A burning for earning: A brief look at ‘wealth addiction’

Back in 1996, I published a paper on behavioural addictions in the Journal of Workplace Learning. One of my introductory paragraphs in that paper noted:

“There is now a growing movement (e.g. Miller, 1980; Orford, 1985) which views a number of behaviours as potentially addictive, including many behaviours which do not involve the ingestion of a drug. These include behaviours diverse as gambling (Griffiths, 1995), overeating (Orford, 1985), sex (Carnes, 1983), exercise (Glasser, 1976), computer game playing (Griffiths, 1993a), pair bonding (Peele and Brodsky, 1975), wealth acquisition (Slater, 1980) and even Rubik’s Cube (Alexander, 1981)! Such diversity has led to new all encompassing definitions of what constitutes addictive behaviour”.

The reason I mention this is that I was recently asked to comment on a story about ‘wealth addiction’ and I vaguely remembered that I had mentioned (in passing) Philip Slater’s 1980 book (also entitled Wealth Addiction). Slater’s book was written from a sociological standpoint and was both controversial and provocative. Slater claimed on the book cover that: ““Money is America’s most powerful drug. Here’s how it weakens us and how we can free ourselves”. I also came across an interesting 2012 article by journalist Scott Burns (on ‘wealth addiction revisited’) who noted that:

“One of the hallmarks of wealth addiction is very simple: more possessions but less use. We become so interested in possessing the thing that we lose the experience it provides. This can be as vast as owning homes all around the world, as some of the very rich do, as simple as Bernie Madoff’s shoe collection, or as obsessive as a collection of rare watches. Whatever it is, the wealth addict confuses possession with experience”.

Slater argued that our increasing reliance on money and all of the things that it can buy has the potential to become an obsession that can destroy individual lives. According to short article by Dr. Paul Hokemeyer, wealth addiction has three key characteristics:

• Tolerance: More and more money is needed to attain a baseline level of satisfaction.
• Withdrawal: The thought of losing money or not making it fills a person with fear, anxiety and stress.
• Negative consequences: In their pursuit of money, the person forgoes emotional fulfillment, intimate relationships and peace of mind.

These are actually three of the six criteria that I personally believe comprise genuine addictive behaviour (although I use the word ‘conflict’ rather than ‘negative consequences’; the other three criteria are salience, mood modification and relapse – see my previous blog on behavioural addiction for further details).

The reason why wealth addiction has made a re-appearance over the last month is because of an article published in the New York Times by Sam Polk, a former hedge fund trader that worked on Wall Street (and who since the article has been published has been compared to Jordan Belfort, the person that Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed in the true story film The Wolf of Wall Street).

Polk’s article is an interesting read (whether you think wealth addiction exists or not) and I thought I would pick out some of the text and relate it to my own views about what constitutes addictive behaviour.

• Extract 1: “In my last year on Wall Street my bonus was $3.6 million – and I was angry because it wasn’t big enough. I was 30 years old, had no children to raise, no debts to pay, no philanthropic goal in mind. I wanted more money for exactly the same reason an alcoholic needs another drink: I was addicted”

Here, Polk refers to his work bonuses becoming bigger and bigger and that they were never enough. To me, this sounds like some kind of tolerance effect with more and more money needed to achieve the desired (presumably mood modifying effect). Polk also claims – after the fact – that he had become addicted.

• Extract 2: “I was also a daily drinker and pot smoker and a regular user of cocaine, Ritalin and ecstasy. I had a propensity for self-destruction that had resulted in my getting suspended from Columbia for burglary, arrested twice and fired from an Internet company for fist fighting”.

Polk openly discusses his previous use of potentially addictive substances and made the comparisons himself between his self-confessed behavioural (wealth) addiction and his previous self-destructive chemical abuse. Some readers may jump to the conclusion that Polk had (or has) an ‘addictive personality’ but this is not something that I personally believe in. To me, Polk is displaying ‘reciprocity’ (swapping one potential addiction with another) rather than being a function of an underlying personality trait. Giving up one addiction often leaves a large void and sometimes the only way to fill it is by engaging in other behaviours that provide similar feelings and sensations.

• Extract 3: “My counselor didn’t share my elation [at earning more and more money]. She said I might be using money the same way I’d used drugs and alcohol – to make myself feel powerful — and that maybe it would benefit me to stop focusing on accumulating more and instead focus on healing my inner wound”.

Here, Polk’s therapist appears to hit the nail on the head in relation to what money represented for Polk. I would describe the feeling that Polk gained from both drugs and money was omnipotence (something that I have also written about in relation to my research on gambling).

• Extract 4: “I was terrified of running out of money and of forgoing future bonuses. More than anything, I was afraid that five or 10 years down the road, I’d feel like an idiot for walking away from my one chance to be really important. What made it harder was that people thought I was crazy for thinking about leaving. In 2010, in a final paroxysm of my withering addiction, I demanded $8 million instead of $3.6 million. My bosses said they’d raise my bonus if I agreed to stay several more years. Instead, I walked away”.

Polk’s language here is very much rooted in what addicts say about their drug or behaviour of choice (“terrified” of being without the thing they love doing). The weighing up of the costs clearly led to a decision for Polk to quit his “withering addiction” and there are obviously signs both here (and the rest of the article if you read it) that leaving behind the wealth left him with some feelings of regret.

• Extract 7: “The first year was really hard. I went through what I can only describe as withdrawal — waking up at nights panicked about running out of money, scouring the headlines to see which of my old co-workers had gotten promoted. Over time it got easier — I started to realize that I had enough money, and if I needed to make more, I could. But my wealth addiction still hasn’t gone completely away. Sometimes I still buy lottery tickets”.

Here, Polk uses addictive terminology (i.e., withdrawal) to describe giving up the activity that led to him gaining wealth. Again, the fear of running out of money appears psychologically similar to the fear that other more traditional addicts have about running out of their drug of choice. It could also be argued that he has given up one form of gambling (financial trading) with partially doing another (buying lottery tickets).

• Extract 8: “I was lucky. My experience with drugs and alcohol allowed me to recognize my pursuit of wealth as an addiction. The years of work I did with my counselor helped me heal the parts of myself that felt damaged and inadequate, so that I had enough of a core sense of self to walk away”

Polk uses his experiences in giving up drugs with the help of his therapist as a way of helping him give up wealth acquisition. Knowing you have managed to give up one addiction shows that you have the mental strength to give up another.

Obviously I have never met Polk and I can only go on how he described his experiences during his time on Wall Street, However, the insights shared do seem to suggest that some of the wealth acquisition behaviour had addictive elements and that there was at least some evidence that Polk – at least on some occasions – experienced salience, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict and mood modification. Whether he was genuinely addicted to money in the same way as drug addicts are addicted to psychoactive substances is debatable. However, theoretically, I can see how someone might be become addicted to wealth. There are also interesting questions as to whether wealth acquisition may be an underlying motivation for those addicted to work.

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

Further reading

Alexander, R. (1981). A cube popular in all circles. New York Times, 21 July, p. C6.

Burns, S. (2012). Beyond envy: Wealth addiction revisited. Dallas News, December 15: Located at: http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/scott-burns/20121215-beyond-envy-wealth-addiction-revisited.ece?nclick_check=1

Carnes, P. (1983). Out of the Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction. CompCare, New York, NY.

Glasser, W. (1976). Positive Addictions. Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Griffiths, M.D. (1993). Are computer games bad for children? The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 6, 401-407.

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

Orford, J. (1985). Excessive Appetites: A Psychological View of the Addictions. Wiley: Chichester.

Peele, S. and Brodsky, A. (1975). Love and Addiction. Taplinger: New York, NY.

Polk, S. (2013). For the love of money. New York Times, January 29. Located at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/for-the-love-of-money.html?_r=1

Slater, P. (1980). Wealth Addiction. E.P. Dutton: New York, NY.

Bonus bawl: Are online gambling promotions socially responsible?

Many online gaming sites use a wide variety of promotions as a way of attracting new clientele and/or as a way of generating repeat patronage. Such promotions include welcome bonuses, initial deposit bonuses, retention bonuses, re-activation of account bonuses, and VIP bonuses. Here are a few I have come across online:

• Players receive a 10% cash bonus on an initial deposit of $20 or more (however, the bonus and deposit combined must have a 15 times rollover. A ‘rollover’ refers to the amount of times an online gambler must wager a certain amount during a promotion)
• Players receive a 100% match-up bonus on deposits (up to $225) (however, the bonus and deposit combined must have a 12 times rollover)
• Players receive $100 free on initial deposit (however, the bonus and deposit combined must have a 20 times rollover)
• Players receive 100% deposit bonus of up to $200 (however, the bonus and deposit combined must have a 40 times rollover)
• Players receive 100% first deposit bonus up to £50 in free chips and players must deposit a minimum of £10 (however, bonus must have a 15 times rollover)

The issue here is to what extent the use of promotional ‘hooks’ to generate new custom or maintain repeat patronage can be regarded as a socially responsible strategy. Previous writings about advertising and marketing from a social responsibility perspective have noted that it is entirely appropriate for the gaming industry to advertise and market their products as long as it conforms to the relevant codes of compliance, is fact-based, does not oversell winning, and is not aimed at (or feature) minors.

Dr. Jonathan Parke and I have noted that in gambling there is a fine line between customer enhancement and customer exploitation particularly when it comes to facilitating new clientele and repeat patronage. Given the political sensitivities around the liberalization of gambling, the perception of what others think about a particular practice are sometimes given more weight than what it actually means in practice. However, irrespective of whether something is introduced in a socially responsible way and/or introduced into an environment with an embedded socially responsible infrastructure, there is always the possibility of a ‘PR own goal’ that may do more financial damage in the long run to the online gaming operator.

Given there is little empirical research on the effect of bonuses on vulnerable and susceptible gamblers, the implications relating to social responsibility are, at best, speculative. There are some academic writings on the use of bonus promotions in offline gambling environments but these are based on observational anecdotes rather than empirical research. For instance, Dr. Parke and I noted that the frequency of bonuses in offline gambling environments varies (depending the establishment) but can occur hourly, daily, weekly, or seasonally. We reported that such bonuses are often used to entice the consumer in several retail environments. What make them especially appealing in a gambling environment are the obvious similarities of the structural characteristics of such bonuses and gambling events in general (e.g., risk, uncertainty, interval-ratio reinforcement etc.). Furthermore, the appeal is strengthened since gamblers feel they are “getting something for nothing”.

We also distinguished between two fundamentally different forms of bonus – the ‘general bonus’ and the ‘proportional bonus’. These different types of bonus may have different implications in terms of social responsibility. General bonuses are those offers that are provided irrespective of the type of player (e.g., an occasional gambler is as equally entitled to the bonus as a ‘heavy’ gambler). Proportional bonuses are those offers that depend on how long and/or frequently the player gambles with a particular gaming establishment. This means that ‘heavy’ gamblers would receive disproportionately more bonuses than an irregular player. Given that a significant proportion of the ‘heaviest’ gamblers (sometimes referred to as ‘VIP gamblers’) may be problem gamblers, it raises questions whether rewarding people the more they spend is the most socially responsible strategy.

In relation to the use of promotional bonuses, there are two basic issues that arise. The first one is whether bonuses should be offered by online gaming companies if they are perceived by some to be ideologically incompatible with being socially responsible. The second is whether some types of bonus are less socially responsible than others. In the absence of empirical evidence, it could be argued that general bonuses that target potential adult online gamblers irrespective of play frequency and/or type, are acceptable within online gaming environments that have a good social responsibility infrastructure. However, bonuses that reward the biggest spenders could be argued to be much less socially responsible. Although this model is well accepted in most commercial environments (i.e., loyalty reward schemes), gambling is a commercial activity that can result in problems for the heaviest gamblers.

Applying these views to promotional bonuses in online gaming environments would mean that some bonuses appear generally acceptable from a social responsibility perspective (e.g., a $10 tokens, 100% welcome bonuses, and possibly re-activation offers) whereas others may be considered less socially responsible and potentially exploitative (e.g., retention offers, VIP offers). It may be the case that other socially responsible measures implemented by an online gaming company (such as the use of a behavioural tracking tool like mentor and PlayScan) may help mitigate the potential exploitation of problem gamblers, however, empirical research is needed to confirm such speculation.

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2001). Good practice in the gaming industry: Some thoughts and recommendations. Panorama (European State Lotteries and Toto Association), 7, 10-11.

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. (2008). ‘Foot in the door’: Player enhancement or player exploitation? World Online Gambling Law Report, 7 (7), 15-16.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Internet gambling, player protection and social responsibility. In R. Williams, R. Wood & J. Parke (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Gambling (pp.227-249). London: Routledge.

Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2002). The social impact of internet gambling. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 312-320.

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., Wood, R.T.A. & Parke, J. (2009). Social responsibility tools in online gambling: A survey of attitudes and behaviour among Internet gamblers. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 413-421.

Sell division: The use of technology in commercial marketing

Today’s blog is only loosely connected to the types of behaviour that I usually cover but relates to the issue of excessive technological use. However, rather than focusing on the individual, my article today focuses on corporate technological excess, and more specifically the seemingly excessive use of technological marketing. Technology continues to invade almost every area of our lives. Although the advantages of these technologies significantly outweigh the disadvantages, technology is increasingly being used in commercial settings that some citizen’s rights groups claim are exploitative, unethical, and border on the criminal.

Shopping loyalty cards are now an every day part of consumer behaviour. Most people probably don’t stop to think about the reasons behind their introduction but they have the potential to be exploitative. In short, loyalty cards track every purchase a consumer makes over a long period (often years) including the store shopped at, the date and time, and the price paid. The long tracking period allows for monitoring of trends in purchasing. Stores may also record the method of payment, whether the card was swiped or keyed into the till, and the checkout that was used. The supermarkets use these data to categorize customers. In addition to the data provided when the loyalty card was issued, commercial operators can draw conclusions from the address using sophisticated categorization systems. Many companies now use customer relationship marketing software to help make sense and synthesize the information gathered. Ever since they were introduced, underhand uses of loyalty cards have been mooted. As long ago as 1999, the UK Ministry of Agriculture suggested cross checking purchases of genetically modified food with health records, effectively making the cards part of a huge medical experiment. However, the supermarkets declined to take part.

It’s probably a fair assumption to make that the online population views the Internet as much a tool for information gathering and communication as for commercial transactions. The most powerful impacts are social rather than commercial. Just like the companies that run loyalty card schemes, Internet service providers can record when you logged on and off, how many seconds the connection lasted, and the Internet protocol address allocated during the session. They can also compile a detailed e-mail history. This can contain the header information from every e-mail received by the account in the period, the return address provided by the sender, the ISP from which the e-mail originated, the date and the time of the sending, an ID code, and the title of the e-mail. Most people have no idea how much potential there is for invasion of privacy.

There are some areas that are potentially more worrying than others. Take the case of online gambling (that I have covered in previous blogs relating to behavioural tracking). When it comes to gambling, there is a very fine line between providing what the customer wants and exploitation. The gaming industry now sells gambling in much the same way that any other business sells things. On joining Internet gambling sites, players supply lots of information including name, address, telephone number, date of birth, and gender. Internet gambling operators will know the player’s favourite game and the amounts they have wagered. Basically they can track the playing patterns of any gambler. They will know more about the gambler’s playing behaviour than the gamblers themselves. They will be able to send the gambler offers and redemption vouchers, complimentary accounts, etc. All of these things are introduced to supposedly enhance customer experience. Benefits and rewards to the customer include cash, food and beverages, entertainment and general retail. However, more unscrupulous operators are able to entice high spending gamblers (some of which will be problem gamblers) back onto their sites with tailored freebies (such as the inducement of ‘free’ bets and bonuses).

The Internet also appears to be a rapidly growing medium for child-oriented marketing with sites ranging from Pokemon and Barbie to Lego. These sites provide what appears to be a safe environment for children to play in online (and something my own children used to do). Today’s children are computer literate and the Internet empowers them to influence what they want for Christmas or their birthday. However, how ethical is it for businesses to use advertising to pitch to children – individuals who in most other spheres (e.g., voting, sex, legal documents) are treated as incapable of making decisions. Many claim the adverts carry a similar message (i.e., “If you haven’t got this product, you are abnormal”). The aim of most marketing is to sell goods, but adverts aimed at children are designed to get them to pressurize their peers and parents.

A number of years ago, the US Center for Media Education (CME) claimed that advertisers and marketeers exploit children by advertising products on the Internet in ways that manipulate children and violate their privacy. They urged the US Federal Trade Commission to develop safeguards for children and claimed that these advertisements would infringe American regulations that put safeguards on broadcast media like the television. They recommend that there should be no children’s content directly linked to advertising and that direct interaction between children, and that product spokescharacters (such as Kellogs ‘Tony the Tiger’) should not be allowed.

The CME claimed advertisers used a variety of online methods (such as ‘infomercials’) to collect detailed data and compile individual child profiles. This information they claimed, was used to establish direct and intimate relationships with children online. The CME claimed children’s privacy is routinely threatened to encourage children to disclose personal information about themselves and their families with some sites offering gifts and prizes. This technology makes it possible to monitor every interaction between the child and the advertisement allowing firms to create personalized marketing for a child. Again, questions need to be asked about how far advertisers can go and what protection vulnerable groups should have.

Other new technologies are also making an impact – often without the person’s knowledge. For instance, television set top boxes can monitor viewer activities. Those who operate set top boxes say they are doing it in order to develop personalized advertising. However, many claim that Internet video providers should not be able to track and sell information about what you viewers are watching in the privacy of your own home. Companies who use these systems claim they only keep anonymous viewing information. They also stress that their viewers can opt out of the data collection but the reality is that very few do. Perhaps the best way forward is to see the introduction of ‘opt-in’ rather than opt-out clauses.

Given the increasingly sophisticated technology on offer, companies have to do a lot of planning to get most out of their databases. There are two main sorts of database. The first type is a ‘flat file’ databases with information on them, set one after the other. The second type is a ‘relational database’ that can build relationships between different fields of information. For instance, if a company wanted to find a number of customers who had bought a particular product from them in the last month or sort their customers by their address, a flat file database could do those tasks individually whereas relational databases would do it simultaneously. The really creative part (and some might say potentially exploitative and unethical part) in database use starts when companies begin to look seriously at what the information can do for them. This is the stage when companies start to ask intelligent questions about the actual purpose of the information they have gathered.

Over the two decades, customer relationship management (CRM) has become integrated with database management. Companies offer insight into CRM processes that become available when information is managed electronically. Analytical CRM is geared towards understanding a series of interactions with customers over time in activity-based terms, with a view to understanding whether a given customer is profitable to the company and satisfied with the quality of that relationship. For this to work, the company needs in-depth detail on finance, human resources, distribution, and manufacturing so that they know exactly what a customer is costing them. Companies then know whether the customer is worth hanging on to. While the majority of companies may be using CRM for genuine customer enhancement, there are always those who are less scrupulous and may use such information to exploit.

Even a brief examination of how technology is being used in commercial situations demonstrates that the potential for exploitation of the customer is ever present and that such technologies should be monitored closely. Whether any of these practices will be seen as in some way criminal in the future remains to be seen.

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

Further reading

Delfabbro, P.H., King, D.L & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Behavioural profiling of problem gamblers: A critical review. International Gambling Studies, 12, 349-366.

Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Exploitation and fraud on the Internet: Some common practices, The Criminal Lawyer, 132, 5-7.

Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Dot cons: Exploitation and Fraud on the Internet (Part 2). The Criminal Lawyer, 134, 3-5.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005).  Exploitative, unethical, criminal? The use of technology in commercial marketing. Justice of the Peace, 169, 916-917.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Social responsibility in gambling: The implications of real-time behavioural tracking. Casino and Gaming International, 5(3), 99-104.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Social responsibility in marketing for online gaming affiliates. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, June/July, p.32.

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Online behavioural tracking: Identifying problem gambling. World Online Gambling Law Report, 10(5), 10-11.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Responsible marketing and advertising of gambling. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, August/September, 50.

Griffiths, M.D. & Whitty, M.W. (2010). Online behavioural tracking in Internet gambling research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3, 104-117.

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.

Match.com: A brief look at gambling and spot-fixing

Match-fixing is nothing new. There’s always been big money to make on the outcome of sporting events. However, spot-fixing (i.e., the action or practice of dishonestly determining the outcome of a specific part of a match or game before it is played) is a more recent phenomenon. The situation escalated in December 2013 when six men (including Blackburn Rovers’ DJ Campbell) were arrested after an investigation into spot-fixing in football by the National Crime Agency. According to the British newspaper The Sun On Sunday, one of their undercover investigators reported that ex-Portsmouth footballer Sam Sodje could arrange for professional football league players to get themselves yellow cards in return for large amounts of money (i.e., tens of thousands of pounds). Consequently, the UK Government is believed to be considering whether match-fixing should be a criminal offence.

Over the past few years, allegations and convictions relating to spot-fixing have been made in many different sports including football, cricket, snooker and horse-racing. In all honesty, this doesn’t surprise me in the least – particularly because sport and gambling have always been inextricably linked. Matt Scott made a number of interesting observations on the issue in a December 2013 article for Inside World Football:

“Betting has a tradition of accompanying football in England in the same way custard goes with English puddings. It just adds a bit of flavour to the proceedings. It is a guilty pleasure, nothing more. No harm done…[However] now is the time to reappraise the complicated English relationship with the ‘harmless’ flutter. 
The ubiquity of the betting companies whose advertisements fill the half-time breaks of every match covered on television has been very lucrative for football. Figures from the website sportingintelligence.com suggest that in title sponsorships alone, Premier League clubs earn £13m a year from betting companies…Investigations by the ‘Sun on Sunday’ and the ‘Daily Telegraph’ have shown how professional footballers appear to be fixing events in matches…Whether they know it or not, players who fix matches or events within them are the foot soldiers of international match-fixing rings who, according to sports anticorruption experts, have links with serious organised crime. The fixers do not place the bulk of their bets with onshore UK bookmakers but in Asian markets where the liquidity is deeper and where the regulatory scrutiny is much lighter…As the National Crime Agency’s arrests have shown, it is high time for law makers and enforcers to act. For if not, it will be easier to deliver yellow cards to order on the football pitch than for miscreant bookmakers to be issued with cautions about their activities”.

Personally, I think the rise of match-fixing and spot-fixing has mirrored the rise in the use of betting exchanges like Betfair, and the rise of in-play betting. Back in 2005, I published an article on betting exchanges and argued that they had radically altered the shape of gambling particularly because – for the first time – gamblers could bet on individuals and/or teams losing (in contrast to traditional bookmakers that would only take bets on who was going to win). Betting shop operators got worried because their clientele could use betting exchanges to become bookmakers themselves. As a consequence, I argued that betting exchanges had potentially opened the door to fraud, corruption, and crime. As Matt Scott reported:

“In 2006 a whistleblower who had previously worked for the bookmaker Victor Chandler claimed to have data from accounts belonging to Premier League players and managers. The account holders had allegedly bet on matches in their own competitions, in breach of football’s regulations. But Victor Chandler International [VCI] obtained a high-court injunction preventing the release of information about the accounts…There is no way of knowing if the alleged breaches of regulations relating to the VCI accountholders amounted to anything more sinister. (And it is fair to say that Chandler would be unlikely to have exposed himself repeatedly to bets on matches involving account holders’ teams, given the substantial risk of manipulation)”.

More recently, in-play betting has become very popular among sports bettors and plays into the hands of the spot-fixers. As the CEO of OpenBet commented:

“The periodic ritual of predicting a daily or weekly series of events is no longer the mainstay. Today’s punter wants to be able to turn on their gadget of choice and instantly be offered an array of real-time betting opportunities with immediate results…Sports betting is growing in what is offered, how it is offered, when it is offered, where it is offered, and to whom it is offered…Like the financial markets, volatile events produce increased liquidity and increased liquidity produces greater revenue to the operator”.

We can now bet on dozens of ‘in-play’ markets while watching almost any sporting event. Should I wish to, during any football match I can bet on everything from who is going to score the first goal, what the score will be after 30 minutes of play, how many yellow cards will be given during them game, who will get a red card, and/or in what minute of the second half will the first free kick be awarded. Money talks – and there is big money to be made. Paying sports men and women relatively large amounts of money to lose a point (in tennis), get a yellow card (in football), go down in the ninth round (in boxing), or lose a frame (in snooker) can result in even more money for those paying the sports players in the first place.

But maybe technological advance will be the solution to the problem. Technology makes it easier to spot betting cheats and criminal activity. Betting exchange and in-play betting technology means that every bet made through their systems can be tracked and leave an audit trail. Unusual betting patterns can be identified and shared with the relevant sporting and criminal authorities. While prevention is better than detection, betting audit trails do at least give us the chance to crack down on the cheats – even if it’s after the fact. The more sports cheats that are caught, the bigger the deterrent. While we would never want to stop people having an enjoyable punt on their favourite team, we do need to make sure that gambling is as fraud-free as possible. In Matt Scott’s article, the English football Premier League’s general secretary, Nic Coward, summarized what is required of the UK government.

“It [is] true of any regulated sector that there need to be clear regulations in place so that the sector and stakeholders with an interest in the sector understand what they are…That they are monitored; that there is an effective compliance regime; and that there are real enforcement provisions behind it”.

Note: This blog is a much extended version of an article that first appeared in Nottingham Trent University’s Expert Opinion column

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2006). All in the game. Inside Edge: The Gambling Magazine, July (Issue 28), p. 67.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Gambling addiction among footballers: causes and consequences. World Sports Law Report, 8(3), 14-16.

Scott, M. (2013). Time to overhaul football’s betting relationship. Inside World Football. December 12. Located at: http://www.insideworldfootball.com/matt-scott/13779-matt-scott-time-to-overhaul-football-s-betting-relationship

Episodic memories: The psychology of ‘box set bingeing’

I apologise in advance for the somewhat arguably frivolous nature of my blog but earlier this week I was interviewed by my local radio station (BBC Radio Nottingham) about the seeming increase in ‘binge watching’ of DVD box sets of television series. I have to admit that one of the reasons that I did the interview (even though I have not personally researched the topic) was that this is actually something I do myself. Also, I often appear on my local radio station talking about excessive use of technology and this topic loosely fitted that criterion.

I did actually check on a couple of academic databases to see whether there was any scientific research on ‘binge watching’ of television of box sets (but unsurprisingly there was nothing specific). I have written academic papers on various technological addictions (including addiction to watching television). However, one of my research colleagues (Dr. Steve Sussman) recently published a paper (with Meghan Moran) on television addiction in a 2013 issue of the Journal of Behavioral Addictions. Based on a review of the academic literature they claimed that 5% to 10% of the US population is addicted to television (although much of this depends on how ‘addiction’ is defined in the first place). Sussman and Moran’s review concluded that:

“There does appear to be a phenomenon of television addiction, at least for some people. TV addicts are likely watch TV to satiate certain appetitive motives, demonstrate preoccupation with TV, report lacking control over their TV viewing, and experience various role, social, or even secondary physical (sedentary lifestyle) consequences due to their out of control viewing. These consequences are in part contextually driven, due to amount of viewing time contrasted with competing time demands…Much research is needed to better understand this addiction which prima facie seems relatively innocuous but in reality may incur numerous life problems”.

In addition to reports of television being potentially addictive, the concept of bingeing has been applied to other behaviours including ‘binge drinking’ and ‘binge gambling’ (a topic that I have written on academically – see ‘Further reading’ below), although the binge watching of DVD box sets is highly unlikely to cause too many negative side effects apart from (maybe) a lack of sleep (that may impact on work productivity).

So why might people engage in the binge watching of television box set? Obviously – at a basic level – individuals do not engage in repeated leisure behaviours unless they are psychologically and/or behaviourally reinforced (i.e., rewarded) in some way. People watch particular shows because they like the show and experience emotional connections that may lead to a change in mood state. However, this goes for any leisure behaviour and is not specific to binge watching television shows. When it comes to ‘box set binging’, I think there are many possible reasons both psychological and practical (most of which I can say I have personally experienced so there’s probably good face validity for all these reasons):

• A sign of the times: Over the past couple decades, the way we experience our disposable leisure time has dramatically changed. All my children are the archetypal ‘screenagers’ that spend a disproportionate amount of their leisure time sat in front of screen-based technology (and to be honest I am no different). Technological excess has arguably become the norm and ‘binge watching’ of television (via ‘on demand’ services and/or DVDs) is simply a sign of the times.
• Instant gratification: Another noticeable change that has occurred over the last couple of decades is a move towards what I describe as ‘instant culture’ in which individuals expect to receive instant gratification in almost any situation. Almost everything that we want and/or desire can be done at the click of a button. Who wants to wait up to a week to find out what has happened in your favourite television drama shows? Watching episode after episode of a television show inhibits the frustration we might feel having to wait hours, days, and in some cases weeks for the resolution of a ‘cliffhanger’. In short, binge watching (DVD and/or television ‘on demand’) box sets provides instant ‘closure’ to a drama that increases emotional involvement.
• No adverts: On a very practical level, one great thing about television box sets is that they don’t have any adverts. Most hour-long television shows on commercial channels include 15 minutes of adverts. Personally, I love the fact that I can watch episode after episode knowing that the only breaks will be of my choosing.
• The ultimate in personal choice: Television viewing has evolved considerably over the last decade. When I grew up as a child and adolescent there were only three television channels and I had to watch whatever my parents watched (or what they would let me watch). It was also a very passive experience. We now have almost unlimited choice to watch whatever we want, when we want, and how we want. DVD box sets are the ultimate in personal choice. No more sitting through dross to get to the television programme you really want to watch.
• Completist/collector heaven: Anyone that is a regular reader of my blog will know that when it comes to collecting (especially music) I am a completest and aim to collect everything I can that relate to the artists I love and admire. (For instance, have a read of my blog on the psychology of Hannibal Lecter where I describe how I have acquired all the books and films on Hannibal Lecter including the latest 12-episode television box set that I sat and watched in a couple of sittings including all the DVD extras). The DVD box set is part of the whole collecting experience.

As a psychologist, I would also argue that my DVD box set collection says something about me as an individual – it is an extension of the self. My favourite box sets (e.g., The Sopranos, Prison Break, 24, Columbo, Hannibal, Dexter, The West Wing, etc.) are all regularly re-watched. I once spent a whole weekend while my children and partner were away watching every episode from every series of Prison Break). It was a guilty pleasure that happens only occasionally and that I loved doing.

Bingeing on box sets shares many psychosocial commonalities of the collecting experience. In a 1991 issue of the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Dr. Ruth Formanek suggested five common motivations for collecting that I think mirror the kind of people that can be engrossed in watching their favourite television shows. These were: (i) extension of the self (e.g., acquiring knowledge, or in controlling one’s collection); (ii) social (finding, relating to, and sharing with, like-minded others); (iii) preserving history and creating a sense of continuity; (iv) financial investment; and (v), an addiction or compulsion. Formanek claimed that the commonality to all motivations to collect was a passion for the particular things collected. I would argue this holds for binge watching too.

In her book Museums, Objects, and Collections, Dr. Susan Pearce argues collecting falls into three distinct (but sometimes overlapping) types. As Professor Kevin Moist summarized in a 2008 issue of the journal Studies in Popular Culture:

“One of these she calls ‘souvenirs’, items or objects that have significance primarily as reminders of an individual’s or group’s experiences. The second mode is what she calls ‘fetish objects’ (conflating the anthropological and psychological senses of the term), relating primarily to the personality of the collector; the collector’s own desires lead to the accumulation of objects that feed back into those desires, with the collection playing a central role in defining the personality of the collector, memorializing the development of a personal interest or passion. The third mode, ‘systematics’, has the broader goal of creating a set of objects that expresses some larger meaning. Systematic collecting involves a stronger element of consciously presenting an idea, seen from a particular point of view and expressed via the cultural world of objects”.

When it comes to DVD box sets, I appear to most fit the second (i.e., fetish) type. The box sets that I collect are an extension of my own personality and say something about me. My tastes are diverse and eclectic (to say the least) and range from the obvious ‘classic’ series (Columbo), the not so obvious (A Very Peculiar Practice), and the arguably obscure (Spiral). Unless ‘binge watching’ of television series ever becomes problematic, it is unlikely to be a subject of academic research but that won’t stop me in engaging in my guilty pleasure.

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

Further reading

Belk, R. W. (1982). Acquiring, possessing, and collecting: fundamental processes in consumer behavior. Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives, 185-190.

Belk, R. W. (1992). Attachment to possessions. In: Place attachment (pp. 37-62). New York: Springer.

Belk, R. W. (1994). Collectors and collecting. Interpreting objects and collections, 317-326.

Belk, R.W. (1995). Collecting as luxury consumption: Effects on individuals and households. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(3), 477-490.

Belk, R.W. (2001). Collecting in a Consumer Society. New York: Routledge.

Formanek, R. (1991). Why they collect: Collectors reveal their motivations. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 275-286.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2006). A case study of binge problem gambling. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 369-376.

Moist, K. (2008). “To renew the Old World”: Record collecting as cultural production. Studies in Popular Culture, 31(1), 99-122.

Pearce, S. (1993). Museums, Objects, and Collections. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Pearce, S. (1998). Contemporary Collecting in Britain. London: Sage.

Sussman, S., Lisha, N. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Prevalence of the addictions: A problem of the majority or the minority? Evaluation and the Health Professions, 34, 3-56.

Sussman, S. & Moran, M. (2013). Hidden addiction: Television. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2, 125-132.

Common markets: Has gambling advertising increased problem gambling in the UK?

Arguably the most noticeable change in the British gambling landscape since the 2005 Gambling Act came into force on September 1, 2007 is the large increase of gambling advertising on television. Prior to September 2007, the only gambling adverts allowed on television were those for National Lottery products, bingo, and the football pools. Back in January 2012, Liberal Democrat MP Tessa Munt told Parliament that there were almost 36 hours a week of gambling adverts on television. She called for a review of the situation by Ofcom (the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries). She asked Prime Minister David Cameron to “please protect consumers, children and the vulnerable from this kind of activity [especially] at a time when we are encouraging people to be moderate in their expectations and behaviour”. The PM acknowledged Munt’s plea and described the issue as “a question of responsibility by the companies concerned. Anyone who enjoys watching a football match will see quite aggressive advertisements on the television, and I think companies have to ask themselves whether they are behaving responsibly when they do that”.

The day-to-day responsibility for enforcing rules about advertising content (and its scheduling) rests with the Advertising Standards Authority. However, for radio and television, the 2005 Gambling Act requires Ofcom to set, review, and revise standards for gambling advertisements in these media. In short, Ofcom is the regulating watchdog for all communications and retains overall responsibility for the advertising rules that gaming operators have to adhere to. Earlier this year, Ofcom commissioned some research to examine the volume, scheduling, frequency and exposure of gambling advertising on British television.

In November 2013, Ofcom finally published their findings research and showed that there had been a 600% increase in gambling advertising in the UK in 2012 compared to 2006 (more specifically there were 1.39 million adverts on television in 2012 compared to 152,000 adverts in 2006). In 2005, the number of televised gambling adverts was 90,000 and rose to 234,000 by 2007, and 537,000 in 2008. The research findings were based on analysis of the Broadcasting Audience Research Board (BARB) viewing data by Zinc Research & Analytics that categorized gambling adverts into one of four types (i.e., online casino and poker services; sports betting; bingo; and lotteries and scratch cards).

The bingo sector had the largest proportion of adverts with bingo adverts accounting for 38.3% of all British gambling adverts (approximately 532,000). Online casino and poker adverts comprised 29.6% of all television gambling advertising (approximately 411,000) with lotteries and scratchcards in third place with 25.6% (approximately 355,000), and sports betting in fourth place with 6.6% (approximately 91,000). The report also reported that gambling adverts accounted for 4.1% of all advertising seen by viewers in 2012 (up from 0.5% in 2006; 1.7% in 2008).

As someone who has written two books on adolescent gambling (see ‘Further reading’ below), one of the more worrying statistics reported was that children under 16 years of age were exposed to an average of 211 gambling adverts a year each (compared to adults who saw an average of 630). I am a firm believer that gambling is an adult activity and that gambling adverts should be shown after the 9pm watershed.

In addition to the relaxation of the laws relating to television advertising, another reason for the large increase in the number of adverts is the increase in the number of digital television channels. Over the time period, he total amount of television advertising airtime doubled from 17.4m to 34.2m spots. The report also highlighted that the 1.39m television adverts for gambling produced 30.9bn ‘impacts’ in 2012 (i.e., the number of times a commercial was seen by viewers) – up from 8 billion in 2006.

So is the large increase in gambling advertising having any effect on gambling and problem gambling? Well, the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) published in 2011 showed that 73% of the British adult population (aged 16 years and over) participated in some form of gambling in the past year (equating to around 35.5 million adults). The most popular British gambling activity was playing the National Lottery (59%), a slight increase from the previous BGPS in 2007 (57%). There was an increase in betting on events other than horse races or dog races with a bookmaker (6% in 2007, 9% in 2010), buying scratchcards (20% in 2007, 24% in 2010), gambling online on poker, bingo, casino and slot machine style games (3% in 2007, 5% in 2010) and gambling on fixed odds betting terminals (3% in 2007, 4% in 2010), football pools (3% in 2007, 4% in 2010, 9% in 1999). There were some small but significant decreases in the popularity of slot machines (13% in 2010, 14% in 2007) and online betting (4% in 2007, 3% in 2010). For all other gambling activities, there was either no significant change between survey years or estimates varied with no clear pattern.

Men were more likely to gamble than women overall (75% men; 71% women). Among women, past year gambling increased from 65% in 2007 to 71% in 2010. Among men, past year gambling estimates were higher in 2010 than 2007 (75% and 71% respectively). Perhaps the most noteworthy statistic (particularly in relation to the substantial increase in televised gambling advertising) was that the prevalence of problem gambling was higher in 2010 (0.9%) than in 2007 (0.6%) equating to a 50% increase in problem gambling. One of the possible reasons for this statistically significant increase in problem gambling could well have been the increased exposure to gambling adverts on television.

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

Further reading

Banham, M. (2013). Gambling TV ads up nine-fold since laws relaxed. Brand Republic, November 19. Located at: http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1221494/Gambling-TV-ads-nine-fold-laws-relaxed/

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

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

Press Association (2012). Gambling adverts soar. November 19. Located at: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/gambling-ads-tv-soar-152721196.html#IPrymtu

Stradbrooke, S. (2011). UK puts TV gambling ads on notice; Ireland blames gambling for suicides. CalvinAyre.com, January 19. Located at: http://calvinayre.com/2012/01/19/business/uk-puts-gambling-tv-ads-on-notice/

Sweney, M. (2013). TV gambling ads have risen 600% since law change. The Guardian, November 19. Located at: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/19/tv-gambling-ads

Wardle, H., Moody. A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M.D., Hussey, D. and Dobbie, F. (2011).  British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.

Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M.D., Constantine, R. and Pigott, S. (2007). The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.

No time for the crime: Excessive adolescent video game playing, social networking and crime reduction

On Sunday February 9, 1964, The Beatles made their debut on US television. Their appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show drew an estimated audience of 73 million people. One of the most quoted consequences associated with this particular show was that between 8pm and 9pm when the show was aired, a number of news reports claimed that there was no reported incidence of juvenile crime across America during the time of the broadcast.  The editor of Newsweek, B.F. Henry, went as far as to claim that “there wasn’t so much as a hubcap stolen” during the hour that The Beatles were on the show.

This apocryphal tale, at the very least, shows the apparent compelling logic in the argument that when an activity is so engrossing it has the capacity to stop people engaging in other types of activity such as crime. Inspired by a speculative blog post on the topic, my friend and research colleague Dr. Mike Sutton failed to disconfirm what Dr. Sutton and I have called the Crime Substitution Hypothesis. We recently published a small paper in the journal Education and Health that examined the extent to which popular youth activity (namely video gaming and social networking) may be having an effect on youth offending and victimization.

Young people’s use of technology (the so called ‘screenagers’ and ‘digital natives’) has increased greatly over the last two decades and a significant proportion of daily time is spent in front of various screen interfaces most notably videogames, mobile phones (e.g., SMS) and the internet (e.g., social networking sites like Bebo, Facebook). These ‘digital natives’ have never known a world without the internet, mobile phones and interactive television, and are therefore tech-savvy, have no techno-phobia, and very trusting of these new technologies.

One of the most empirically researched areas is in the area of adolescent video gaming. Negative consequences of gaming have included addiction, increased aggression, and a variety of medical consequences, such as repetitive strain injuries, obesity, and photosensitive epilepsy. There is certainly evidence that when taken to excess, videogame playing can in some cases be addictive, especially online videogame playing where the game never pauses or ends, and has the potential to be a 24/7 activity. However, there are many reported benefits that adolescents can get from playing videogames. These can be educational, social and/or therapeutic.

Another positive benefit of playing video games along with activities like social networking may be the capacity to reduce youth crime. The reason why videogames may have implications for crime reduction is their use as ‘distractors’ (such as in the role of pain management). The reasoning is that ‘distractor tasks’ consume some degree of the attentional capacity that would otherwise be devoted to pain perception. I have noted in a number of my academic papers that the main reasons that videogames make good distractors are because they:

• Are likely to engage much of a person’s individual active attention because of the cognitive and motor activity required.
• Allow the possibility to achieve sustained achievement because of the level of difficulty (i.e. challenge) of most games during extended play.
• Appear to appeal most to adolescents

For instance, one study reported the case of an eight-year-old boy with neurodermatitis being given a handheld videogame to prevent him from picking at his face. Where previous treatments had failed, the use of the game kept his hands occupied and within two weeks the affected area had healed. A number of studies have demonstrated that videogames can provide cognitive distraction for children undergoing chemotherapy. All these studies have reported that distracted child patients report less nausea after treatment (when compared with control groups), and that playing videogames reduced the amount of painkillers the children needed during treatment. The very reasons why video games may be of benefit therapeutically may also be applied to video games in a crime reduction context (i.e., the playing of video games is so cognitively distracting that that there is little time to do or think about anything else).

Consequently, there is a developing school of thought arguing that peoples’ participation (especially excessive use) in video gaming and social networking may be contributory factors that may partly explain the fall in crime rates in recent years. For instance, the economist Larry Katz was quoted in a 2010 issue of The Economist suggesting that the playing of video games may be playing a role in crime reduction. Katz’ reasoning is simple – keeping people busy keeps them out of trouble. There appears to be some statistical support for such a hypothesis as the decrease in US crime rates appears to show an inverse correlational relationship with increased sales of video game consoles and video games. Clearly this correlational evidence should be treated with caution as it says nothing about causation. However, it does provide a hypothesis that could be the subject of future empirical testing.

Could the rise in video game playing and social networking be a major cause of what criminologists claim is an unfathomable drop in crime, and if not, then why not? Routine Activity Theory predicts that if a substantial numbers of young people are not on the streets either as victims or offenders then overall high volume ‘crime opportunities’ would diminish, resulting in an overall drop in high volume crime rates. We have no idea yet whether what we might call the ‘crime substitution hypothesis’ is plausible. Therefore, in our recent paper, Dr. Sutton and I set out some ideas that support it as something possibly worthy of further exploration.

As highlighted above, research suggests some young people are spending many hours playing video games or social networking. Research also suggests that video games can be engrossing, addictive and in some cases compulsive. Additionally, research has failed to establish that violent media is either a necessary or sufficient condition for causing crime. Therefore, taking a Routine Activity Approach, it would seem that an increase in video gaming might feasibly lead to a rise in the illicit market for stolen computers and games consoles. However, there might be fewer thieves to supply it if:

• Fewer potential offenders are getting addicted to opiates and other drugs, and/or misusing alcohol out of boredom because they have escaped boredom in the real world by entering the more exciting world of cyberspace to play and interact with others.
• Potential offenders and victims are gaming excessively and/or compulsively checking Facebook and/or other social networking sites.
• The game players and other ‘netizens’ are playing at home so (a) fewer potential offenders on the streets and fewer potential victims, and (b) houses are occupied for longer and so less susceptible to burglary.
• Immersion and gaming prowess and reputation may be sufficient substitutes for the same things in the offline (real) world
• The Internet allows more people to work from home so teleworking may reduce the pool of “available” victims on the street and also ensure fewer homes are empty during the day.

The evidence provided for the ‘crime substitution hypothesis’ in our paper was anecdotal and/or correlational in nature but we would argue that this would provide a fruitful avenue for further research. Such research into ‘crime substitution’ and gaming/social networking might involve: (i) measuring time spent gaming and social networking by groups that empirical research predicts are at greater risk of becoming offenders, (ii) conducting ethnographic studies with young people to gauge whether, and if so to what extent, gaming and social networking are used as a substitute for risky activities in the offline (real) world, and do this in relation to both potential offending and victimization, (iii) examining issues of offline and online peer status and how this may impact on consequent behaviour (including criminal activity), and (iv) further examining the correlation between console and game sales – and any data on playing time and type of games – with the general crime trend over the past 20 years.

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

Further reading

Cole, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Social interactions in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing gamers. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 575-583.

De Freitas, S. & Griffiths, M.D. (2008). The convergence of gaming practices with other media forms: what potential for learning? A review of the literature. Learning, Media and Technology, 33, 11-20.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005). Video games and health. British Medical Journal, 331, 122-123.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005b). The therapeutic value of videogames. In Goldstein J. & Raessens J. (eds.) Handbook of Computer Game Studies (pp. 161-171). Boston: MIT Press.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Internet and video-game addiction. In C. Essau (Ed.), Adolescent Addiction: Epidemiology, Assessment and Treatment (pp.231-267).  San Diego: Elselvier.

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

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

Griffiths, M.D. & Sutton, M. (2013). Proposing the Crime Substitution Hypothesis: Exploring the possible causal relationship between excessive adolescent video game playing, social networking and crime reduction. Education and Health, 31, 17-21.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction: 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.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Online gaming addiction in adolescence: A literature review of empirical research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 1, 3-22.

Sutton, M (2010) Routine Activities Theory, the Internet and the 15-Year crime drop. Criminology: The Blog of Mike Sutton. Best Thinking: http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=9634,9634

Stats entertainment (Part 2): A 2013 review of my personal blog

My last blog of 2013 was not written by me but was prepared by the WordPress.com stats helper. I thought a few of you might be interested in the kind of person that reads my blogs. I also wanted to wish all my readers a happy new year and thank you for taking the time to read my posts.

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 860,000 times in 2013. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 37 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Screenage kicks: A brief look at children’s use of information technology

The following blog is an expanded version of an article that was published on my university website as one of the regular ‘Expert Opinion’ columns.

Last week week, a lot of media coverage was given to research on young children’s IT use carried out by the US pressure group Common Sense Media and electronic learning experts VTech. Based on a survey of 1,463 parents of children aged under eight years, it was reported that 38% of children aged under two years of age had used iPhones and/or Kindles for playing games or watching films. The study, called ‘Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America, 2013’ also reported that (i) one in three young children use a mobile phone or tablet before they could talk, (ii) 29% of children started using electronic gadgets as toddlers, (iii) children aged under two years spent an average of 15 minutes a day using electronic gadgets, and that (iv) children aged between two and four years spent average of two hours a day watching television. Are these findings a cause for concern?

Over the last decade I have taken part in many radio debates about the influence of information technology on the lives of children. Typically, I am invited onto such programmes to inject a hint of caution along the lines that engaging with technology is OK for children and adolescents in moderation, but that excess involvement with all things electronic may have a downside. To me this seems little more than common sense. As I repeatedly say to people, I am certainly not anti-technology, but pro-responsible the use of it.

Most people will be aware that computers were first introduced into schools in the early-1980s. Since then, information technology has been steadily growing in importance in education rising from a minority option to a compulsory subject in the National Curriculum. Over the years I have watched as many national initiatives have attempted to get children acquainted with IT as early as possible.

No-one can deny that IT skills should be an important part of children’s educational development. However, there seem to be endless numbers of questions that we need to answer before proceeding at the current pace. For instance, should the seemingly growing emphasis on IT be continued at the expense of more traditional classroom learning experiences? Is the idea to increase the amount of classroom work done on computers going to breed a new generation of children who have forgotten how to hold a pen? Should we be introducing children to computers from the earliest age possible? Will computers ever replace teachers?

As a psychologist specializing in the effect of interactive technology in the lives of children, it still surprises me how late in my own life I was acquainted with modern technology. Back in 1982, I experienced my first taste of computers as a teenager playing Donkey Kong on my father’s Commodore 64. It wasn’t until I was 18 years of age and at university that I first did something educational on a computer. The fact that I do not feel I have been left behind in today’s technological generation suggests that children do not necessarily have to begin as young as possible to appreciate the educational benefits of IT (i.e. if I can catch up having not started until I was in my late teens, then there is no reason why others shouldn’t be able to do so).

There is no doubt that children’s day-to-day leisure habits have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Today’s modern teenager may well have a television, CD player and computer game console in their bedroom and many have online access to the internet at home and at home via smartphones, tablets, and laptops. In essence, today’s teenagers live their lives in a multi-media world and are more “screenager” than teenager. What is the long-term effect of this change in children’s leisure behaviour? Over the last decade there have been countless independent research projects all claiming to give pointers as to the long-term effects of children spending more and more time in front of the screen. A decade ago, eminent psychologists (such as Philip Zimbardo) made the observation that there had been a dramatic increase in shyness rates, a doubling of children’s obesity levels, and that children were spending less time involved in physical activities (e.g. sports) than they used to. I cannot put all the blame for these observations at the door of IT developments, but I do think they play a contributory role.

There appears to be a movement that automatically views IT as the way forward on lots of things (particularly in education), and that the only way of self-betterment amongst our children is through increasing IT use. There is little good reason to assume that more always means better. It is my belief that children at school need an integrated balance between computer-assisted learning (including the development of IT skills), traditional learning methods (paper and pen, the three ‘R’s’ etc.), physical sporting activities, and enhancement of play and peer development. That is not to say that computers and the internet do not have their positive side. Even a quick think on the subject would indicate that computers can:

• Be fun and exciting providing an innovative way of learning
• Provide elements of interactivity that can stimulate learning
• Provide elements of curiosity and challenge which can be crucial to learning
• Equip children with state-of -the-art technology
• Help overcome techno-phobia (a condition well-known among many adults)
• Eliminate gender imbalance in IT use (males have traditionally tended to be more avid IT users)
• Help in the development of transferable IT skills

However, on the down side, (and the last thing I want to be is a kill-joy here) computers (including internet use) can in some cases:

• Be socially isolating (perhaps leading to increased shyness)
• Be socially limiting (perhaps leading to physical inactivity and obesity)
• Be time-consuming, engrossing, and in extreme cases addictive
• Provide easy accessibility to exploitative material (e.g. pornography)
• Provide easy accessibility to adult activities (e.g. internet gambling)
• Provide IT skills that quickly change or become obsolete
• Cause repetitive strain injuries
• Produce unintended “sloppiness” (i.e. computers can correct spelling and grammar)

As can be seen by the list of ‘negatives’, some of the problems are not from the IT medium itself but from what children can do in that medium (e.g., access pornography or gamble at virtual casinos on the internet). Both parents and teachers need to be aware of IT’s limitations and need to put safeguards in place to protect children from unwanted exposure to adult material.

To re-iterate and expand on what I said earlier, there needs to be integration between lots of different activities (not just IT), and there needs to be a balance between IT and traditional education so that they can combine to form a richer experience for the children of tomorrow. IT will continue to have a large impact in the lives of our children. What teachers and parents need to concentrate on is not what to learn but how to learn. This in itself will have an impact on both the role of teachers and the contribution that parents can make.

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Adolescent video game playing: Issues for the classroom. Education Today: Quarterly Journal of the College of Teachers, 60(4), 31-34.

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

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

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

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

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Online gaming addiction in adolescence: A literature review of empirical research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 1, 3-22.

Kuss, D.J., van Rooij, A.J., Shorter, G.W., Griffiths, M.D. & van de Mheen, D. (2013). Internet addiction in adolescents: Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1987-1996.

Spekman,M.L.C., Konijn,E.A, Roelofsma,P.H.M.P. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Gaming addiction, definition, and measurement: A large-scale empirical study, Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2150-2155.

Bitter sweet? A brief look at ‘addiction’ to Candy Crush

Earlier this week, the ‘addictiveness’ of the game Candy Crush made the national newspapers when the Daily Mail published the story with the headline ‘How women blow £400,000 a day playing Candy Crush, the most addictive online game ever’. The Mail article said:

“Look around any busy train or bus and it seems every other person with a smartphone or tablet is hooked on Candy Crush Saga, the latest online game to have taken the world by storm. With its twinkly lights, hypnotic music and comic sound effects, it has millions of people in its grip – and, like 2010’s Angry Birds, which even numbered [British Prime Minister] David Cameron among its fans, it has become an online sensation…An astonishing 700 million games of Candy Crush are played every day on mobile devices alone, according to AppData, a leading authority on social media trends. But, unlike so many video games, it appears that instead of teenage boys and men, it’s mostly women who are in thrall to Candy Crush. According to the game’s creators, King.com, women aged 25-55 are the demographic most loyal to the game…According to ThinkGaming, Candy Crush makes an estimated £400,000 a day for King. That’s £146m a year, figures which have prompted the Office of Fair Trading to voice concern that guidelines are needed to stop firms exploiting young users.King claims that 90 per cent of its players are over 21, but maturity doesn’t seem to prevent women…from falling under Candy Crush’s spell”.

I was interviewed by the journalist that wrote the article [Jill Foster] who wanted to know why it was such an ‘addictive’ game and why so many women played it. I told her that Candy Crush is a gender-neutral games that has a ‘moreish’ quality (a bit like chocolate – although this analogy didn’t end up in the article) and can fit in flexibly around what women do in their day-to-day life. The game takes up all the player’s cognitive ability because anyone playing on it has to totally concentrate on it. By being totally absorbed players can forget about everything else for a few minutes. I speculated that this may be particularly appealing to many women whether they are a stay-at-home mother who has ten minutes to play it in between childcare, or a business executive on her commute. It’s deceptively simple and fun. I also noted that unlike many online games, Candy Crush doesn’t involve killing or fighting, and it doesn’t feature strong male characters or highly sexualized female characters. For those of you reading this that have yet to play Candy Crush, the Mail report provided a good description of the game:

“The rules of Candy Crush are indeed simple. Players move a variety of brightly coloured sweets – or candies – around a grid and line up at least three of the same sweet in a row. Every time a row is completed, the line explodes, making way for more sweets to drop in. With more than 400 different stages, each more difficult than the last, and more being added all the time, players never need run out of challenges. As a so-called ‘freemium’ product, basic access to the game is free, but users must pay for ‘premium’ services. Players aren’t charged to advance through the first 35 levels but after that, it costs 69p for another 20 levels, although it is possible to avoid paying by asking your Facebook friends to send you extra lives. However, the cost can rise as players are encouraged to buy ‘boosters’ such as virtual ‘candy hammers’ for around £1”.

In typical tabloid style, the Mail article had interviewed a number of women that were used as examples to demonstrate the existence of Candy Crush ‘addiction’. For instance, Lucy Berkley, a 44-year old company director from Ashford in Kent told of how she came into her office on a Monday morning with severe back pain. All of her work colleagues could clearly see she was in much discomfort. The cause of her back pain was Candy Crush that she had played for ten hours over the weekend hunched over her iPad. She claimed “I couldn’t help it, it was so addictive. The extraordinary thing was that almost everyone else in the room admitted they too were addicted. Now we’re all competing”. Another woman, Steph, a mother-of-one interviewed for the Mail article said:

“I’m thinking about it all the time. I call it “crack candy” because I imagine giving up is like trying to break a crack habit. I hadn’t heard of it until I saw that many friends – all intelligent, creative women – were playing it on Facebook. I’ve never played any other game on my phone. But I don’t like going a day without my ‘fix’. I play it whenever I have a free moment. In the morning I play on my commute and when I look around the train, nearly every other person seems to be doing the same. I’ll have a sneaky game or two at lunchtime. When I get home, I’ll leave the ironing or the housework and have half an hour – or more – on the iPad. [At the weekend when] I’ve got up and read the papers, I’ll start playing and that’s me sorted for the next three to four hours. In fact, I only usually stop when my iPad runs out of battery. My boyfriend thinks I’m mad. My son Ben, who is at boarding school, can’t understand my obsession. I’ve been known to meet him off a train and rather than give him a hug I’ve said ‘Just a minute Ben, I’m just getting on to the next level!”

She then went on to say:

“Over the past four months I’ve probably spent around £150 playing it. But it’s worth it…I’m thinking about it all the time. I wake up and the first thing I do is pick up my phone to have a game, then I’ll be playing if I get a spare second before work. I play it on my walk from the car to the office. When I come home, I play it while I’m cooking the evening meal or watching TV. [My partner] Martin thinks I’m bonkers. When the lights go out and we’re in bed he’ll say: ‘I know you’re playing it because I can see the light from your phone’ so I have to play it under the covers. My son asks: “Why are you playing that game again Mum?’ It’s as if our roles have been reversed. It’s taking over my life. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to stop”.

Although none of the cases covered in the piece appear to be genuinely addicted by the criteria I use to assess addiction, that doesn’t mean the cases are uninteresting psychologically or that games like Candy Crush are totally innocuous. I have noted in a number of my more general writings about games played via social networking sites that ‘freemium’ games are psychological ‘foot-in-the-door’ techniques that lead a small minority of people to pay for games and/or game accessories that they may never have originally planned to buy before playing the game (akin to ‘impulse buying’ in other commercial environments. I’ve also argued that many of the games played on social network sites share similarities with gambling. As I noted in my interview with the Mail:

‘On first look, games like Candy Crush may not seem to have much connection to gambling, but the psychology is very similar. Even when games do not involve money, they introduce players to the principles and excitement of gambling. Small unpredictable rewards lead to highly engaged, repetitive behaviour. In a minority, this may lead to addiction”

Basically, people keep responding in the absence of reinforcement hoping that another reward is just around the corner (a psychological principle rooted in operant conditioning and called the partial reinforcement extinction effect – something that is used to great effect in both slot machines and most video games). Another woman interviewed for the Mail story (Jenni Weaver, a 40-year-old mum of four from Bridlington) is worried that she’s addicted to Candy Crush (and based on her interview quotes, she certainly appears to display some signs of bona fide addictive behaviour) She told the Mail that her Candy Crush addiction was beginning to affect family life:

‘I’m playing it for eight hours a day now and it’s become a real problem. My daughter told me about it. I was hooked straight away. The longest I’ve played for is 12 hours with just a few short breaks in between. It’s worse than smoking…Housework has gone to pot. I’ve even been late picking my ten-year-old up from school because I’ve been stuck on a level. I’ve burnt countless dinners and let vegetables boil dry because I’ve been engrossed. I’m trying to limit myself, but I can still spend eight hours a day playing it. It’s ridiculous.’

Earlier this year, I was interviewed at length by Mike Rose (for Gamasutra, the online magazine about gaming issues), who wrote a really good set of articles about free-to-play games. In one of Rose’s articles I argued that even in games where no money is changing hands, players are learning the mechanics of gambling and that there are serious questions about whether gambling with virtual money encourages positive attitudes towards gambling. As I have noted in a number of my recent articles, the introduction of in-game virtual goods and accessories (that people pay real money for) was a psychological masterstroke. It becomes more akin to gambling, as social gamers know that they are spending money as they play with little or no financial return. The real difference between pure gambling games and some free-to-play games is the fact that gambling games allow you to win your money back, adding an extra dimension that can potentially drive revenues even further. The lines between social free-to-play games and gambling is beginning to blur, bringing along with them various moral, ethical, legal, and social issues. The psychosocial impact of free-to-play games is only just beginning to be investigated by people in the field of gaming studies. Empirically, we know almost nothing about the psychosocial impact of gambling or gaming via social networking sites, although research suggests the playing of free games among adolescents is one of the risk factors for both the uptake of real gambling and problem gambling.

Postscript: Following the Daily Mail story I was also interviewed at length for a story that appeared in Yahoo! News – you can read my in-depth comments here.

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

Further reading

Foster, J. (2013). How women blow £400,000 a day playing Candy Crush, the most addictive online game ever. Daily Mail, October 17. Located at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2463636/How-women-blow-400-000-day-playing-Candy-Crush-addictive-online-game-ever.html

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Online gambling, social responsibility and ‘foot-in-the-door techniques. i-Gaming Business, 62, 100-101.

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). The psychology of social gaming. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, August/September, 26-27.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Social gambling via Facebook: Further observations and concerns. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 17, 104-106.

Hall, C. (2013). Just how addictive are mobile games? Yahoo! News, October 18. Located at: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/how-addictive-are-mobile-games–143654713.html#P1M3U7a

Lagorio-Chaflkin, C. (2013). Candy Crush Saga’s intoxicating secret source. Inc.com, July 25. Located at: http://www.inc.com/christine-lagorio/candy-crush-secret-sauce.html

Pressman, A. (2013). Candy Crush: Insanely addictive today, but likely on borrowed time. The Exchange, July 11. Located at: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/candy-crush-insanely-addictive-today-likely-borrowed-time-171103788.html

Rose, M. (2013). Chasing the Whales: Examining the ethics of free-to-play games. Gamasutra, July 9. Located at: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php?page=7