The beliefs are falling: The illusion of control in gambling

For the professional gambler, being in control of the situation is paramount. However, one of the psychological ploys that the gaming industry likes to exploit is the fact that gamblers often perceive they have more control than they have in actuality. Probably one of the most single influential contributions to the psychology of gambling was Ellen Langer’s series of experiments on the illusion of control in the 1970s. Her theories were based on the observations that some people treat chance events as controllable. For instance, it isn’t uncommon for dealers and croupiers who experience runs of bad luck to lose their job. Back in the 1960s, sociologists studying craps players noticed those throwing the dice behaved as if they were controlling the outcome of the toss. Typically, craps players threw the dice softly for low numbers and hard for high numbers. In a follow-up experimental investigation, psychologists showed that when playing with dice, people bet less money and were less confident if asked to bet after someone else had thrown the dice rather than throwing it themselves, even though the probability of success was the same in both situations. Ellen Langer argued that these behaviours are totally rational if gamblers believed their game was a game of skill.

The “illusion of control” was defined by Langer as being “an expectancy of a personal success inappropriately higher than the objective probability would warrant.” Put simply, gamblers think they have more chance of winning than they actually do. She tested for this in a series of experimental studies that supported her original idea (that under some circumstances, gamblers will produce skill orientations towards chance events). Langer’s experiments convincingly showed that players bet more when playing cards against a ‘nervous’ competitor than against a ‘confident’ one. She also demonstrated that players would sell previously bought lottery tickets for a higher price if they had picked the numbers themselves as opposed to having them picked by someone else. Her other groundbreaking experiments showed that certain factors such as the nature of the competition, the familiarity of the task, and the degree of personal involvement influence the belief that skill is a controlling force, stimulates the illusion of control, and produces skill orientations. In a later study involving the prediction of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ after a coin was tossed, she also showed that early wins during chance games induced a skill orientation even though the activity was totally chance determined.

Many regular gamblers (such as roulette players) passionately believe their game is skill-based, and offer explanations of why they failed to win when their number doesn’t come up. Such beliefs have been tested experimentally by US psychologist Thomas Gilovich in a study of the biased evaluations in gambling behaviour. In three studies using people who bet on football games, Gilovich demonstrated that gamblers transformed their losses into ‘near wins‘. Gamblers pinpointed random or ‘fluke’ events that contributed to a loss but were unaffected by identical events that contributed to a win. I’m sure you can all think of instances like this when watching football. When your team loses, it’s not uncommon to berate the referee for a dodgy penalty decision or deride the linesman because he failed to spot an offside. You may end up blaming your team’s loss on one particular event. Had your team won with the dodgy decision going your team’s way, you would probably rationalise it and say your team would have won anyway because of their superior playing ability and skill. Gilovich also reported that gamblers spent more time discussing their losses and discounting them. For example, after a loss, a lot of time may be spent analysing a small incident of a few seconds duration even though the game lasted 90 minutes. What’s more, we make ourselves feel better by blaming the loss on something or someone external. Interestingly, exactly the same effects have been found in gambling activities in which losses could not easily be explained away (such as Gilovich’s experiments using computerised bingo gambling).

Many psychologists have consistently highlighted the irrational perceptions people produce while gambling. Many studies have evaluated the cognitive activities of gamblers while they play on slot machines or roulette using the ‘thinking aloud’ method. This basically involves getting gamblers to think aloud while they are gambling. Typical results have shown that erroneous and irrational perceptions of the gambling activity far outnumber the logical and rational perceptions. In these situations, gamblers attribute their success to personal factors such as skill whereas external factors (like bad luck) account for losses. For instance, in my own research on slot machine gamblers, I found that when slots players were winning they would attribute their success to their playing strategy and skill. When they lost it was because of something external in the gambling environment. For example, someone had put them off by talking to them or watching them while gambling. Similar findings have reproduced by psychological experiments in Canada, Australia and the USA (including some of my own). The illusion of control is just one of the many ways in which a gambler distorts the perceptions of their gambling. These are sufficient enough to show that psychological factors can influence the way in which people gamble and continue to gamble.

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

Further reading

Coventry, K. & Norman, A. (1998). Arousal, erroneous verbalizations and the illusion of control during a computer generated task. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 629-645.

Gilovich, T. (1983). Biased evaluation and persistence in gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1110-1126.

Gilovich, T. & Douglas, C. (1986). Biased evaluations of randomly determined gambling outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 228-241.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Gambling, luck and superstition: A brief psychological overview. Casino and Gaming International, 7(2), 75-80.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Is ‘loss of control’ always a consequence of addiction? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4, 36. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00036

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

Henslin, J. (1967) Craps and magic. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 316-330.

Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.

Langer, E.J. & Roth, J. (1975). The effect of sequence outcome in a chance task on the illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 951-955.

Rogers, P. (1988). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: a theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 111-134.

Rogers, P. & Webley, P. (2001). It could be us! Cognitive and social psychological factors in UK National Lottery play. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 181-199.

Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books.

Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). Paradoxes in Gambling Behaviour. London: Erlbaum.

Lack of ball control: Gambling addiction among football players

Earlier this month, ex-England footballer Kenny Sansom made the news after he was found homeless sleeping on a park bench following his self-admitted addictions to both gambling and alcohol. Gambling by footballers is nothing new of course. Back in 2006, the media lapped up the story that Wayne Rooney allegedly ran up gambling debts of £700,000 with the Goldchip betting company. At the time, the Government’s (then) Sports Minister, Richard Caborn, warned the England team footballers not to bet on World Cup matches endorsing the decision by football’s world governing body (FIFA) to outlaw players betting on the tournament. Today’s blog briefly looks at the issue of gambling addiction amongst footballers and whether it is an issue that clubs must take seriously.

So why do professional footballers gamble? Gambling and football have always been inextricably linked. Whether it is the football pools, a punt on who will win the FA Cup final, or a spread bet on the number of yellow cards to be handed out during the next World Cup, gamblers love betting on the outcome of football matches. But there are also good psychological reasons that encourage top players to gamble – particularly if looked at from the player’s perspective.

It is the night before a big match. Premiership players are confined to staying in a hotel. No sex. No alcohol. No junk food. Basically, no access to all the things they love. To pass time, footballers may watch television, play cards, or play a video game believing these are ‘healthier’ for them. The difficulty in detecting gambling addictions is likely to be one factor in its growth over other forms of addiction – especially as many players are more health-conscious and the testing for alcohol and drugs is now more rigorous. However, any of these ‘healthier’ activities when taken to excess can cause problems. England goalkeeper David James once claimed his loss of form was because of his round-the-clock video game playing. In short, the top players are very well paid and inevitably have lots of time on their hands. By their own admission, ex-Arsenal and England players like Paul Merson and Tony Adams lost millions of pounds gambling and regularly attended Gamblers Anonymous along with treatment for other addictions to alcohol and cocaine. Paul Merson claims to have lost £7 million to gambling and cocaine, and was still having severe gambling problems over a decade after his football career had ended.

It would also seem to be the case that there is a psychosocial subculture of gambling by footballers. The ex-England striker Kevin Phillips claimed that when he was part of Kevin Keegan’s England squad (as a Sunderland player in the 1990s), he was alienated by the other players for not taking part with the other players in the team’s pre-match gambling activities. Phillips’ ex-strike partner at Sunderland, Niall Quinn, knows only too well the inherent dangers of gambling. While playing for Arsenal he regularly lost his whole week’s wages at the bookmakers inside an hour of getting it. Whilst he was never truly out of control, he did have to re-mortgage his flat to pay off gambling debts. Quinn says he was lucky not to be paid the kind of wages players get today as he would have lost more. Ex-footballer (and now TV and radio football pundit) Steve Claridge claimed in his autobiography to have blown £1m on gambling, while the ex-Northern Ireland winger Keith Gillespie became addicted after placing bets for team-mates.

More recently, there have been a number of high profile cases of top footballers with gambling problems. These include the West Ham and Stoke winger Matthew Etherington and ex-England striker David Bentley who was reported to be placing up to 100 bets a day on everything from horses and greyhounds to online poker and bingo. Another high profile case to hit the headlines was Icelandic ex-Chelsea player Eidur Gudjohnsen who was alleged to be in £6 million in debt because of his gambling despite a £3 million-a-year wages at his current club Monaco. While he was at Manchester United, the Dutch striker Ruud Van Nistelrooy said that “obscene” wages were fuelling constant gambling by other players in the team.

I am often asked by the press to comment on why footballers gamble and whether they are more susceptible to gambling addiction. One player I was asked to comment on was ex-England striker Michael Owen (whose friend Stephen Smith – somewhat ironically – ran the company that Wayne Rooney ran up his debts with). It was clear that to me that Owen did not have a gambling problem and could easily afford to lose the amounts he was alleged to have lost. However, it could be argued that he and players like Wayne Rooney are role models for many teenagers. As a psychologist I have some concerns about the messages that high profile footballers send out about gambling to vulnerable individuals. Teenagers are less likely than adults to be able to make informed choices because they are young and impressionable. Footballers who gamble are unconsciously giving out the message to adolescents that gambling is something that goes hand-in-hand with being a top footballer.

Tony Adams alleged that every football club in England has a problem with gambling addiction. This was one of the primary reasons why set up his own charity (Sporting Chance) to help footballers with addiction problems. At present, this appears to be the main source of help for footballers who are problem gamblers, although Gamblers Anonymous also appears to be another popular outlet for help. Press reports from the mid-2000s indicated that up to 60 Premiership football players were being treated for gambling addiction. Adams alleged that some players – despite being on vast wages – even stole from their children’s savings to cover their losses. He said footballers that were gambling addicts “lose their self-respect and before you know where they are, they are nicking money out of their kids’ savings to have a bet. It is something about which clubs need to be aware. It is difficult to trace – but it can cause a lot of damage.” Peter Kay, the Chief Executive of the Sporting Chance clinic claims that footballer’s passion for football predisposes them to gambling problems. He said:

“If you have the kind of driven, obsessive character that it takes to become a professional footballer, with that tunnel-vision, then you are predisposed. I have not come across a football club where gambling does not play a part in the players’ lives. If a player is dropped from the team, this can often lead to depression and a craving for the buzz of football – sometimes found in gambling. It is acceptable to gamble. There have always been famous gamblers in football and for most it is enjoyable. But for around 10 per cent it is an addiction”.

Although the English Football Association has strict rules on gambling by footballers, these are not a deterrent to gamble and as outlined above, there are many reasons why footballers may gamble to excess compared to other less ‘healthy’ behaviours like excessive drinking or drug taking. It is a shame that addictions to drugs and alcohol tend to generate more sympathy among the general public as many people view gambling as a self-inflicted vice. But gambling to excess can be just as destructive because of the huge financial consequences. Therefore, time rich and money rich young footballers need to be educated about the potential downsides of excessive and/or high stakes gambling. Through the work of the Sporting Chance clinic, this is beginning to happen, but as footballers’ wages continue to increase, gambling is one activity that may place an increasing role in the lives of the players.

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

Further reading

Adams, T. and Ridley, I. (1999), Addicted. London: Harper Collins.

BBC Online News (2007). Etherington in gambling admission. February 24. Located at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6392549.stm (Last accessed December 10, 2009).

Burt, J. (2003). Adams charity claims gambling addiction is rife. The Independent, January 16. Located at; http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/adams-charity-claims-gambling-addiction-is-rife-601846.html (Last accessed December 10, 2009).

Chaytor, R. (2008), Paul Merson gambles away £300,000 home. Daily Mirror, November 1. Located at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/01/11/paul-merson-gambles-away-300-000-home-115875-20281696/ (Last accessed December 10, 2009).

Claridge, S. & Ridley, I. (2000). Tales From The Boot Camps. London: Orion.

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.

Menezes, J. de (2013). Former England star Kenny Sansom admits he’s ‘homeless, a drunk and sleeping on a park bench’. The Independent, August 1. Located at: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/former-england-star-kenny-sansom-admits-hes-homeless-a-drunk-and-sleeping-on-a-park-bench-8741512.html

Merson, P. (1996). Rock Bottom. London: Bloomsbury.

Peake, A. (2009). Eidur down £6M: Gambling has ace Gudjohnsen owing two banks. The Sun, December 3, p.25.

Winter, H. (2008). David Bentley had to fight gambling addiction. Daily Telegraph, April 10. Located at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/henrywinter/2296852/David-Bentley-had-to-fight-gambling-addiction.html (Last accessed December 10, 2009).

Gaming desire: Online behavioural tracking in Facebook

In a previous blog I examined how researchers in the gambling studies field are using online behavioural tracking data to study excessive gambling. However, online tracking data is used all the time in lots of contexts by lots of companies to better understand human behaviour. Most people view the internet as a very anonymous medium but rest assured, someone, somewhere, is monitoring everything you do online. The internet is the most non-anonymous place I can possibly think of.

Data from online environments provide potential advantages to many sectors (particularly those in the fields of marketing and advertising). This is because every click and transaction of every customer is automatically stored in a database and provides very high data quality for those who know what to do with it. This is very much in contrast to market surveys where such data have to be gathered at high costs, with lots of manual work involved, and may be prone to error. Within my own gambling studies field, a number of different teams across the world (including my own) have now been given access to behavioural tracking data of gamblers. Such data include:

• Account data (i.e., general information about each player) including user ID, date of birth, gender, other demographic data (if available), and geographic data (e.g., postal codes).
• Game data (for each player) including game ID, game type (if available), amount of winnings, amount of money spent, number of bets/spins (or equivalent), chasing behaviour, bonus usage, and session time.
• Financial data (for each player, and game, if applicable) including the number and amount of deposits, the number of money withdrawals, and the number of accounts.
• Responsible gaming limit data (i.e., time, spending, etc) for each player, and game (if applicable) including current time and spend limits, changes of limits, and the number of limit strikes (i.e., when players reach their pre-determined limit for deposits or time.).
• Miscellaneous data for each player (and game if applicable) including the length of playing session, login information, number of ‘cool-off periods’ (when players lock themselves out of their accounts for pre-defined periods of time), and any other data that might be relevant or of interest.

Many of these types of data are also held by those who operate games via social networking sites and could potentially be used for research purposes. Online social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) typically collect two types of information. These are (i) personal details provided by a user (e.g., name, email address, telephone number, address, gender and schools attended, etc.) and (ii) usage data collected automatically as the user clicks from one webpage to another (e.g., how users access the site, type of web browser used, time spent logged onto the site, etc.). Other day-to-day types of data collected from social network users include:

• The IP address used every time a user logs on to the social networking site.
• Every friend request a user has ever received and how they responded.
• A list of all users’ family and friends (including relationship status)
• Every pressing of ‘Like’ that a user has used on a wide variety of topics and events.
• Credit card information, if the user ever purchased credits or advertising on the social networking site.
• Every poke a user has exchanged (including both pokes made by the user on someone else and a record of all the times a user has been poked).
• Every event a user has been invited to through via the networking site and how they responded.
• Dates of user name changes and historical privacy settings changes.
• Photographs of life events and camera metadata including time stamps and latitude/longitude of picture location, as well as tags from photos – even if users have untagged them.
• The last known physical location of the user, with latitude, longitude, time/date, altitude, and more.
• A history of every private and public message and chat on the social networking site.
• Lists of every song the user has listened to online and every article that they have read.

Almost any variable (beyond the usual demographic ones such as age, gender, education, relationship status, etc.) could be examined as a risk and/or protective factor in the context of social gaming (e.g., Is the number of credit cards registered related to time and/or money spent on social gaming? How often does a person access a social game following the recommendation of another person? Does the type of social gaming differ by geographical location of where the user logged on? Does poking facilitate social gaming?). Facebook currently stores up to 800 pages of data on each of its users.

It has also been revealed that some social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) collect data from users who have logged out (usually – say the company – “for security purposes”) through the use of ‘cookies’. Cookies relay information from any site a user visits that contains a link to the social networking site such as a ‘like’ button.  With these data, the company can map out any users more general web usage.

Access to such data sets may provide insights into a number of important areas such as transitions from social gaming to social gambling, and how social gaming might be integrated with other online behaviours (such as gambling). However, other types of research are also needed including longitudinal studies so that people can be tracked over time (either via behavioural tracking and/or surveys), and more detailed qualitative work (interviews and focus groups) with different player types (e.g., regular and/or problematic gamblers/social gamers).

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). Internet gambling: Issues, concerns and recommendations. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6, 557-568.

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

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

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.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2008). Gambling loyalty schemes: Treading a fine line? Casino and Gaming International, 4(2), 105-108.

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.

Track to the future: Online behavioural tracking and problem gambling

Almost everyone reading this will be aware that problem gambling lies towards one end of a continuum that ranges from non-gambling at one end through to pathological gambling at the other. However, it should also be noted that there will always be some behaviours that are typically engaged in by problem gamblers that some non-problem gamblers may also engage in at least occasionally (e.g., chasing behaviour when gamblers try to recoup their losses).

Worldwide, there are many different screening instruments that can be used by clinicians and researchers to help identify problem gambling. One of most regularly used is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (of which the fifth edition has just been published) that includes criteria that can aid the diagnosis of problem and pathological gambling (but now called disordered gambling in its latest incarnation). The previous (DSM-IV) criteria were used in the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey published in 2011. If a person answered positively to at least five of the criteria, a diagnosis of pathological gambling would be made whereas endorsement of three or four of the criteria would indicate a diagnosis of problem gambling. Using the DSM-IV, the latest BGPS reported a problem gambling rate of 0.9% among British adults.

In contrast to offline gambling, the use of online behavioural tracking presents an opportunity for researchers to examine the actual and real-time behaviour engaged in by gamblers. Analysis of behavioural tracking data has been carried out by various groups of researchers. For instance, one group affiliated to Harvard University have published a series of papers examining a data set of online gamblers provided by the bwin gaming company. My own research unit has also been publishing data using behavioural tracking data provided by the win2day gaming company.

During my consultancy for various online gaming companies, I have been informed by industry insiders that problem gambling can be identified online by examining the patterns and behaviours of online gamblers. If this is true, it has implications for current problem gambling screens (including the new DSM-V). This is because most criteria found in these screens are associated with the consequences of problem gambling rather than the gambling behaviour itself. Take the DSM-IV. I have argued that only a few of the behaviours in the DSM criteria for pathological gambling can be reliably spotted online using online behavioural tracking (the most obvious being chasing losses, salience/preoccupation, and tolerance). The following list highlights each of the DSM-IV questions for pathological gambling and the component of pathological gambling that each criterion is assessing. This is followed by an assessment as to what extent each criterion can be identified online.

• Salience/Preoccupation (Do you find that you are becoming preoccupied with past gambling successes or find yourself spending increasingly more time planning future gambling?) – An online problem gambler is likely to spend a lot of time gambling online although this behaviour in itself does not necessarily indicate a problem. Anything above four hours daily play over a protracted period could be considered excessive although some forms of online gambling (e.g., online poker) may take up a lot of time and be played relatively inexpensively.
• Tolerance (Do you find that you need to increase the amount of money you gamble to achieve the same enjoyment and excitement?) – If experiencing tolerance to gambling, an online problem gambler is likely to have changed their gambling behaviour in one of two ways over time. The first example of tolerance is a gradual increase of daily play in terms of time. For instance, the gambler might start off playing 30-60 minutes a day but over the course of a few months starts to play increasing amounts of time. The second example of tolerance is the act of gambling using gradually bigger stakes over time. An online problem gambler is more likely to experience both of these combined (i.e., gambling for longer and longer periods of time with bigger and bigger amounts of money).
• Relapse (Have you recently tried to stop gambling but were unsuccessful?) – Although this is difficult to detect with absolute certainty online, a typical pattern would be a gambler who gambles heavily, day-in day-out, for a period of time and then “disappears” for a period of time (which could be days, weeks, and sometimes even months), only to suddenly re-appear and gamble heavily again.
• Withdrawal  (Do you become moody or impatient when you are cutting down how much you gamble?) – This is again difficult to detect with absolute certainty online but is most likely to surface with the use of verbally aggressive comments in those games that have chat room facilities (such as online poker).
• Escape from reality (Do you ever use gambling a way of ignoring stress in your in life or even pick you up when you feel down?) – This is almost impossible to detect online although those players who play for long hours every day are more likely to experience escape-like feeling.
• Chasing losses (Do you ever try to win back the money you lost by increasing the size or frequency of your wagers?) – This is one of the key indicators of problem gambling and can be spotted online more easily than many other problem gambling criteria. Typical chasing patterns will include repeated ‘double or quit’ strategies in an effort to recoup losses. Although many gamblers use this strategy on occasion, the online problem gambler will do it repeatedly. This behaviour, above and beyond any other criteria, is most likely to signal problem gambling.
• Conceal Involvement (Do you ever hide how much or how often you gamble from significant others?) – There is no way that an online gambling operator can spot this during online gambling unless such admissions are given to other players in online chat rooms.
• Unsociable Behaviour (Have you ever committed fraud or theft to get money to gamble with?) – Again, there is no way that an online gambling operator can spot this during online gambling unless such admissions are given to other players in online chat rooms.
• Ruin a Relationship/Opportunity (Has gambling ever ruined a personal relationship or an occupational or educational opportunity?) – As with the previous two criteria, there is no way that an online gambling operator can spot this during online gambling unless such admissions are given to other players in online chat rooms.
• Bail-out  (Have you ever needed others to relieve a financial problem created by gambling?) – When an online gambler has exhausted all their own funds, they will often ‘beg, borrow and (eventually) steal’ money to continue gambling. A player whose account is constantly ‘topped up’ by people other than themselves may be a problem gambler.

This brief analysis of the extent to which each DSM criterion of problem gambling can be identified online shows that only a few behaviours can be reliably spotted via online behavioural tracking. The following list contains a number of behaviours that are engaged in by online problem gamblers. This was devised and based on my conversations with members of online gaming industry. These are additional to those identified above (i.e., chasing losses, spending high amounts of time and money, and increasing the amount of gambling over time). As a general ‘rule of thumb’, it is assumed that the more of these online behaviours that are engaged in by an individual, the more likely that person is to be a problem gambler.

• Playing a variety of stakes – Playing a variety of different stakes (in games like online poker) indicates poor planning and may be a cue or precursor to chasing behaviour.
• Playing a variety of games – Evidence from national prevalence surveys (e.g. Wardle et, al, 2011) demonstrates that the more types of gambling engaged in, the more likely the person is to be a problem gambler. Although this factor on its own is unlikely to indicate problem gambling, when combined with other indicators on this list may be indicative of problem gambling.
• Player ‘reload’ within gambling session – Although any gambler can engage in such behaviour, players who deposit more money within session (‘reload’) are more likely to be problem gamblers. This indicates poor planning and is a cue to chasing behaviour.
• Frequent payment method changes – The constant changing of deposit payment methods indicates poor planning and is may be a cue to chasing behaviour. This online behaviour usually indicates shortage of funds and need to extract monies from a variety of sources. Such behaviour can also indicate bank refusal.
• Verbal aggression – Aggressive verbal interaction via relay chat is common among problem gamblers although any gambler losing money may cause such behaviour. Such behaviour may be evidence of gamblers going on ‘tilt’ (i.e., negative cognitive and emotional reaction to losing) or withdrawal effects if out of money to gamble.
• Constant complaints to customer services – Constant complaints to the customer service department is common among problem gamblers although any gambler losing money may cause such behaviour. As with verbal aggression, such behaviour may be evidence of gamblers going on ‘tilt’ (i.e., negative cognitive and emotional reaction to losing).

Clearly, each of these behaviours needs to be examined in relation to at least three or four other indicative behaviours. Perhaps most importantly, and according to online gambling companies who use socially responsible behavioural tracking tools, it is a significant change in usual online behaviour that is most indicative of a problem gambler. Most statistical modelling of player behaviour predicts future problematic behaviour on the basis of behavioural change over time. The behaviours highlighted suggest that screening instruments in the future may be able to be developed that concentrate on the gambling behaviour itself, rather than the associated negative consequences.

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

Further reading

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of online gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, in press.

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). An empirical investigation of theoretical loss and gambling intensity. Journal of Gambling Studies, in press.

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

Dragicevic, S., Tsogas, G., & Kudic, A. (2011). Analysis of casino online gambling data in relation to behavioural risk markers for high-risk gambling and player protection. International Gambling Studies, 11, 377–391.

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. & Auer, M. (2011). Approaches to understanding online versus offline gaming impacts. Casino and Gaming International, 7(3), 45-48.

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.

LaBrie, R.A., Kaplan, S., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., & Shaffer, H.J. (2008). Inside the virtual casino: A prospective longitudinal study of Internet casino gambling. European Journal of Public Health, DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckn021.

LaPlante, D.A., Kleschinsky, J.H., LaBrie, R.A., Nelson, S.E. & Shaffer, H.J. (2009). Sitting at the virtual poker table: A prospective epidemiological study of actual Internet poker gambling behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 711-717.

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

Air raising experiences: Gambling as in-flight entertainment

Today’s blog is based on an article I was commissioned to write for The Independent and which was published on November 30, 2012. I originally entitled my piece as ‘Is it right for high flyers to become high rollers?” but The Independent changed it to ‘Casinos on a plane? Fine as long as it’s responsible”.

At the end of November 2012, Simon Calder wrote a report for The Independent about plans for in-flight casinos to be made available on long-haul flights for first and business class passengers. Gambling while airborne is nothing new – in fact I have flown back from Europe a number of times on budget airlines where I was offered scratchcards to play. Given that gambling already takes place on aeroplanes means that there is no moral or regulatory reason for other forms of gambling not to be introduced.

Gambling has always been considered as a revenue generator for many different types of commercial enterprise. Whether it’s playing slot machine in the pub or buying lottery tickets from the supermarket, most commercial businesses are happy to earn extra money by offering gambling products. We can now gamble online, gamble via the red button on our television sets via services like Skybet, and over the summer, the most popular social networking site Facebook launched its first gambling for money game in the shape of Bingo Friendzy. In short, gambling has always been considered as a revenue generator for among many different and diverse commercial operators, and the airline industry is no different.

What’s more, passengers on long-haul flights provide a captive audience. They will want entertainment to stave off the potential boredom. But is this something we should be concerned about? Although I have spent over 25 years studying problem gamblers, I am not anti-gambling in the slightest. I believe that adults should be free to make their own choices about how they spend their disposable income. However, I am also pro-responsible gambling. This means that gaming operators must put in place measures and protocols that protect players from spending too much and protect vulnerable and susceptible individuals (such as children and adolescents). Any service provider that offers gambling should have staff members that are trained in social responsibility.

Gambling is an activity that has the potential to change people’s mood states instantaneously. Just like drinking alcohol or having sex, gambling is a wonderful ‘mood modifier’. It can make us feel high, buzzed up and excited – or it can make us feel low, downbeat and downright depressed. A win (or even a near win) can get the body’s pleasure centre aroused in the form of increased adrenaline and increased endorphins (the body’s own morphine-like substances). Conversely, big losses can lead to irritability and intense frustration. In extreme cases, gambling losses can lead to anger, verbal abuse, and even physical aggression. In this sense, they are no different from someone who may be drunk from drinking too much alcohol. And what about those who drink while they are gambling in the confines of an air flight? Intoxication and large gambling losses are a heady mix that is best avoided as this could cause problems for both passengers and the airline crew.

The current plan appears to be to offer such gambling services to first and business class passengers only. I presume this is because the airline thinks this group of people will have the most disposable income. On the plus side, it may be the case that this group of individuals can afford to lose and are the least likely to be negatively affected (at least financially). On the negative side it could be viewed as targeted exploitation. And not everyone in business class is rich. I often travel business class but my air fares are paid for by the companies that I work for and not me personally. I certainly can’t afford to drop a hundred pounds here and there.

Overall, I am not anti-gambling on aeroplanes particularly if it is another service that passengers want. However, like drinking alcohol, gambling is a consumptive activity that is problematic to a small minority of individuals and that it should be done in moderation. If airlines want to get into the business of being gambling operators as a sideline, they need to have a socially responsible infrastructure in place that maximizes fun for those that want to gamble, and minimizes harm for those who may be vulnerable and susceptible.

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

Further reading

Calder, S. (2012). Wheels up, chips down: French design consortium develops plans for in-flight casino. The Independent, November 30. Located at: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/wheels-up-chips-down-french-design-consortium-develops-plans-for-inflight-casino-8372246.html

Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Betting your life on it: Problem gambling has clear health related consequences. British Medical Journal, 329, 1055-1056.

Griffiths, M.D. (2006). An overview of pathological gambling. In T. Plante (Ed.), Mental Disorders of the New Millennium. Vol. I: Behavioral Issues. pp. 73-98. New York: Greenwood.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Addiction and exposure. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopaedia of Communication (Volume 1). pp. 34-36. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

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. (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. (2009). Centralised gaming models and social responsibility. Casino and Gaming International., 5(2), 65-69.

Play’s cool? Is the type of game played important in the development of gambling addictions?

Earlier today, I (and my research colleague Michael Auer) had a paper published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology arguing that the type of game that people gamble on is irrelevant in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of pathological gambling. We noted that anyone coming into the gambling studies field from a psychological perspective would probably conclude from reading the literature that problem and pathological gambling is associated with particular game types. More specifically, there appears to be a line of thinking in the gambling studies field that casino-type games (and particularly slot machines) are more likely to be associated with problem gambling than lottery-type games.

We argued that the most important factors along with individual susceptibility and risk factors of the individual gambler are the structural characteristics relating to the speed and frequency of the game (and more specifically event frequency, bet frequency, event duration and payout interval) rather than the type of game. Event frequency refers to the number of events that are available for betting and gambling within any given time period. For example, a lottery draw may occur once a week but a slot machine may allow 15 chances to gamble inside one minute. In this example, slot machine gambling has a higher event frequency than lottery gambling. Bet frequency refers to the number of bets or gambles placed in any given time period. Using lottery playing as example, Dr. Jonathan Parke and I noted in a 2007 book chapter on structural characteristics, that multiple tickets (e.g., 10 tickets) can usually be purchased as frequently as desired before any single lottery draw. In this instance, bet frequency would be equal to 10 but event frequency would be equal to 1. Therefore, event frequency can often be much lower than bet frequency and it is possible for players to spend more than they can afford even with a low event frequency.

Dr. Parke and I have stated that further empirical research is needed into the relationship between event frequency and bet frequency. This is because researchers often assume that event frequency and bet frequency have a strong relationship (i.e., the higher number of betting/gambling events – the higher the frequency of betting/gambling). However, this may not be the case.

Another important gaming parameter is event duration. This refers to how fast the event in question is (e.g., a reel spin on a slot machine might last three seconds). Here, it is important to note that duration of the betting/gambling event is different from event frequency (although they may be inextricably linked in so much as the length of a betting event will obviously limit the frequency with which they can take place). Again, Dr Parke and I noted that a betting event lasting two hours (e.g., a soccer game) could not have an event frequency greater than one in any 2-hour period but could have a betting frequency of over 100 with the advent of in-play betting.

In-play betting and gambling (which I examined in a previous blog) refers to the wagering on an event that has started but has not yet finished. This means gamblers can continue to bet on an event (e.g., a soccer or cricket match) and perhaps more importantly, adapt their bets according to how the event is progressing.  For instance, in the UK, during the playing of almost any soccer match, a gambler 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 the game and/or in what minute of the second half will the first free kick be awarded. What I argued in a previous blog is that ‘in-play’ gambling activities have taken what was traditionally a discontinuous form of gambling – where a gambler made one bet every weekend on the result of the game – to one where a player can gamble continuously again and again. In short, the same game has been turned from what was a low event frequency gambling activity into a potentially high frequency one (and gone from an activity that had little association with problem gambling to one where problem gambling is far more likely among excessive in-play gamblers).

Another important (and related) structural characteristic is payout interval. This is the time between the end of the betting event (i.e., the outcome of the gamble) and the winning payment (if there is one). The frequency of playing when linked with two other factors – the result of the gamble (win or loss) and the actual time until winnings are received – exploits the psychological principles of learning. This process of operant conditioning conditions habits by rewarding (i.e., reinforcing) behaviour (i.e., through presentation of a reward such as money). To produce high rates of response, those schedules which present rewards intermittently (random and variable ratio schedules) have shown to be most effective. Since a number of gambling activities (most notable slot machines) operate on random and variable ratio schedules it is unsurprising that excessive gambling can occur.

To highlight the irrelevance of game type, consider the following two examples that demonstrate that it is the structural characteristics rather than the game type that is critical in the acquisition, development and maintenance of problem and pathological gambling for those who are vulnerable and/or susceptible. A “safe” slot machine could be designed in which no-one would ever develop a gambling problem. The simplest way to do this would be to ensure that whoever was playing the machine could not press the ‘play button’ or pull the lever more than once a week. An enforced structural characteristic of an event frequency of once a week would almost guarantee that players could not develop a gambling problem. Alternatively, a problematic form of lottery could be designed where instead of the draw taking place weekly, bi-weekly or daily, it would be designed to take place once every few minutes. Such an example is not hypothetical and resembles lottery games that already exist in the form of rapid-draw lottery games like keno.

The general rule is that the higher the event frequency, the more likely it is that the gambling activity will cause problems for the individual (particularly if the individual is susceptible and vulnerable). Problem and pathological gambling are essentially about rewards, and the speed and frequency of those rewards. Almost any game could be designed to either have high event frequencies or low event frequencies. Therefore, the more potential rewards there are, the more problematic and addictive an activity is likely to be and this is irrespective of game type as games such as diverse as lotteries and slot machines could have identical event frequencies and event durations.

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

Further reading

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

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

Griffiths, M.D. (1999). The psychology of the near miss (revisited): A comment on Delfabbro and Winefield. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 441-445.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Mind games (A brief psychosocial overview of in-play betting. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, June/July, 44.

Griffiths, M.D. & Auer, M. (2013). The irrelevancy of game-type in the acquisition, development and maintenance of problem gambling. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 621. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00621.

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

Meyer, G., Hayer, T. & Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Problem Gaming in Europe: Challenges, Prevention, and Interventions. New York: Springer.

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

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

Terminal cases: Should virtual roulette machines be banned from high street bookmakers?

A couple of days ago, I took part in a live debate on national radio (BBC 5Live) about whether virtual roulette machines – known by us in the gambling studies field as ‘fixed odds betting terminals’ (FOBTs) – should be banned from high street bookmakers here in the UK. For those who have no idea what I am talking about:

“A fixed odds betting terminal (FOBT) is an electromechanical device normally found in betting shops in the United Kingdom that allows players to bet on the outcome of various games and events with fixed odds. They were introduced to UK shops in 2001. The most commonly played game is roulette. The minimum amount wagered per spin is £1. The maximum bet cannot exceed a payout of £500 (i.e. putting £14.00 on a single number on roulette). The largest single payout cannot exceed £500. Other games include bingo, simulated horseracing and greyhound racing, and a range of slot machine games. Like all casino games, the “house” (i.e. the casino) has a built –in advantage, with current margins on roulette games being theoretically between 2.5% and 5%” (Wikipedia, 2013).

The last decade has seen many changes in the British gambling landscape. The most notable of these include (i) the growth in the availability of remote gambling (via the internet, mobile phone, and interactive television), (ii) the introduction of online betting exchanges,  (iii) an increase in the prominence of poker (both online and offline), (iv) an increase in the number of casinos, and (v) the introduction of FOBTs into most bookmakers.

Relatively little is known about FOBT play among the British population, and the best quality data comes from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS), a nationally representative survey that was carried out by the National Centre for Social Research along with a few expert academics in the gambling studies field (including myself). We published the most recent survey in 2011 and we reported that among our 7,756 participants, only 4% had ever played on FOBTs (up from 3% in our previous 2007 survey) with 6% having played FOBTs in the year prior to the survey. Playing FOBTs was more of a male activity with 7% of males compared to 2% females having ever played (with 10% males and 2% females having played FOBTs in the previous year).

The highest participation rates were among individuals aged in the 16-24 year old age group (12%), followed by 25-34 year olds (9%) and 35-44 year olds (3%). Our study also showed that the prevalence of playing FOBTs was highest among those with the lowest personal income (7%) and lowest among those with highest personal income (4%). This was most likely related to the finding that FOBTs were significantly more likely to be played by people who were out of work. More specifically, 12% of those who were unemployed had played FOBTs in the past year compared with 4% of participants overall. Past year gambling was related to marital status, although as we pointed out in our report, this was likely to be a reflection of the relationship between age and marital status. Prevalence of playing on FOBTs was three times higher among those who were single (9%) than those who were married or separated/divorced (3%).

The latest BGPS findings also produced some interesting findings. For instance, although at a population level, the prevalence rate of ever having gambled on FOBTs was very low – compared to lottery gambling (59%) and playing scratchcards (24%) – the majority that did play on FOBTS did so every week (52%). Arguably the most interesting finding was that among those who played FOBTs, the prevalence of problem gambling was 8.8%. The survey as a whole reported that just under 1% of the British adult population had a gambling problem, so there does seem to be an elevated prevalence of problem gambling among those who play FOBTs (in fact, only two activities – playing poker in a pub or club [12.8%] and playing online slot machines [9.1%] – had a higher prevalence rate of problem gambling by type of game played).

However, extreme caution needs to be exercised when interpreting these data because gamblers rarely engage in just a single activity. In fact, those who played poker at a pub/club and played on FOBTs had the highest engagement in gambling activities, participating in 7.6 and 7.2 gambling activities respectively in the year prior to the survey. Among men, the mean number of gambling activities undertaken in the past year was highest among those who played poker at a pub/club (7.9), those who gambled on online slot machine style games (7.4), and those who played on fixed odds betting terminals (7.4). Among women, the mean number of activities engaged in was highest among those who played on fixed odds betting terminals (6.4), and those who bet on sports events (5.8).

Another interesting finding of the BGPS related to the volume of gambling in terms of time and money. Regular gamblers (i.e., those who gambled once a month or more often) were categorized into one of four groups:

• High-time only gamblers (i.e., those who spent a lot of time but not a lot of money gambling)
• High-spend only gamblers (i.e., those who spent a lot money, but not a great deal of time gambling)
• High-time/high-spend gamblers (i.e., those who spent a lot of time and money gambling)
• Non-high-time/non-high-spend gamblers (i.e., those who spent little time or money gambling)

High-time/high-spend gamblers showed a relative preference for betting on horse races, FOBTs and playing casino games. High-time/high-spend gamblers also had the most adverse socio-economic profile. They were more likely to live in areas of greatest deprivation, live in low-income households and be unemployed.

So, given all these data, should FOBTs be banned from British bookmakers’ offices? In short, no. Even if the data were more robust, I would argue that FOBTs shouldn’t be banned particularly because similar types of game can already be accessed far more easily via the internet and mobile phone in environments that are arguably less protective towards problem gamblers. My own stance is that to help overcome problems and addictions to FOBT, gaming companies should engage in the highest levels of social responsibility and introduce cutting edge protocols to ensure player protection.

Some of the hottest issues in the responsible gambling field concern pre-commitment and limit setting (i.e., giving gamblers the tools that they can pre-commit to how much time and money they want to spend on gambling before they actually gamble, as opposed to making ‘heat of the moment’ decisions in the midst of gambling wins or losses that could seriously affect good decision-making). The most practical solution to the issue of curbing problems with FOBTs would be to make the playing of the machine dependent on the gambler having a player card that (a) allows gamblers to pre-commit to how much time and money they are prepared to spend gambling, and (b) allows gaming operators to track their customers’ behaviour, and – with the appropriate behavioural tracking tools – provide informed feedback to the gambler while they are actually gambling. Such a ssystem already operates on a national level in Norway, so there is no reason why it couldn’t be implemented here. What’s more, such technology could be made mandatory, meaning that any gaming operator who wanted a gaming license would legally have to implement such a system as part of its player protection and harm minimization strategies.

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

Further reading

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of online gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, in press.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Strategies for detecting and controlling electronic gaming vulnerabilities. Casino and Gaming International, 4(4), 103-108.

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

Griffiths, M.D., Wardle, J., Orford, J., Sproston, K. & Erens, B. (2010). Gambling, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking and health: findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. Addiction Research and Theory, 18, 208-223.

Orford, J.F., Griffiths, M.D. & Wardle, H. (2013). What proportion of gambling is problem gambling? Estimates from the 2010 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. International Gambling Studies, in press.

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

Wardle, H., Griffiths, M.D., Orford, J., Moody, A. & Volberg, R. (2012). Gambling in Britain: A time of change? Health implications from the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 273-277.

Wardle, H., Moody. A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M.D., Hussey, D. & 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. & Pigott, S. (2007). The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.

Wikipedia (2013). Fixed odds betting terminal. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_odds_betting_terminal

Wood, R.T.A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Social responsibility in online gambling: Voluntary limit setting. World Online Gambling Law Report, 9(11), 10-11.

Pressing ahead: Gambling with people’s reputations

I’m not sure who first said it but I’ve always been told that ‘reputation can take a lifetime to get but a minute to destroy’ which is one of the reasons that any interview with the national press can be a tightrope walk in reputation management. For me personally, this morning was one of those tightrope walks.

The front page of today’s Daily Mail screamed ‘Fury at Facebook online casinos’. The story included approximately 10-15 seconds of quotes from a 15-minute interview I did with them yesterday evening. I explained at the start of the interview that I was not anti-gambling or anti-Facebook gambling, and that my main interests in relation to gambling via Facebook are player protection, harm minimization, and the protection of vulnerable and susceptible individuals (most notably children and adolescents). I’ve done three interviews with the Daily Mail on the topic of gambling via social networking sites in the last few months and although they usually report the gist or paraphrase what I say, they rarely add in all the caveats and nuances surrounding the views I put forward. I am the only person quoted in today’s article (quotes that were also repeated in today’s Daily Telegraph), so there is an implicit assumption that it is me that is experiencing the “fury” yet I feel no such thing. Obviously the headline does not really reflect the story or my comments but it may make people read the story. A headline that says ‘Professor of Gambling Studies has concerns about teenage gambling on Facebook’ is not likely to make front page news or sell many newspapers. The story reported that:

“Facebook has been accused of creating ‘tomorrow’s generation of problem gamblers’ by rolling out real money casino games. Under a lucrative deal with online gaming company 888, the social networking giant will offer Las Vegas-style slot machines and games such as roulette and blackjack….Gamers will be able to place up to £500 on bets using a credit or debit card with promises of jackpots worth tens of thousands of pounds.These will only be available in the UK, where gaming laws are more relaxed than in the US. Both Facebook and 888 insist they have safeguards to prevent minors from accessing the games…But there is nothing to stop children logging on to parents’ accounts and using card details already stored on the family computer. Already, Facebook users as young as 13 can use virtual slot machines on the website to win ‘credits’ – which have no monetary value.But as soon as they turn 18, millions of children who use the social networking site will be bombarded with adverts for real money gambling games.Facebook has three million UK users aged between 13 and 17. But a further one million are thought to be under 13 and pretending to be older”

I’d briefly like to address what I said and contextualize the comments attributed to me. The first quote published and attributed to me was: “You win virtually every time you play one of the free games”. What I was referring to here was that there are gambling-type games on Facebook (most notably slot machine games) where the payout rates can be more than 100%. All of these gambling-type games rely on people spending real money to buy virtual currency to play the on games like poker, bingo and slot machines. One of my research colleagues who I have published a lot of papers on gambling with had bought virtual currency and showed us that the pay out rates tend to increase with the more real money spent in buying virtual currency. My real bone of contention here is my belief that any games played for points should have the same probability of winning as you would find in a real game otherwise it sets up unrealistic expectations when people then play for real money (particularly where adolescents are concerned).

The second quote attributed to me was: ‘Research has shown again and again that one of the biggest factors in developing problem gambling is playing free games online first. These children and teenagers today are the problem gamblers of tomorrow”. I never said “again and again”, what I actually said was that there had been some secondary analysis of three national adolescent gambling studies done in the UK that (using regression analyses) had shown that among teenagers (aged 11 to 15 years) one of the major factors that appeared to predict (a) gambling with real money, and (b) problem gambling, was the playing of free games. All of these secondary analyses suggest there is a correlation (not necessarily causation) between the playing of free gambling-type games, and the amount of real gambling adolescents engage in, and problem gambling. Personally, I am of the opinion that even free gambling-type games (i.e., poker, slot machines, bingo, etc.) should have age verification checks and that free games should be behind the registration process.

Finally, a third quote was attributed to me that the deal that Facebook have with 888 could cause “the floodgates to open” along with the journalist’s text that “as gambling companies dive into the social media frenzy to make money”.  I was asked by the Daily Mail if I thought the ‘floodgates’ would open following 888’s move into the Facebook gambling market. I then proceeded to talk about the fact that all social gaming operators are looking to see what happens with Bingo Friendzy (the only gambling-for-money game on Facebook at present that was launched in August 2012). I said that if this game starts to make money for the game’s operator, then other companies would quickly follow suit. Whether this means ‘the floodgates will open’ depends on people’s definition of ‘floodgates’ as it is (what we call in psychological terms) as ‘fuzzy quantifier’ (along with words like ‘some’ or ‘many’) as it means different things to different people.

So, again, for the record: (i) I am not anti-gambling, I am pro-responsible gambling, (ii) I am not anti-Facebook gambling, I am pro-responsible Facebook-gambling, and (iii) I am anti-adolescent gambling even if it is on games that are played for points rather than money.

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

Further reading

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

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

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

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. (2012). Gambling on Facebook? A cause for concern? World Online Gambling Law Report, 11(9), 10-11.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). The psychology of social gaming. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, August/September, 26-27.

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., Derevensky, J. & Parke, J. (2012). Online gambling in youth. In R. Williams, R. Wood & J. Parke (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Gambling (pp.183-199). London: Routledge.

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

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

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H., Derevensky, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). A review of Australian classification practices for commercial video games featuring simulated gambling. International Gambling Studies, 12, 231-242.

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.

Trading flaw: Is excessive stock market speculation another form of addictive gambling?

Earlier today, the news was dominated by the story that British city trader Kweku Adoboli had been jailed for seven years after he defrauded £1.4bn while day trading at the Swiss bank UBS. (the largest trading loss in British banking history). The phrases that kept recurring on most of the television reports that I saw was that Adoboli was “a gamble or two away from destroying Switzerland’s largest bank” after losing money in “unprotected, unhedged, incautious and reckless” day trading, and that he claimed he “lost control over his trades” during a period of market turbulence in the latter half of 2011. The question I am always asked by the media is whether day trading is just gambling by another name – and in a nutshell, my answer is a resounding ‘yes’. The prosecution seemed to concur with my own opinion as they claimed Adoboli was a gambler who believed he had a “magic touch”. Detective Chief Inspector Perry Stokes gave evidence and said that Adoboli was “running completely out of control”. More specifically he said:

“He did so, by breaking the rules, covering up and lying. In any business context, his actions amounted to fraud, pure and simple.The amount of money involved was staggering, impacting hugely on the bank but also on their employees, shareholders and investors. This was not a victimless crime. To all those around him, Kweku Adoboli appeared to be a man on the make whose career prospects and future earnings were taking off. He worked hard, looked the part and seemingly had an answer for everything. But behind this facade lay a trader who was running completely out of control and exposing UBS to huge financial risks on a daily basis. When Adoboli’s pyramid of fictitious trades, exceeded trading limits and non-existent hedging came crashing down, the repercussions were felt in financial centres around the world”.

The words ‘trader’ and ‘trading’ could easily be swapped for ‘gambler’ and ‘gambling’ as all the consequences are the same. Here is someone who lost all control of his behaviour, thought he had the ‘magic touch, and lied and deceived to cover his tracks. As someone that as spent over 26 years studying problem gambling, the media accounts sound all too familiar. (I ought to add that the prosecution alleged that outside of his job, Adoboli was taking extra bets with his own money and was accused of being “addicted to gambling”). The press coverage also made much reference to the fact that Adoboli engaged in the classic ‘double or quits’ strategies used by many hardcore gamblers (where, after a big loss, gamblers will double their bet in an attempt to recoup their lost money as quickly as possible). Again, this is further evidence that trading is just gambling under another name.

And of course, Adoboli was not the first trader to do this. Nick Leeson – you may remember, the so-called ‘Rogue Trader’ – was the man who in 1995 single-handedly brought down the UK’s oldest investment bank (Barings). Leeson was a derivatives broker whose fraudulent gambling caused the spectacular collapse of one of the UK’s most established financial institutions. From the early 1990s, Leeson made countless speculative (and unauthorized) gambles on the stock market that at first made large profits for his employers. However, as with most gamblers, his ‘beginner’s luck’ soon ran out and he started to lose huge amounts of money. To cover up his losses, he began to hide his large losses in an ‘error account’ (i.e., accounts that are used by financial companies to correct their mistakes made in trading). It was on 16 January 1995 that one national disaster (the Kobe earthquake) led to a disastrous financial one (the collapse of Barings Bank).

Things went tragically wrong when Leeson – using his employer’s money in an effort to recoup some of the money he had lost – placed a bet that the Japanese stock market would not move significantly overnight. However, on the morning of January 17, the Kobe earthquake occurred and it sent the Asian financial markets into turmoil. To try and retrieve the lost money, Leeson made a series of increasingly risky gambles by betting that the Nikkei Stock Market would recover quickly – but it didn’t. Leeson’s losses eventually reached £827 million (which was more than twice the bank’s available trading capital). After a failed bailout attempt, Barings Bank was declared insolvent just over five weeks later (February 26 1995). Leeson fled but was eventually caught in November 1995 and was charged with fraud. He received a jail sentence of six-and-a-half years. Interestingly, Leeson (and others) went on to blame Baring’s own poor auditing and risk management practices (just as Adoboli claimed in his trial too).

Most companies probably do not have policies in place to prevent one individual employee gambling away all of the company profits. However, Leeson’s and Adoboli’s (albeit somewhat extreme) antics demonstrate that organizations need to acknowledge that gambling with company money can be disastrous for the company if things go horribly wrong. While no company expects an employee gambling to bring about their collapse, the cases of Leeson and Adoboli do at least highlight gambling as an issue that companies ought to think about in terms of risk assessment.

Earlier today, BBC News published an article by Laurence Knight on ‘the psychology of the rogue trader’. Knight worked for six years for an investment bank. Although Knight wasn’t a trader, he interacted daily with traders. Knight said:

“For many traders, their sense of self-worth is defined almost uniquely by their ‘P&L’ – the profit and loss they make for the bank – and, by implication, the size of their bonus. Making a profitable trade shows that they are right. And the bigger the profit, the more right they are. As for the enormous bonuses…their importance is not so much in the material wealth they bring, so much as the recognition of the trader’s status and success…Adoboli specifically denied being motivated by personal gain in the form of a bonus, and the jury appear to have believed him. But he does nonetheless seem to have suffered from a fixation on profit above all else, which he claimed was because he felt under pressure to produce results”.

Knight’s former trainer at the investment bank where he worked – Bruno Curnier – claimed many traders suffer from ‘Gekko syndrome’ (named after the fictitious “greed is good” film character Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone’s Wall Street). Curnier claimed:

“[Some traders] lack self-awareness – the ability to understand their own emotions and how they affect others. The aggressive, risk-taking, boundary-pushing, ‘high-roller’ image of the trader tends to attract exactly that kind of applicant. This self-selection effect can then be reinforced by a recruitment process in which the successful candidates are ultimately picked by the traders they will work for. I don’t think some traders have any clue how to manage people. They recruit people they like – if they see the same drive”.

Knight claims the traders he knew fell into one of three types (‘flow traders’, ‘quant traders’ and ‘elephant hunters’). These three types are not based on any scientific research, just on Knight’s sex-year experience of working with such people. More specifically he claimed:

“The most stereotypically aggressive are the “flow” traders – people who work in the simplest, most competitive and fast-moving markets, such as currencies or shares…The traders had rigged their computers to blare out noises or tunes every time they bought or sold. Then there were the ‘quant’ traders – those dealing with financial options or complicated transactions know as synthetic CDOs. They were brainy types, who needed to have an intuitive grip on the complex maths involved, and occasionally blew up when they got their maths wrong. Finally, there were the ‘elephant hunters’. These characters might spend months on one big transaction earning millions of dollars in profit. They too were deep thinkers, but their thoughts were turned to negotiating tactics, complex legal documents and accounting issues. They also seemed to be mostly likeable family men. Nearly all of the traders that I have heard of losing millions or billions (including two minor cases that never became public) fit somewhere between the first two types”.

Knight also made reference to a fascinating study that I tracked down quite easily. The study examined the biology of traders by measuring their levels of testosterone and cortisol among 17 traders while working. The study was carried out by Dr. John Coates and Dr. J. Herbert and published in a 2008 issue of the Proceedings of the Natlonal Academy of Sciences. The authors reported:

“Little is known about the role of the endocrine system in financial risk taking. Here, we report the findings of a study in which we sampled, under real working conditions, endogenous steroids from a group of male traders in the City of London. We found that a trader’s morning testosterone level predicts his day’s profitability. We also found that a trader’s cortisol rises with both the variance of his trading results and the volatility of the market. Our results suggest that higher testosterone may contribute to economic return, whereas cortisol is increased by risk. Our results point to a further possibility: testosterone and cortisol are known to have cognitive and behavioral effects, so if the acutely elevated steroids we observed were to persist or increase as volatility rises, they may shift risk preferences and even affect a trader’s ability to engage in rational choice”

Knight interviewed Coates who reportedly said:

“What I firmly believe is that financial risk-taking is a profoundly physical act. It’s a bit like an army gearing up for a cavalry charge. If we are doing well, the body tells us: ‘Go for it, there’s fruit everywhere’.The downside is that it makes the winner stupidly reckless – when traders blow up, it typically comes at the end of a long winning streak.And this is what seems to have happened with Adoboli”

Gambling is a popular leisure activity and recent national surveys into gambling participation show that around two-thirds of adults gamble annually and that problem gambling affects around 1% of the British population (as measured by our most recent national gambling prevalence survey. There are a number of socio-demographic factors associated with problem gambling. These included being male, having a parent who was or who has been a problem gambler, being single, and having a low income. Other research shows that those who experience unemployment, poor health, housing, and low educational qualifications have significantly higher rates of problem gambling than the general population.

It is clear that the social and health costs of problem gambling can be large on both an individual and societal level. Personal costs can include irritability, extreme moodiness, problems with personal relationships (including divorce), absenteeism from work, family neglect, and bankruptcy. There can also be adverse health consequences for both the gambler and their partner including depression, insomnia, intestinal disorders, migraines, and other stress-related disorders. “Addicted’ traders are likely to experience similar (if not exactly the same) effects.

Problem gambling can clearly be a hidden activity and the growing availability of internet gambling is making it easier to gamble from the workplace. Thankfully, it would appear that for most people, gambling is not a serious problem. For those whose gambling starts to become more of a problem, it can affect both the organisation and other work colleagues (and in extreme cases, such as Leeson and Adoboli, cause major problems for the company as a whole). Managers clearly need to have their awareness of this issue raised, and once this has happened, they need to raise awareness of the issue among the work force. Gambling is a social issue, a health issue and an occupational issue. Although not high on the list for most employers, the issues highlighted here suggest that it should at least be on the list somewhere.

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

Further reading

BBC News (2012). Kweku Adoboli jailed for fraud over £1.4bn.  November 20. Located at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20338042

Coates, J. & Herbert, J. (2008). Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor. Proceedings of the Natlonal Academy of Sciences, 105, 6167-6172.

Griffiths, M.D. (2000). Day trading: Another possible gambling addiction? GamCare News, 8, 13-14.

Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Internet gambling in the workplace. In M. Anandarajan & C. Simmers (Eds.). Managing Web Usage in the Workplace: A Social, Ethical and Legal Perspective. pp. 148-167. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Publishing.

Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Betting your life on it: Problem gambling has clear health related consequences. British Medical Journal, 329, 1055-1056.

Griffiths, M. D. (2006). Pathological gambling. In T. Plante (Ed.), Abnormal Psychology in the 21^st Century. pp. 73-98. New York: Greenwood.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Internet gambling in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 658-670.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The hidden addiction: Gambling in the workplace. Counselling at Work, 70, 20-23.

Knight, L. (2012). The psychology of the rogue trader. BBC News, November 20. Located at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19849147

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

Identity floored: Can gambling addicts be identified in gambling venues?

Although the behavioural characteristics of problem gamblers have been studied for several decades, it has only been the in last decade that there has been interest in studying gambling within the gambling venue itself. Along with my research colleagues Dr. Paul Delfabbro and Dr. Daniel King at the University of Adelaide, we have just published a paper in the journal International Gambling Studies reviewing all the studies that have examined whether problem gamblers and gambling addicts can be identified as having problems based on their gambling within gambling environments.

For instance, a 2004 study published in the journal Gambling Research by Dr. Tony Schellinck and Dr. Tracy Schrans obtained data from a population sample of 927 video lottery terminal (VLT) gamblers in Nova Scotia (Canada) of whom 16.5% were problem gamblers (as measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Based on their analyses, the authors found that the most common experiences or behaviours reported by problem gamblers in terms of frequency were spending three-quarters of their time gambling, gambling for more than 180 minutes in one session, feeling angry, and sweating. Feeling sick or sad or gambling for over 180 minutes in one session were the factors that most strongly differentiated problem gamblers from other gamblers. For example, a person was around three times more likely to be a problem gambler as compared with the base-rate in the sample if they reported feeling sick while gambling. Some indicators (using credit cards, shaking, going out to get cash) were more commonly reported by problem gamblers, but did not occur very often when problem gamblers played VLTs.

A Swiss study carried out by Dr. Jorg Hafeli and Dr. Caroline Schneider in 2006 carried out qualitative interviews with a sample of 28 problem gamblers, 23 casino employees and seven regular gambling patrons in an attempt to develop a range of indicators that might be used to identify problem gamblers within Swiss casinos. Material from these interviews was content analysed and classified into meaningful categories. Only statements that were simple and concise, and which referred to concrete examples of behaviour were included. Problem gamblers were perceived as those who gambled more intensely and frequently, who were compelled to find many different ways to raise funds to defray the costs of gambling, and whose social and emotional responses differed from other gamblers. Problem gamblers were seen to be more socially withdrawn, angry, anxious, depressed, but also more immersed in the activity. Most of these items appeared to have good face validity as indicators of problem gambling.

A similar Australian study undertaken by Dr. Paul Delfabbro and his colleagues in 2007, but which also drew upon material from the two studies outlined above. Unlike the previous studies, attempts were made to develop indicators that were not so specifically focused on particular activities (e.g., casino table games), but which could be applied to venue-based gambling more broadly. Once again, there were items that referred to the statistically unusual frequency or intensity of gambling; evidence concerning gamblers’ need for funding while gambling; variations in social and emotional responses, but also evidence that gamblers had lost control over their gambling urges.

In an initial stage of this research, a list of indicators was provided to both venue staff (n=120) and counsellors (n=20) recruited from several different parts of Australia. Both groups of respondents were asked to indicate whether each item in the checklist was a valid indicator of problem gambling. The main component of the research was a detailed survey of almost 700 regular gamblers recruited either from the general community or from outside gaming venues. Participants were eligible to participate if they gambled at least fortnightly on electronic gaming machines, casino games or sports and race betting, although the principal focus was on gaming because this is largely venue-based. All respondents completed the Problem Gambling Severity Index with 20% classified as problem gamblers.

Their analyses were based on the proportion of problem and non-problem gamblers who reported producing the particular behaviour rarely or more often. There was one group of indicators that occurred relatively quite commonly in problem gamblers, but which were also reported by a moderate proportion of other regular gamblers. A second group were more rarely reported, but typically only by problem gamblers. Some activities, such as using ATMs on several occasions, playing very fast, or try very hard to win on one machine were relatively common amongst problem gamblers (similar to observations reported by an observational study I carried out way back in 1991 and published in the Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology in his longitudinal study of British amusement arcade players), but also reported by a modest proportion of other gamblers. By contrast, very strong emotional responses or attempts to disguise one’s gambling were rarely reported by non-problem gamblers. The strongest predictors for males appeared to relate to impaired control (i.e., an inability to stop gambling) and emotional responses, whereas strong emotional responses and a preoccupation with gambling appeared most indicative when considering female problem gamblers.

Although these studies found theoretical support for the notion that there are valid indicators available to identify problem gamblers in venues, there are a number of caveats that need to be applied to these findings. The first difficulty is that all of the studies described involved only single samples. For models to be usefully applied to support harm minimisation policies, it would be important to show that models developed in one sample can be replicated using another. A second difficulty is that survey-based responses do not provide a lot of information concerning the practical reality of observing and consolidating information in a venue environment. Even if the same staff members are available in the venue over a protracted period, it does not necessarily follow that they will have the ability to observe the same patrons all the time.

Another potential challenge for the identification process is that studies are based on aggregate results. Although problem gamblers are likely to share many similarities, it is also known that different subgroups of gamblers very likely exist. These views suggest that the significance of particular indicators may, therefore, differ depending upon the type of gambler. For example, in a number of these models or typologies, a distinction is often drawn between gamblers who are emotionally vulnerable and gamble to escape from feelings of anxiety or depression and those who gamble because of the excitement or ‘action’. Those gamblers who are more emotionally vulnerable may be more likely to display emotion when they gamble and be detectable because of these characteristics, whereas there may be others whose behaviour is distinctive because of stronger externalised behaviours (e.g., displays of anger, large bet sizes, histrionics, etc.). At present, based on existing research evidence, it is difficult to determine whether visible indicators cluster according to these subtype models, but it will be important for this possibility to be considered in future research.

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

Additional contributions from Dr. Paul Delfabbro and Dr. Daniel King

Further reading

Delfabbro, P.H., Osborn, A., McMillen, J., Neville, M., & Skelt, L. (2007). The identification of problem gamblers within gaming venues: Final report. Melbourne, Victorian Department of Justice.

Delfabbro, P.H., Borgas, M., & King, D. (2011). Venue staff knowledge of their patrons’ gambling and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, 1-15.

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

Ferris, J. & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index Final Report. Phase II final report to the Canadian Interprovincial Task Force on Problem Gambling.

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

Hafeli, J. & Schneider, C. (2006). The early detection of problem gamblers in casinos: A new screening instrument. Paper presented at the Asian Pacific Gambling Conference, Hong Kong.

Schellinck, T., & Schrans, T. (2004). Identifying problem gamblers at the gambling venue: Finding combinations of high confidence indicators. Gambling Research, 16, 8-24.