Adolescent gambling on Facebook: Is there a cause for concern?

Today’s Daily Mail published a story about Facebook’s plans to introduce gambling services and the potential effect on children and adolescents. The Mail reported that the “world’s biggest social network site wants to use Britain as a testing ground for games that would let users gamble on virtual fruit machines, bingo, poker and roulette.” Given my research into youth gambling I was contacted by the paper and spoke at length to the journalist (Keith Gladdis) and sent him some of my papers on gambling on social networking sites. I have written a number of papers examining the playing of gambling-type games on social networking sites like Facebook and Bebo, and have concluded that the non-money games that children play online may also be of concern. In the end, only one quote of mine made it into the story in the Mail. I was quoted as saying:

“Even when no money changes hands, young children are learning the mechanics of gambling. These games can be a gateway to more serious gambling.”

So what is my basis for my quote? Across the world, the social networking phenomenon has spread rapidly. When it comes to gambling and gambling-like games, researchers have claimed that such games have the potential to ‘normalize’ gambling behaviours, and that the playing of them may change social understandings of the role of gambling amongst young people.

While socially responsible gambling companies emphasize that money spent gambling may not offer a return other than the pleasure gained from the game, social networking utilities can present gambling as a viable route for the acquisition of scarce virtual goods. Dr Carolyn Downs of Salford University has written about a type of pseudo-gambling on social networking sites called Fluff Friends. In this social networking forum, users (typically young girls) create ‘Fluff’ Art. To do this they have to earn ‘munny’ (sic) – a type of virtual money through pet racing. Pet racing costs 1-point per race and winnings can be up to 4000 points. Clearly no money is changing hands, but young children are learning the mechanics of gambling and Dr Downs asserts there are serious questions about whether gambling with virtual money encourages positive attitudes toward gambling in young people.

This raises interesting questions that need to be empirically examined. For instance, does gambling with virtual money lead to an increased prevalence of actual gambling? To what extent are gambling-related groups on social networking sites being used by those under 18 years of age? Does membership of such a groups facilitate access to commercial gambling sites?

Empirical evidence suggests that ‘money free’ gambling plays an important role for adolescents in conceptualizing and experiencing internet gambling. Over one in three British adolescents have been reported to gamble in money-free mode. A study by Ipsos MORI reported that 28% of 11- to 15-year olds in a United Kingdom sample had done so within the last week. It is through money-free gambling (using social networking sites or ‘demo’ modes of real gambling sites) that children are being introduced to the principles and excitement of gambling without experiencing the consequences of losing money. Using the Ipsos MORI data, researchers from Salford University carried out some further analysis and reported that gambling in 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 can only be confirmed using longitudinal data.

Based on the available literature, it may be important to distinguish between these different types of money-free gambling being made available. Initial considerations suggest that these may be different both in nature and in impact. Adolescents who gamble in social networking modes may experience a different type and level of reinforcement than those gambling in ‘demo’ modes on real online gambling sites. For example, on some social networking sites the accumulation of ‘play money’ or ‘points’ may have implications for buying virtual goods or services or being eligible for certain privileges. This may increase the value and meaning of the gambling event to the individual. Secondly, when considering the ‘flow’ and intention of individuals accessing such sites, it could be argued that individuals accessing money free gambling through social networking sites may be more likely to be induced or persuaded to play given that these web-site visitors’ primary intention may have been social interaction (i.e., the primary function of the website) as opposed to those playing in ‘demo’ mode where gambling is the primary function of the website. Interestingly, four or five times more children reporting money free gambling on social networking sites compared to ‘demo’ or ‘free play’ modes on gambling websites. The nature and impact of various forms of money free gambling should be the subject of further research and empirical investigation.

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

Further reading

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.

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.

What is an online gambler? Some surprising findings from the latest British Gambling Prevalence Survey

Things have come a long way since I published my first academic paper on internet gambling back in 1996. Despite a large increase in online gambling research over the last decade, much of the published work to date seems to suggest that differentiating (say) online casino gamblers from online poker players is relatively easy and that there are discrete types of online gambler. However, this isn’t necessarily the case.

Earlier this year, I (along with Heather Wardle who led the research for the latest British Gambling Prevalence Survey) published an article examining what an online gambler actually is. This question may appear somewhat strange and/or self-evident. In fact, many of you reading this may have already reached the conclusion that it is obvious what an online gambler is (i.e., someone who has gambled online). However, those of us who carry out research into online gambling have to be very specific and operationally define what we mean by an “online gambler” in every piece of research that we carry out. For instance, is it right to call someone who gambles a few times a year at an online casino but also gambles on slot machines every week at an amusement arcade an “online casino gambler”?

Most of the published research talks about “online gamblers” as if everyone is totally clear as to what is being referred to when findings are reported. Many of the published research studies in the area (including many of my own) have compared ‘online gamblers’ and ‘offline gamblers’. For instance, in our secondary analyses of the British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) 2007 data (published in a number of papers between 2009 and 2011), online gamblers were simply defined as anyone who had gambled online (e.g., gambled at an online casino, used an online betting exchange, had made a bet online, etc.) but excluded those who had bought online lottery tickets. Our research reported that the problem gambling prevalence rate amongst those who had gambled online was 5% compared to 0.5% for those who had never gambled online. This led to the conclusion that either gambling in an online medium is more ‘dangerous’ and/or problem inducing for gamblers than land-based gambling, and/or that vulnerable gamblers may be more susceptible to developing problems online because of factors such as 24/7 access and convenience factors.

One of the main problems with this is that online gamblers typically gamble offline also. In the 2007 BGPS, of the 9003 participants, a small minority (476 people) reported gambling online in the past year. Of these, only nine people didn’t take part in any other kind of ‘offline’ gambling activity. In other words, the vast majority of online gamblers (98%) also gambled offline. These data suggest that in Britain, ‘online only’ gambling is a low prevalence activity (i.e. 5% of BGPS respondents had gambled online in the last year but only 0.1% had only gambled online in the past year).

According to the latest BGPS published in February 2011, the number of ‘online only gamblers’ had slightly increased to 2% but our data suggest there are a number of distinct ways to categorize gamblers based on the medium in which they gamble and what activities they gamble on in those mediums. This month, we published our secondary analysis of the online gambling data from the latest BGPS in the latest issue of the journal International Gambling Studies. The 2011 BGPS report surveyed 7756 adult gamblers. Approximately one in seven respondents (14%) had gambled online in the past year (i.e., had gambled on at least one gambling activity such as gambling at online casinos and/or playing the lottery online). However, for the first time ever, we created four new groups of gamblers for comparison. These were those that:

• Gambled offline only (i.e., had gambled on at least one activity such as buying a lottery ticket in a shop or playing roulette at an offline casino but hadn’t gambled online in the past year)
• Gambled online only (i.e., had gambled on at least one activity such as gambling on a betting exchange or gambling at an online casino but hadn’t gambled offline in the past year)
• Gambled both online and offline but on different activities (i.e., had gambled on at least one activity online and one activity offline but were different activities such as gambling on a slot machine in an amusement arcade and playing blackjack in an online casino).
• Gambled both online and offline but on the same activities (i.e., had gambled on at least one activity both online and offline such as gambling at both an online and offline casino)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, of all gamblers, the largest group were those who only gambled offline only (80.5%) and the smallest group were those who gambled online only (2.1%). Of far more interest were the rates of problem gambling among these four groups. The highest prevalence rates of problem gambling were amongst mixed mode gamblers who gambled on different activities (4.3%), followed by mixed mode gamblers who gambled on the same activities (2.4%), those who only gambled offline (0.9%), and those who only gambled online (0%).

The most interesting statistic is arguably the fact that there wasn’t a single case of problem or pathological gambling among those gamblers who only gambled online. Extreme caution must be given as the player base for ‘online only’ gamblers is very small when compared to the other groups. However, this certainly opens up an area for future research as to whether those who only gamble online are more resilient to developing gambling problems than those who engage in mixed modes of gambling. Socio-demographic information from the BGPS studies suggest that those who gamble online are more educated and in better occupations than those who have never gambled online. Maybe, these demographic factors are also protective factors when it comes to the development of gambling problems?

The more refined analysis that we have carried out using the latest BGPS data demonstrates that direct comparisons between online and land-based gamblers typically ignores the more complex nature of how people gamble in and across different media and gambling activities. However, our secondary analysis aimed to demonstrate that these very basic distinctions, using the mode and type of gambling as the primary discriminators, produces a wide range of gambling sub-types for future analysis and demonstrates that the concept of ‘online gambler’ isn’t homogenous.

At present, policy decisions surrounding online gambling – particularly in relation to problem gambling – are often made by conceptualizing online gambling as a single entity. Our research findings based on just a few basic variables including the medium in which people gamble, the type and number of activities engaged in, and the regularity with which people gamble, produces a complex picture of online gambling and demonstrates its heterogeneity.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, NG1 4BU

Further reading

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.

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.