House calls: A look at the rise of online bingo

Yesterday, BBC Online News published a report about online bingo (and which I provided some comments about). Given the popularity of bingo in numerous countries throughout the world, it is surprising how little scientific research has been carried out on the activity. To date, most of the research (including some of my own) has examined offline bingo (which is unsurprising given that playing bingo online is a relatively new phenomenon), and most of the published research is from a sociological perspective typically involving small-scale interview studies and/or observation of players in bingo halls. Research carried out between 1980 and 2005 has tended to report that the majority of bingo players are working class women who play the game primarily to socialize with their friends in what they perceive to be a very ‘safe’ (and somewhat non-masculine) environment.

Research carried out by the American sociologists Constance Chapple and Stacey Nofziger and published in the journal Deviant Behavior confirm these general findings but add that winning money eventually becomes an important motivation as constantly losing leads to the bingo playing ceasing (even if the main reason for playing bingo is sociability). Their research also reported that loneliness and boredom can also be critical factors in why women play bingo. Through the alleviation of boredom, bingo playing leads to the meeting of other like-minded people, and also helps to alleviate the loneliness. Online bingo sites have attempted to facilitate the sociability element by incorporating online chat options, the social rules are different online compared to offline. Whereas in offline bingo chatting is typically forbidden during game play, it is actively encouraged when playing bingo online. Online chat functions appear to be an effective retention tool by online bingo operators, and are specifically aimed at female players.

Online and offline bingo appear to have many similarities in terms of demographics. Online bingo sites (and the marketing and advertising they produce) tend to target women – particularly because bingo is the only form of gambling where women significantly outnumber men. For instance, we found in the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) published in 2011, that 9% of the British adult population had played online and/or offline bingo in last year. Although men were more likely than women to participate in most forms of gambling activity, twice as many women (12%) had played bingo in the last year compared to men (6%).

One of the most noticeable trends that I have written about in the last few years is the feminization of gambling. I have argued that one of the reasons that greater numbers of women are gambling is because remote gambling environments (such as internet gambling and mobile phone gambling) are gender-neutral. In the same way that female bingo players view the offline environments in which they play ‘safe’, this is even more so online. While playing online bingo, females do not feel alienated and stigmatized as they sometimes feel in more male-dominated gambling environments such as betting shops and casinos. Furthermore, the perceived anonymity of playing online is another key factor that facilitates the playing of bingo online.

There also appears to be a new type of bingo player – one that only plays bingo online. In our most recent BGPS study, we found that 19% of all bingo players gambled online only (with 4% playing both online and offline, and the majority – 77% – playing offline bingo only). As we predicted, playing bingo was highest among oldest people with 11% of those over 75 years having played bingo in the last year. However, more interesting was the fact that the bingo playing was almost as popular among the young with 10% of those aged 16 to 24 years having played bingo in the 12 months prior to the survey. Interestingly (and perhaps unsurprisingly), this group (being arguably more tech-savvy) was more likely to be playing bingo online, and women were significantly more likely than men to play bingo online at least once a week.

In the same way that online poker sites are now trying to attract more women, some online bingo sites appear to be trying to attract more men. This is being done on many levels including the use of more neutral (unisex) colours in website design, non-cash prizes that appeal across gender lines, and less female-centric marketing and advertising. There are also an increasing number of online casinos that have introduced online bingo to its game portfolio. Such tactics are what we psychologists call ‘foot-in-the-door’ techniques (the most obvious of which are marketing tactics like sign-up cash bonuses or ‘play-for-free and win real money’ offers) where acquisition incentives are given in an attempt to either cross-sell games and/or create longer-term repeat business.

Journalistic stories about the rise in popularity of online bingo sites claim that the most recent statistics suggest that many men also enjoy online bingo and that the numbers of men playing online are on the increase. However, I have not been able to verify such claims, and even if I could, statistics never tell the whole story. As Ebbe Skovdah (a Danish football manager) once stated – “statistics are like mini-skirts, they give you good ideas but they hide the most important things!”.

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

Further reading

Chapple, C. & Nofgizer, S. (2000). Bingo!: Hints of deviance in the accounts of sociability and profit of bingo players. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 489–517.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Technological trends and the psychosocial impact on gambling. Casino and Gaming International, 7(1), 77-80.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Gambling, stigma, and the rise of online bingo. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, December/January, 34-35.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). The psychology of online and offline bingo. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, October/November, 38.

Griffiths, M.D. & Bingham, C. (2002). Bingo playing in the UK: The influence of demographic factors on play.  International Gambling Studies, 2, 51-60.

Griffiths, M.D. & Bingham, C. (2005). A study of superstitious beliefs among bingo players. Journal of Gambling Issues, 13. Located at: http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue13/jgi_13_griffiths.html.

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

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

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.

The ‘In’ Crowd: Is there a relationship between ‘in-play’ betting and problem gambling?

For those of us who watch football on the television in the UK, it is almost impossible to watch a game without seeing the many gambling adverts alerting us to the fact we can now bet on over 60 ‘in-play’ markets while watching the game. Should I wish to, I can bet on everything from who is going to score the first goal, what the score will be after 30 minutes of play, how many yellow cards will be given during them game and/or in what minute of the second half the first free kick will be awarded.

‘In-play’ betting is arguably the fastest growing form of gambling in the UK and the UK’s leading ‘in-play’ bookmaker Bet 365 made over £500 million last year. One of the issues I have been asked by the press is to what extent ‘in-play’ betting can be problematic. One of the interviews I did recently was with the Mail on Sunday who published some of my comments yesterday in an article entitled ‘Risky business: With the advent of online gambling, are we creating an epidemic of addiction? ’I was quoted as saying:

‘What the in-play markets have done is take what was traditionally a discontinuous form of gambling – where you make one bet every Saturday on the result of the game – to one where you can gamble again and again and again. You cannot become addicted to something unless you are constantly being rewarded. If the reward only happens once or twice a week, it’s impossible to become addicted. In-play has changed that”

This indeed was a good summary of the interview I did. In-play betting is something that many of us in the problem gambling field are keeping an eye on because it’s taken something that has traditionally been a non-problem form of gambling to something that is more akin to betting on horse racing. At a typical Gamblers Anonymous group, you will get horse racing addicts, slot machine addicts, casino addicts, but it was rare that you got anyone ever having problems with things like football betting, mainly because football betting opportunities were once a week on the pools or betting before the match on a Saturday afternoon.

As I noted in my published quote above, if the reward for gambling only happens once or twice a week, it is completely impossible to become addicted. In-play has changed that because we now have football matches on almost every day of the week making a daily 2-hour plus period of betting seven days a week. As a psychologist who has researched problem gambling for over 25 years, I would assess the structural characteristics of this type of activity and associate it with the type that causes problem gambling for those that are vulnerable and susceptible. So why do I think this?

When considering speed and frequency of gambling in relation to problem gambling, concepts such as event duration, event frequency and payout interval can often be misunderstood and applied in the wrong context. Often, these are mistaken for having the same meaning. Furthermore, concepts such bet frequency and event duration are often ignored despite their importance of their role in the speed and frequency of betting. All of these terms refer to slightly different aspects of gambling although they are all implicated factors that affect speed and frequency.

Event duration essentially refers to how fast the “event” is (i.e., the speed of a gambling activity such as a reel spin on a slot machine that typically lasts for a few seconds). Professor Alex Blaszczynski and his colleagues at the University of Sydney (Australia) noted that gamblers prefer faster speeds and find fast speeds while playing more enjoyable. Therefore, they argued that gamblers’ motivation to play could encourage more persistent gambling activity. Another study by Professor Ladouceur and Dr. Serge Sevigny at the University of Laval (Quebec, Canada) investigated the effects of slot machine game speed on concentration, motivation to play, loss of control, and number of games played on people randomly assigned to either a high-speed (5 seconds) or a low-speed (15 seconds) gambling condition. Their results showed that high-speed gamblers played more games and underestimated the number of games played more than low-speed gamblers. However, speed didn’t influence concentration, motivation, or loss of control over time or money. Despite many methodological limitations they concluded that speed had limited impact on occasional slot machine gamblers.

A paper by Dr Kevin Harrigan and Dr. Mike Dixon (University of Waterloo, Canada) estimated the speed of slot machine play on slot machines. On a machine with a reel spin of every six seconds, players can play 10 times per minute, (i.e., 600 spins per hour) whereas those on a machine with a reel spin of every three seconds, players can play 20 times a minute (i.e., 1200 spins per hour). I also found similar results in research I carried out on British slot machines in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

It is important to acknowledge that duration of the betting event is different from event frequency. However, they may be inextricably linked in so much as the length of a betting event will obviously limit the frequency with they can take place. For example, a betting event lasting two hours (e.g., wagering only on the final outcome of a football game) could not have an event frequency greater than one in any 2-hour period, but a roulette spin (lasting approximately 5-6 seconds) may have an event frequency of several hundred in the same two-hour period. Furthermore, as a result of the introduction of in-running or situational betting (i.e., ‘in-play betting’) this relationship is even less clear.

Event frequency refers to the number of events that are available for betting in any given time period. For example, a lottery draw may occur twice a week but an electronic keno lottery draw may occur 100 times per hour. In this example, a keno lottery draw has a higher event frequency. Bet frequency, on the other hand, refers to the number of bets or wagers placed in any given time period. Using the lottery again as an example, multiple tickets (e.g., 10 tickets) can usually be purchased as frequently as desired before any single lottery draw. So here bet frequency would be equal to 10 but event frequency would be equal to 1. Therefore, bet frequency can often be higher than event frequency and hence, it is possible to spend more than one can afford even with a low event frequency.

The relationship between bet frequency and event frequency needs further empirical investigation. As researchers and clinicians, we often make the assumption the two have a strong relationship; the higher number of betting events – the higher the frequency of betting. Until more research is forthcoming a definitive answer is currently not available. Although, players can place many bets on just one gambling event, the outcome of this event can influence future betting activity. By outcomes, we are essentially referring to winning or losing. Losing can often create financial and emotional motivation to continue betting (i.e. chasing). It could be speculated that the satisfaction from winning may reduce motivation for further betting in the short-term, or it may increase betting as a result of increased bankroll, illusions of control and/or cognitive biases. Therefore, a higher event frequency not only offers more opportunity and choice for betting, but also affects motivation for betting through revealing consequential wins and losses at the end of each event. However, it should also be noted that betting frequency is also impacted by other factors (e.g., peer pressure, time constraints to gamble, etc.).

So does the speed of a game influence the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling? Based on the relationship between event duration, event frequency, bet frequency, and payout interval, empirical research has consistently shown that games that offer a fast, arousing span of play, frequent wins, and the opportunity for rapid replay are those most frequently cited as being associated with problem gambling. The actual prevalence rate of problem and pathological gambling will of course depend on many other factors than speed of the game alone, but games with high and rapid event frequencies such as slot machines are most likely to impact on increased rates of problem and pathological gambling. In-play betting appears to be an activity that is starting to blur the lines between continuous and discontinuous forms of gambling.

Frequency of opportunities to gamble (i.e., event frequency) also appears to be a major contributory factor in the development of gambling problems. The general rule is that the higher the event frequency, the more likely it is that the activity will result in gambling problems. Addictive behaviours have been shown to be associated with the rewards and the speed of rewards and payout rates. Therefore, the more potential rewards there are, and the higher the amount of the rewards, the more problematic the activity is likely to be. Given the time, money and resources, a vast majority of gambling activities are “continuous” in that people have the potential to gamble again and again. Therefore, in relation to problem gambling, in-play betting is an activity that we really need to keep an eye on.

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

Additional input by Dr. Jonathan Parke (Salford University, UK)

Further reading

Blaszczynski, A, Sharpe, L., & Walker, M. (2001). The Assessment of the Impact of the Reconfiguration on Electronic Gaming Machines as Harm Minimization Strategies for Problem Gambling. Report for the Gaming Industry Operators Group, University of Sydney Gambling Research Group, Sydney

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

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

Griffiths, M.D. (1999a). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 265-283.

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

Harrigan, K. & Dixon, M. (2009). PAR Sheets, probabilities, and slot machine play: Implications for problem and non-problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23, 81-110.

Ladouceur. R., & Sévigny, S. (2005a). The impact of video lottery game speed on gamblers. Journal of Gambling Issues, 17.

Loba, P., Stewart, S. H., Klein, R. M. & Blackburn, J. R. (2002). Manipulations of the features of standard Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) games: Effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 297-320.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

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

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

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

Wood, R.T.A.  & Griffiths. M.D. (2008). Why Swedish people play online poker and factors that can increase or decrease trust in poker websites: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 21, 80-97.

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

Net loss? A brief overview of online gambling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

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

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

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

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

 

Is online gambling more ‘dangerous’ than offline gambling?

A question that is often asked by policymakers is whether online gambling is more ‘dangerous’ or ‘harmful’ than offline gambling. The answer to this question depends on what the definitions are of ‘harmful’ or ‘dangerous’ or (more importantly) whether online gambling is more harmful or dangerous to particular kinds of people (e.g., problem gamblers). There has been much debate in both the media and academic research outlets related to this question. This is an issue that Michael Auer and I recently examined in more detail in an article in Casino and Gambling International (CGI).

In our CGI article, we noted that there have also been a number of different approaches to collecting information about online gamblers. We argued that most published studies concerning online gambling have used one of two approaches – behavioural tracking studies (e.g., studies that collect data based on real online gamblers’ data typically supplied by online gaming operators to academic researchers) and self-report studies (e.g., studies that collect data via surveys, focus groups and/or interviews). Studies using self-report methods have tended to argue that problem gambling is more prevalent among online gamblers compared to offline gamblers. Studies using behavioural tracking data have tended to argue that online gambling is no more dangerous than offline gambling. At face value, this suggests that findings (relating to ‘dangerousness’ of the gambling medium) appear to depend upon the methodology used.

Both of these approaches have advantages and disadvantages. In our CGI article, we noted the following key differences between these two methods:

• Behavioural tracking data provides a totally objective record of an individual’s gambling behaviour on a particular online gambling website (whereas individuals in self-report studies may be prone to social desirability factors, unreliable memory, etc.).
• Behavioural tracking data provide a record of events and can be revisited after the event itself has finished (whereas self-report studies cannot).
• Behavioural tracking data usually comprise very large sample sizes whereas self-report studies are based on much smaller sample sizes.
• Behavioural tracking data collects data from only one gambling site and tells us nothing about the person’s Internet gambling in general (as Internet gamblers typically gamble on more than one site)
• Behavioural tracking data always comes from unrepresentative samples (i.e., the players that use one particular internet gambling site) whereas the very best self-report studies (e.g., the British Gambling Prevalence Surveys in Great Britain) use random and nationally representative samples
• Behavioural tracking data does not account for the fact that more than one person can use a particular account
• Behavioural tracking data tell us nothing about why people gamble (whereas self-report data can provide greater insight into motivation to gamble)
• Behavioural tracking data cannot be used for comparing online and offline gambling or for making comparisons about whether online gambling is safer or more dangerous than offline gambling as data are only collected on one group of people (i.e., online gamblers).
• Self-report methods can be used to compare two (or more) groups of gamblers and is the only method we currently have to infer to what extent one medium of gambling may or may not be more or less safe.
• Some self-report studies have the potential to use nationally representative samples of gamblers whereas behavioural tracking studies rely on self-selected samples of gamblers who use the online gambling website in question.
• Behavioural tracking data tell us nothing about the relationships between gambling and other behaviours (e.g. the relationship between gambling and alcohol or the relationship between gambling and tobacco use).
• Behavioural tracking data cannot examine problem gambling using current diagnostic criteria (whereas self-report studies can). In fact, behavioural tracking data studies cannot tell us anything about problem gambling as this is not a variable that has been examined in any of the published studies to date.

To date, one team of researchers affiliated to Harvard University have been given access to a large behavioural tracking data set of over 47,000 online gamblers by the Austrian gaming company bwin. This has led to many papers examining the actual behaviour of online gamblers based on behavioural tracking data. These data have been used to make claims along the lines that online gambling is no more problematic than offline gambling.

However, comparative statements relating to whether one medium of gambling is more problematic than another can only be made if actual gambling behavior is studied across different forms of gambling (e.g., direct comparison of internet gambling with [say] land-based casino gambling). None of the various publications by the Harvard-affiliated research team have empirically compared different forms of gambling. Nor have they examined ‘problem gambling’ as no problem gambling screens were given to any online gambler included in their studies. Therefore, conclusions about the harmfulness of online gambling in comparison to other forms of gambling cannot be drawn from these particular studies. Furthermore, none of the publications focusing on online gambling examine overall gambling behavior. All the publications have tended to examine a single type of game (e.g., sports betting, casino games, poker).

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D.  (2011). Empirical internet gambling research (1996-2008): Some further comments. Addiction Research and Theory, 19, 85-86.

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

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

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, 18(4), 410-416

LaBrie, R.A., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., Schumann, A. & Shaffer, H.J. (2007). Assessing the playing field: A prospective longitudinal study of internet sports gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 347-363.

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.

LaPlante, D. A., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Population trends in Internet sports gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2399–2414.

Shaffer, H.J., Peller, A.J., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., & LaBrie, R.A. (2010). Toward a paradigm shift in Internet gambling research: From opinion and self-report to actual behavior. Addiction Research and Theory, 18, 270–283.

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

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

Xuan, Z.M. & Shaffer, H.J. (2009). How do gamblers end gambling: Longitudinal analysis of internet gambling behaviors prior to account closure due to gambling related problems. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 239-252.

 

 

(Don’t) Get Off My Cloud! Where will Cloud Computing take the Gaming Industry?

Over the last 18 months, I’ve been asked on more than one occasion what I think about Cloud Computing (CC) and implications for the gaming industry. To be very honest, I had been bluffing my way through these conversations for some time and it wasn’t until I was at a video game conference in Malta earlier this year that I really got to grips with what CC is all about.

For those of you who still have no idea what I am talking about, at a very basic level, CC means that users obtain or use information from another server. In practical terms it refers to software hosted and accessed online, rather than on physical hardware or servers (Google Docs being the software application that I am – and probably most other academics I know are – most familiar with). In essence, CC involves an external third party storing and/or hosting data and/or applications for the company using the service. Although CC is a relatively new term, the underlying idea (and arguably the technology) has been around for some time.

So what does this all mean for the gaming industry? In the last decade online gambling has started to take off and is slowly displacing offline gambling activity. Although the number of people who gamble online are in a small minority, internet access has become cheap and other external factors (such as national smoking bans and online gambling being seen as providing ‘good value’ for players) are starting to impact on the offline leisure industry (including gambling).

There are of course a number of reasons why gaming companies are moving into Cloud Computing. Advocates of CC are almost evangelical in their praise for what it can offer companies. Many commentators refer to CC as “a game changer”. In relation to video gaming, I have even seen CC described as a “console killer” as gamers will be able to play from anywhere on any device that has internet access (such as their iPads). In this context, “cloud gaming” can stream ‘on-demand’ games to players who don’t want to buy expensive and/or bespoke hardware. For instance, the millions of Farmville players on the social networking site Facebook shows the impact of games using CC can potentially have. Furthermore, as Eric Knipp (Principal Research Analyst at Gartner Research) says:

“Companies use a variety of tactics to crack the golden egg. Some include basic table stakes – easy to use, well-documented programming and/or packaging interfaces, reliable monetization mechanisms, digital rights management, and reasonable revenue splits with game publishers and developers. Additional tricks of the trade include support for game-enriching hosted capabilities (like multiplayer, matchmaking, player-to-player relationship management (a.k.a. “friends”), product recommendation engines, and player ranking systems). Marketplaces must balance their efforts to attract both the gamer and the creator” (http://gametheoryonline.com/2010/09/03/cloud-computing-changes-video-games/)

Almost every article I have read typically asserts that if implemented and used correctly, CC brings a number of immediate benefits to commercial online companies to help them “stay ahead of the curve and the competition” including (i) increased performance and efficiency savings, (ii) enhanced security, (iii) increased reliability, and – arguably the most important – (iv) reduced financial costs. The reduced costs primarily come from companies being able to try out new applications without having to invest in potentially expensive information technology infrastructure. Additionally, company start-up costs are likely to be lower, and the cost of using CC storage and services are likely to be cheaper than the cost of maintaining its own servers.

Gaming businesses will need to offer services in the way that customers want them. In the gambling market, the most obvious application will be when large amounts of people want to gamble or bet on a particular high profile sporting event simultaneously and/or at short notice such the FA Cup final or the Grand National. The other area where CC is likely to be of help in the gambling arena is for gamblers who play games in multiple media including the internet, mobile phones, and interactive television. CC allows gambling to be available 24/7 even when people are on the move. Other benefits include (i) the opportunity for social gameplay (i.e., playing along with many other gamblers), (ii) the opportunity for servers to be added on a daily basis, (iii) games can be reconfigured automatically, and (iv) services can be corrected with relative ease.

The move towards cloud computing in the gaming industry is starting to happen. Earlier this year, Bet 365 (the British online casino operator) adopted a cloud computing solution to reduce the latency of its core betting system as a way of improving gamblers’ experiences on its website. In layman’s terms, it speeds things up for those accessing the website and can handle large simultaneous demand. The use of CC in Bet 365’s ‘In-Play’ betting system now means that punters can increase their stake in less than two seconds and can support up to a few million gamblers concurrently.

Successful gaming companies are likely to be those that cater for what their customers want. There appears to be a demand from gamblers for access to a much larger number of events and markets. Cloud Computing appears to provide the infrastructure for how the demand can be met – even if it is unpredictable!

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Technological trends and the psychosocial impact on gambling. Casino and Gaming International, 7(1), 77-80.

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Gaming convergence: Further legal issues and psychosocial impact. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 14, 461-464.

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.

Return to gender: Gender swapping and the convergence of gambling and video gaming

I’ve always found the gender differences in game playing of great psychological interest. For a number of years, my research unit has been examining various online gaming environments including both gambling (e.g., online poker sites) and video gaming (e.g., ‘meta-verses’ such as Everquest and World of Warcraft). One study we published specifically examined online video gaming found that the majority of gamers (57%) had gender-swapped their game character, and that females (68%) were more likely to gender swap than males (54%). We argued that gender swapping enabled gamers to play around and experiment with various aspects of their character or avatar that are not easy to do in real life. For others it was just fun to see if they felt any different playing a different gendered character.

Most of the press coverage that our research received on that particular study concentrated on the fact that females (as one of our participants said) were tired of the “annoying and ridiculous habit of creepy guys hitting on their female characters”. Other women reported that if they made their character a woman, men tended to treat them far better. This provided support for our earlier research suggesting that the female persona has a number of positive social attributes in a male-oriented environment. However, lots of other reasons for gender swapping didn’t make it into all the media reports. Other reasons included that female characters had better in-game statistics, specific in-game tools were only available with a female character, and/or the class of character was only available in one gender. What makes our findings interesting is that in most instances, the gamer had the opportunity to choose the gender of his or her character and to develop other aspects of their character before they began to play. Choosing to gender swap may have had an effect on the gamers’ styles of play and interaction with other gamers. This is certainly an area our research unit will be looking into further.

The idea that many men gender-swapped for strategic reasons mirrors our research into gender swapping in online poker. For instance, one of our studies into online poker, we found that one in five female players (20%) and one in eight players (12%) reported they gender-swapped playing online poker. For males, gender swapping was a tactical move to give them a strategic advantage, whereas for females it was much more about acceptance or privacy in what they perceived to be a male-dominated environment.

From my point of view, the most interesting development is the convergence between online gaming and gambling. Game developers are constantly looking for new ways to increase revenue. Conventional wisdom says that two things have the power to drive consumer technology – sex and gambling. Since 2006, a number of servers aimed at the adult gaming market have launched services that pay videogame players every time they kill within the game they are playing. On one level, this activity is akin to some types of online gambling like online poker. If gender swapping is done for strategic advantage then more and more players will engage in it – especially if it brings them financial rewards.

One of the legal implications of being paid to kill within the confines of a computer game is that the activity is defined as a skill-based (as apposed to a chance-based) activity and is therefore – in Great Britain at least – exempt from the regulations set down in the 2005 Gambling Act. However, it is likely that more and more gambling companies will start to utilise videogame technology within their products (and vice-versa) and this will then become an issue that the Gambling Commission will almost certainly have to re-examine in terms of the gambling legislation.

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

Further reading

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Gaming convergence: Further legal issues and psychosocial impact. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 14, 461-464.

Griffiths, M.D., Parke, J., Wood, R.T.A. & Rigbye, J. (2010). Online poker gambling in university students: Further findings from an online survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 82-89.

Hussain, Z. & Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Gender swapping and socialising in cyberspace: An exploratory study. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11, 47-53.

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.

Wood, R.T.A., Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2007). The acquisition, development, and maintenance of online poker playing in a student sample. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 354-361.

 

 

Gambling in Great Britain: What are the real issues the Government need to think about?

You may remember that back in 2007, Gordon Brown’s first major decision as Prime Minister was to put on ice the building of a Las Vegas-style ‘super-casino’ in Manchester. At a stroke, Brown distanced himself from the policies of Tony Blair while appearing to take the moral high ground over proposals that had attracted fierce condemnation from both inside and outside Parliament. In truth, the decision almost completely missed the point. Whether or not Manchester has a super-casino will make no practical difference to the ongoing rise of gambling in our society. Furthermore, the Labour Government’s apparent U-turn did little to protect those who are most vulnerable to gambling addiction. If anything, it was a further example of the Government’s lack of joined-up thinking over the whole issue of gambling.

Whether we like it or not, widespread gambling is here to stay. Over the last 10 years, the introduction of fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops, internet gambling (including online poker, online bingo and online betting exchanges), spread-betting, mobile phone gambling, and interactive television gambling have revolutionized the world of gambling. Gambling has slowly moved away from dedicated gambling venues and into our home and workplaces.

A large and growing number of people now enjoy gambling and see it as a socially acceptable form of entertainment, rather than a stigma-laden vice. For many people, a night at a casino is seen as little different – and certainly no more expensive – than a trip to a Premiership football match. The world has changed and Government policy and legislation has to keep up – or risk being discredited. Online poker and betting exchanges are now the two big growth areas on the internet. Men and women are now equally likely to gamble. The genie cannot suddenly be put back in the bottle.

The political challenge now, which the Coalition Government are only beginning to fully grasp, is to safeguard those most at risk from problem gambling while educating gamblers about the risks they face. There is no doubt that gambling addiction can wreck lives, turn some previously law-abiding people to crime, and contribute to relationship breakdowns. Gambling – like drinking, sex or even driving a car – is an adult activity that contains an element of risk. A small number of people will get into problems, but the legislator’s job is not to ban it, but to ensure that there are proper safeguards, education and help for those who become problem gamblers.

The first principle should be to protect the vulnerable. And the first thing I would do is ban all child gambling. Slot machines are often described as the ‘crack cocaine’ of gambling. The bright lights, noises, rapid turnover, relatively small stake and frequent small wins or ‘near wins’ combine to make a potent mix for gambling addicts. Yet in this country there are thousands of machines that children can legally play on, mainly in family leisure centres and seaside amusement arcades.

The Government should also reconsider a statutory levy on the gaming industry to help pay for research into problem gambling, treatment, education and prevention. Over the last few years – and to their credit – the gaming industry has given up to £5 million a year as a voluntary contribution to the Responsible Gambling Fund, but with more than 500,000 adult problem gamblers in the UK, this represents a contribution of around £10 per problem gambler, which I believe is inadequate. I would suggest that we examine the examples of other countries that have liberalized gambling such as Australia, where in some jurisdictions the gambling industry has to pay a mandatory contribution of around one per cent of profits to pay for social welfare. This would provide millions of extra pounds for research, education and treatment, yet would be relatively small change to the industry.

Another nettle the Government has failed to grasp is bringing all gambling (including spread betting, lottery, and scratchcards) under the control of a single regulatory authority. Only in this way can the British Government take an overall strategic view –  for example making sure that all pro-gambling advertising is balanced by educational advertising.

The great irony of the previous Government’s U-turn on super-casinos is that Manchester won the bid to build Britain’s first-ever super-casino precisely because the city council pledged to put in place a social support network of education and research, coupled with professional support for problem gamblers. There are conflicting views on whether super-casinos provide meaningful levels of additional local employment and whether they bring wealth or take money out of the local community. The Manchester project was to test this out with the best available social safeguards.

Whatever the Government does about super-casinos – and my instinct is that, sooner or later, public demand will bring super-casinos to Britain – problem gambling has significantly increased in this country according to the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey. However, this can be minimized through education, prevention, and intervention. Instead of making decisions about a solitary super-casino in Manchester, the Government should act to minimize the risk of gambling addiction on a practical level by introducing controls on industry practice, education in schools and elsewhere, and treatment on the NHS for those who get into difficulty. And let the gaming industry – rather than the taxpayer – foot the bill.

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

Further reading

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. Available at: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/British%20Gambling%20Prevalence%20Survey%202010.pdf