D.J., Griffiths, M.D., & Billieux, J. (2015). The conceptualization and assessment of problematic mobile phone use. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mobile Phone Behavior (Volumes 1, 2, & 3) (pp. 591-606). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Lopez-Fernandez, O., Männikkö, N., Kääriäinen, M., Griffiths, M.D., & Kuss, D.J. (2018). Mobile gaming does not predict smartphone dependence: A cross-cultural study between Belgium and Finland. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 88-99.

Monacis, L., de Palo, V., Griffiths, M.D. & Sinatra, M. (2017). Social networking addiction, attachment style, and validation of the Italian version of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6, 178-186.

Richardson, M., Hussain, Z. & Griffiths, M.D. (2018). Problematic smartphone use, nature connectedness, and anxiety. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 109-116.