Blog Archives

Net bets: What makes betting online attractive to gamblers?

Over the past two decades I have carried out a lot of research on what factors are important in attracting people to engaging in online activities such as online video gaming, online gambling, online shopping, and online sex. Research has shown that virtual environments have the potential to provide short-term comfort, excitement and/or distraction – all of which can be highly reinforcing to internet users. My research has consistently shown that there are many generic factors that facilitate online use including accessibility, anonymity, affordability, convenience, escape, immersion, interactivity, disinhibition, and simulation. Today’s blog briefly examines these factors.

unknownonline-gambling

Accessibility Access to the Internet is now commonplace and widespread, and can be done easily from the home, the workplace and (via mobile gambling) on the move. Given that the uptake of consumptive behaviours is strongly correlated with increased access to the activity, it is not surprising that the incidence of activities like online gambling and online gaming is slowly increasing across different populations across the world. Fundamentally, increased accessibility of these activities enables the individual to rationalize involvement by removing previously restrictive barriers such as time constraints emanating from occupational and social commitments.

Anonymity – The anonymity of the Internet allows users to privately engage in such activities as sex and gambling without the fear of stigma. This anonymity can also provide the user with a greater sense of perceived control over the content, tone, and nature of the online experience. Anonymity also has the capacity to increase feelings of comfort since there is a decreased ability to look for, and thus detect, signs of insincerity, disapproval, or judgment in facial expression, as would be typical in face-to-face interactions. For activities such as gambling, this may be a positive benefit – particularly when losing – as no-one will actually see the face of the loser. Anonymity, like increased accessibility, may reduce social barriers to engaging in gambling, particularly skill-based gambling activities such as poker that are relatively complex and often possess tacit social etiquette. The potential discomfort of committing a structural or social faux-pas in the gambling environment because of inexperience is minimized because the individual’s identity remains concealed.

Affordability – Given the wide accessibility of the Internet, it is now relatively inexpensive to use online services on offer. Furthermore, the overall cost of has been reduced significantly through technological developments, again, rendering affordability less of a restrictive force when it comes to rationalizing involvement in the behaviour. For example, the saturation of online gambling industry has lead to increased competition, and the consumer is benefiting from the ensuing promotional offers and discounts available on gambling outlay. Regarding interactive wagering, the emergence of peer-to-peer gambling through the introduction of betting exchanges has provided punters with commission free sporting gambling odds, which in effect means the player needs to risk less money to obtain potential revenue. Finally, ancillary costs of face-to-face gambling, such as parking, tipping and purchasing refreshments, is removed when gambling within the home and therefore the overall cost of gambling is reduced making it more affordable.

Convenience – Online behaviours usually occur in the familiar and comfortable environment of home or workplace thus reducing the feeling of risk and allowing even more adventurous behaviours. For the internet user, not having to move from their home or their workplace is of great positive benefit and increases the attractiveness of online activities compared to offline activities.

Escape – For some internet users, the primary reinforcement to engage in an online behaviour is the gratification they experience online. However, the experience of activities like online gambling, online gaming and/or online sex may be reinforced through a subjectively and/or objectively experienced ‘high’ or positive change in mood state. The mood-modifying experience has the potential to provide an emotional or mental escape and further serves to reinforce the behaviour. In short, online activities can provide a potent escape from the stresses and strains of real life.

Immersion – The medium of the Internet can provide feelings of dissociation and immersion and may facilitate feelings of escape (see above). Immersion can produce lots of different types of feelings that may be reinforcing for the internet user such as losing track of time, feeling like you’re someone else, and being in a trance like state.

Interactivity – The interactivity component of the Internet can also be psychologically rewarding and different from other more passive forms of entertainment (e.g., television). The interactive nature of the Internet can therefore provide a convenient way of increasing such personal involvement that can – in online situations – lead to increased online use. Furthermore, the alternative methods of peer interaction are available within interactive online activities that retain the socially reinforcing aspects of the behaviour. Individuals can communicate via computer-mediated communication in most online activities (including gambling and gaming).

Disinhibition – The feeling of disinhibition is one of the Internet’s key appeals as there is little doubt that the Internet makes people less inhibited when they are online. Online users appear to open up more quickly online compared to offline situations and reveal themselves emotionally much faster than in the offline world. This has been referred to by Dr. John Suler as ‘hyperpersonal communication’. According to Dr. Suler, this occurs because of four features of online communication: 

  • The communicators usually share social categories so will perceive each other as similar (e.g., all online poker players)
  • The message sender can present themselves in a positive light, and so may be more confident
  • The format of online interaction (e.g., there are no other distractions, users can spend time composing messages, mix social and task messages, users don’t waste cognitive resources by answering immediately)
  • The communication medium provides a feedback loop whereby initial impressions are built upon and strengthened.

Simulation – Finally, simulations provide an ideal way in which to learn about something and which tends not to have any of the possible negative consequences. For instance, most online gambling sites have a practice mode format, where potential gamblers can place a non-monetary bet in order to see and practice the procedure of gambling on that site. Furthermore, gambling in practice modes can build self-efficacy and potentially increase perceptions of control in determining gambling outcomes motivating participation in their ‘real cash’ counterparts within the site.

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (1998). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Applications. pp. 61-75. New York: Academic Press.

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

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

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. (2010). Internet abuse and internet addiction in the workplace. Journal of Worplace Learning, 7, 463-472.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Internet sex addiction: A review of empirical research. Addiction Research and Theory, 20, 111-124.

Griffiths, M.D., Kuss, D.J., Billieux J. & Pontes, H.M. (2016). The evolution of internet addiction: A global perspective. Addictive Behaviors, 53, 193–195.

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

Griffiths M.D. & Szabo, A. (2014). Is excessive online usage a function of medium or activity? An empirical pilot study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3, 74–77.

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

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

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

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Internet and gaming addiction: A systematic literature review of neuroimaging studies. Brain Sciences, 2, 347-374.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Online gaming addiction: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 278-296.

Kuss, D.J., Griffiths, M.D., Karila, L. & Billieux, J. (2014). Internet addiction: A systematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20, 4026-4052.

Pontes, H.M., Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The clinical psychology of Internet addiction: A review of its conceptualization, prevalence, neuronal processes, and implications for treatment. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics, 4, 11-23.

Pontes, H.M., Szabo, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). The impact of Internet-based specific activities on the perceptions of Internet Addiction, Quality of Life, and excessive usage: A cross-sectional study. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 1, 19-25.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321-326.

Widyanto, L. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). Internet addiction: A critical review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 31-51.

Widyanto, L. & Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Unravelling the Web: Adolescents and Internet Addiction. In R. Zheng, J. Burrow-Sanchez & C. Drew (Eds.), Adolescent Online Social Communication and Behavior: Relationship Formation on the Internet. pp. 29-49. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Publishing.

Loyal ascent: Player retention and social responsibility in the online gambling industry

Although I have spent nearly 30 years researching problem gambling, I am not (and have never been) anti-gambling. My research colleagues who work in the field of alcoholism are never considered anti-drinking so I don’t think I am in any way hypocritical. I also help various gaming companies in terms of harm minimization, social responsibility, and player protection – particularly those in the online gambling sector. In today’s blog I briefly outline five important factors that I believe are critical to online player acquisition and retention based on a combination of my own psychological research and my many years of researching the psychology of gambling. These are (i) branding, (ii) trust, (iii) reputation management and enhancement, (iv) company identification with the player, and (v) social responsibility.

Branding – Every great brand has an outstanding feature at its heart. A product also needs time and to be promoted and communicated consistently to become a brand. Repetition appears to be one of the keys to establishing brand success. Online gambling sites often get bad press and are often viewed as unsafe and risky places. Negative press and enough negative feedback from customers can bring the brand into disrepute.

Trust – What really determines a brand – and this is especially important in the online gambling arena – is trust. Trust is of paramount importance in e-commerce generally, and in getting people to gamble online more specifically. Without trust, the spending of money online is unlikely. Players will be more likely to gamble online with those companies that are well established than a little known company operating out of the Caribbean. It has been claimed that successful brands have a ‘trustmark’ rather than a trademark. With the embedding of regulatory and problem gambling regimes, a ‘trustmark’ is an apt gauge for social acceptability and social responsibility. However, getting transferability and connections across brands in the ‘mainstream’ is probably the key issue.

For many Internet gambling operators, the mechanism to establish trust has been to pursue a ‘clicks and mortar’ approach of combining an offline presence (and brand recognition) with online presence. ‘Trustmarks’ are thought to be one of the major reasons why consumers prefer one particular product to other non-familiar ones. They communicate that customers have not been let down by the product and they can reduce anxiety by using it. At the heart of gambling there will always be the underlying fact that in the long run, most players lose. Whichever way the gaming industry plays out this truism, the general situation of players mostly losing represents an underlying negativity that competes with the wit and innovation of demonstrating that the minority of real long-term winners are the central focus and purpose of participating. This is one of the main reasons why trust becomes so important.

Reputation management and enhancement – It was once argued that the Internet would provide a level playing field for small and large retailer alike. However, given the need to establish trust, it would seem that organisations with a good existing offline reputation are at an advantage. Research into online purchasing of books and flight bookings show that the perceived size and reputation of the company determines consumers’ likelihood of purchasing from it. The reason for this is that increased size and reputation led to higher trust, which in turn influences the perception of risk and the willingness to buy.

Recent psychological thinking proposes a three stage model for understanding how people assess the trustworthiness of a website. The first stage assumes that people are faced with a large number of potential websites and thus engage in rapid, heuristic-based analysis based on the design of the site, rather than the content. During the second stage, people engage in a more systematic analysis of the content of the site, and it is during this stage that people are influenced by apparent integrity, benevolence and expertise. The third stage is a relationship development and integration stage, that is, people’s continued use of a site, personalization and the integration of experience.

Trust is an historical concept because customers need repeated interactions coupled with good feelings to build it. Branding experts claim it takes at least three years to establish the feeling of goodwill among consumers. The good news for companies – including the gaming industry – is that customers do not have to have experienced the product. Customers might engage in things because others have used or engaged in the product for years. Although little studied in empirical gambling investigations, trust is thought to be an important variable in both the initial decision to gamble and the maintenance of the behaviour. In a study of nearly 11,000 carried out by our gaming research unit, four-fifths of Internet gamblers (79%) considered the Internet a trustworthy medium of gambling. However, most Internet gamblers (90%) preferred to gamble on websites of well-known and trusted ‘high street’ bookmakers.

Company identification with the player – One of the most important things about brands for the gaming industry is that they help consumers define their self-image and who they are – at least on some psychological level. For some people, this ‘personal branding’ may be more important than their social identities within a community. For example, the car they drive or the newspaper they read, are particularly strong cultural indicators of what sort of person they are. Where they gamble and on what games can be an extension of this. However, total trust acceptance may also lead to an uncritical assessment of acceptability by the punter. For instance, some trusted non-gambling websites now provide links and endorsements to either their own gambling sites, or those of affiliates. Our gaming research unit  highlighted a case of an online problem gambler who had been led to an online gambling site by watching a popular (and trusted) daytime television programme that promoted its own online gaming site.

Social responsibility – As mentioned above, ‘trustmarks’ are likely to be important in relation to social responsibility and the perception of it by players. In studies conducted by our gaming research unit with online gamblers around the world, we found that many of them felt that responsible gaming practises demonstrate that a gaming operator has integrity, and that they care about their players’ wellbeing. For instance, many online poker players did not want their winnings to come from players who could not afford to lose it. They reported that responsible gaming practises allowed them to feel comfortable that their winnings had not come from people with gambling problems. Given that one of the biggest obstacles that prevent people playing online is a lack of trust of operators, this is a significant and important finding that gaming operators should take not of. 

For me, all of these five factors are highly inter-linked. However, I believe that those who end up being the most successful online gaming companies will be the ones with the best social responsibility protocols and infrastructure, and that this will engender trust among its clientele.

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

Further reading

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Behavioral tracking tools, regulation and corporate social responsibility in online gambling. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 17, 579-583.

Auer, M., Littler, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2015). Legal aspects of responsible gaming pre-commitment and personal feedback initiatives. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 6, 444-456.

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.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Social responsibility and trust in online gambling: Six steps to success. i-Gaming Business, 61, 36-37.

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. & Wood, R.T.A. (2008). Responsible gaming and best practice: How can academics help? Casino and Gaming International, 4(1), 107-112.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2009). Centralised gaming models and social responsibility. Casino and Gaming International., 5(2), 65-69.

Griffiths, M.D., Wood, R.T.A., Parke, J. & Parke, A. (2007). Gaming research and best practice: Gaming industry, social responsibility and academia. Casino and Gaming International, 3(3), 97-103.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2009). Centralised gaming models and social responsibility. Casino and Gaming International., 5(2), 65-69.

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.

War of the Words: Campaign for Fairer Gambling still gambling with people’s reputations

The Campaign for Fairer Gambling (CFFG) yesterday responded to my article in which I outlined the potentially libellous comments made by CFFG spokesperson Adrian Parkinson. Here’s my brief response to what was said and alleged in yesterday’s CFFG’s article.

“Supposed academic”: In my previous blog I noted that Parkinson had claimed that I was only a “supposed academic” and that I believed this to be false and deliberately malicious. The CFFG now concedes in their article that I am not only an academic but a “decorated” one. However, no apology was given. They then go onto claim:

“Using the term ‘supposed’ does not impact that general point. However, when conducting certain industry funded projects, it is right to question whether these are being conducted on an academic, commercial or egotistical basis. It is supposed that they are conducted on an academic basis”

Firstly, Parkinson clearly used the word “supposed” in an attempt to slur and denigrate my research and reputation. Parkinson could have written the same tweet without the word “supposed” and the meaning and emphasis of what he said would have been different. I found Parkinson’s use of the word both offensive and demeaning. If someone claimed in an article that Parkinson was a “supposed campaign consultant”, anyone reading that would probably assume that the person writing it was trying to make a point that he is not worthy of being a campaign consultant. (For the record, I am well aware that Parkinson is the CFFG’s campaign consultant and would not sink to the level of calling him a “supposed campaign consultant”). The CFFG says the use of the word “supposed” does not impact on their general points made about me. That is irrelevant. The word “supposed” in and of itself was used in a potentially libellous way. It doesn’t take away from my point that the use of the word “supposed” in this context was hurtful, malicious, and without foundation. Secondly – and for the record – all of my work is conducted for academic reasons. Any insinuation otherwise is again untrue and potentially libellous.

“Defender of FOBTs”: In my response to Parkinson’s claim that I am “industry funded defender of FOBTs” I pointed out in my previous article that I’ve only ever written one public article on the topic (a blog I wrote in 2013). The CFFG response to this was to separate out the “funded” and the “defender of FOBTs” in an attempt to justify the claims made. If not being anti-FOBTs in my one blog on this issue counts as being a defender of FOBTs, then so be it. However, my objection was the use of the combined term “industry funded defender of FOBTs” because I am not. There is a world of difference between an academic having independently carried out a few consultancy projects for the gaming industry and being industry funded. Using the CFFG’s criterion why haven’t they called me Gambling Commission-funded or British Academy-funded or ESRC-funded?  The reason is that it doesn’t suit the picture they are trying to paint.

My personal views are not (and never have been) funded by anyone. In my previous article I provided a detailed account showing that my research is not industry-funded and that out of the 1500+ articles and papers I have published not a single one of those had been about FOBTs. I have now published over 500 blogs in addition to those 1500+ other articles and only one of these is on the topic of FOBTs. Not a single one these articles has been funded by the industry. One of the reasons I am not anti-FOBTs is because we now live in a society that anyone with internet access via computer, laptop, tablet or mobile phone has access to FOBT-type games at their fingertips. Basically, if you own a smart phone, you are walking around with a potential bookmaker in your pocket. On this basis, singling out FOBTs in licenced bookmakers to be banned has no equity at all.

“Industry funded”: Again, I will make the point that having ever received money from the gaming industry for independent consutancy and being “industry-funded” are two very different things. Being ‘industry funded’ suggests everything someone does is paid for by the industry. Based on the article published yesterday, one of the CFFG’s main concerns about my academic activity appears to be that one of my consultancies was a social responsibility assessment for Paddy Power. As I mentioned in my article about Parkinson’s potentially libellous tweets, I’ve written around 150 consultancy reports on social responsibility and responsible gambling and I can indeed confirm that one of my consultancy clients has been Paddy Power. The report I wrote for them covered a number of areas (most notably, crime and gambling, social responsibility in gambling, and underage gambling). Paddy Power paid my university for my time spent writing this independent report (as all monies are paid to them and not me personally) and for my appearance as an expert witness. As an independent expert witness, I have to follow all judicial protocol. In all expert witness work I follow the protocol outlined by the Civil Justice Council. The most relevant extracts are in Sections 4.1 and 4.3:

“Experts always owe a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care to those instructing them, and to comply with any relevant professional code of ethics. However when they are instructed to give or prepare evidence for the purpose of civil proceedings in England and Wales they have an overriding duty to help the court on matters within their expertise…This duty overrides any obligation to the person instructing or paying them. Experts must not serve the exclusive interest of those who retain them…Experts should provide opinions which are independent, regardless of the pressures of litigation. In this context, a useful test of ‘independence’ is that the expert would express the same opinion if given the same instructions by an opposing party. Experts should not take it upon themselves to promote the point of view of the party instructing them or engage in the role of advocates”.

Again, there is nothing in the independent report I wrote for Paddy Power that I am an “industry funded defender of FOBTs” (as there was little in my report on FOBTs). In the article published yesterday, the CFFG also claimed

“Griffiths produced a flawed critique of a paper by Steve Sharman on the strong link between problem gamblers and the homeless. Westminster Council used the Sharman paper to support the refusal of a Paddy Power license. Griffiths did not contact Sharman prior to publishing his criticism, which is against academic etiquette. He also did not identify that he has a commercial relationship with Paddy Power in his attack on Sharman”.

I’m not sure in what way the CFFG thinks my critique of the study carried out by Sharman and his colleagues was “flawed” (they didn’t say) but for the record (i) the critique I wrote has been published in the Journal of Gambling Studies (JGS), (ii) I did email Sharman (and his colleagues) about my critique, and (iii) I sent Sharman and his colleagues a copy of my published critique (so that they could pen a response to the JGS if they so wished). I am not sure what the CFFG mean when they say I have a “commercial relationship with Paddy Power”. If they mean that Paddy Power paid my university for my time spent writing my independent consultancy report, then that is true. If they mean that Paddy Power (and any of my clients) are paying me personally then that is false (as all consultancy money is paid to my employer – Nottingham Trent University – and not me personally).

“Dirty work for the ABB”: In Parkinson’s original tweets he said I was carrying out “dirty work” for the Association of British Bookmakers. Nothing in the response article by the CFFG actually defended their use of the term “dirty”. The CFFG may have the view that is morally wrong for someone like myself to do consultancy on social responsibility and responsible gambling with any organization connected with the gaming industry. They may simply not like the fact that a “decorated academic” like myself should have any working association with the gaming industry at all. But none of this is “dirty” or “dirty work”. The work I do is legitimate, legal, independent, and in accordance with all consultancy protocols. The assertion that the work I do is “dirty” is simply a slur on my reputation and was used in a context to again demean the work that I do. Again, taking the word “dirty” out of the tweet would have entirely changed the meaning. The CFFG then go on to assert: 

“Griffiths is evaluating a code of conduct which he has helped author in conjunction with the ABB – so he is evaluating his own work, which is again, against academic etiquette. A formal evaluation of the code of conduct is being conducted by Nat Cen. The Campaign for Fairer Gambling anticipate that this evaluation will be more critical of the – code of conduct than the Griffiths ‘self”-evaluation’.”

There are a number of issues here that are simply wrong. While I did input into the ABB code (and was proud to do so), it is in no way ‘my’ code or my “own work”. The ABB introduced some of the things into the new code that I wanted to see in it (most notably time and money setting tools, pop-up reminders, and mandatory breaks – based on our empirical research published in the Journal of Gambling Studies and the Journal of Gambling Issue – see ‘Further Reading below). My consultancy report on the how the new social responsibility tools were used by FOBT players in the first 15 weeks of operation is a commentary on the data and an evaluation in the loosest sense (i.e., the dictionary definition of the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something”). The CFFG also state that “self-evaluation” is “against academic etiquette”. This is simply not true. Many (if not most) evaluations of anything published in the academic literature are self-evaluations of one description or another. For instance, gambling treatment interventions, gambling education programs, and gambling prevention programs are typically evaluated by the researcher or the research team that designed them.

“Doing what the industry tells me to do”: In Parkinson’s tweets, he claimed I simply do what the industry tells me to do. I said this was a ludicrous claim and the CFFG’s ‘evidence’ that I do has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. They say:

“In respect of FOBTs: through the misleading FOBT blog, the code of conduct, his appearance at court with Paddy Power, a willingness to attack an academic paper used by a council to act against Paddy Power, the Campaign Killer blog, and his willingness to attend an invitation only ABB event to promote the code of conduct, Griffiths is supporting the commercial interests of bookmakers. It is understandable that others believe he is sympathetic to the position of the bookmakers on FOBTs. After all, Griffiths knows all about the importance to his career of being able to attract funded research as he acknowledges in his ‘Campaign Killer’ blog”.

Absolutely nothing mentioned in the above paragraph provides any evidence that I “do what the industry tells me to do”. The writing of independent consultancy reports is not doing what the gaming industry tells me to do. My FOBT blog is not misleading. My critique of the gambling homelessness study is in the public domain and published in the world’s leading academic gambling journal (Journal of Gambling Studies). All the above paragraph demonstrates is that of the thousands of projects and activities that I have done in my career, a small minority have involved independent consultancy for a gaming company.

Further points: The CFFG article also makes some further points that I am happy to respond to. They claim that:

“In the last paragraph of his ‘Campaign Killer’ blog, Griffiths contradicts his previous FOBT blog in which he stated that banning FOBTs would result in an increase in remote gambling. He now states it would drive problem gambling underground. This change of FOBT defence is exactly the same change of FOBT defence used by the bookmakers. But there is no evidence to support either a switch to remote gambling or underground gambling through banning FOBTs or merely a FOBT stake reduction”

I haven’t changed or switched defence as the things I highlighted are not mutually exclusive. All I have dne is speculate that if gamblers cannot gamble on FOBTs because of a ban they would probably gamble elsewhere (e.g., illegal underground FOBT gambling, remote gambling, etc.). The CFFG then goes onto say:

“Most amazingly, Griffiths also claims that the principle of social responsibility includes “maximising fun for those who enjoy gambling”. This alleged component is not referred to in the 2005 Gambling Act and does not form part of the official remit of any of the relevant bodies – Department of Culture Media and Sport, the Gambling Commission, the Responsible Gambling Trust nor the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board. It is truly remarkable that Griffiths thinks he has the authority to advocate this definition”

The CFFG appear not to have realized that I have been writing about social responsibility in gambling for many years prior to the 2005 Gaming Act and to the formation of the Gambling Commission and the Gambling Strategy Board. My claim that social responsibility is about maximizing the fun for those that enjoy gambling and minimizing harm for those that are vulnerable comes from an article on social responsibility in gambling that I wrote in 2001 (you can download a copy from here where I mention this in the second paragraph). The Gambling Commission is under no obligation to use my views of what social responsibility is about. For me, one of the most important things about social responsibility is about getting the balance right. At its simplest level, my own view (in many of my social resposibility writings since 2001) has always tried to think how the non-problem gambler would react to having a prohibitions or restrictions placed upon them in an attempt to protect the most vulnerable. Finally, the CFFG talk about libel. They assert:

“The current standard of libel law relates to ‘substantial harm’ to a reputation whereas the prior standard related to a lesser standard of ‘harm’. Griffiths refers to being ‘previously vilified and criticized by the gaming industry’. It would be interesting to learn if Griffiths threatened the gambling industry with legal action under the lesser harm standard for that vilification”

In response to this question, I have only ever had to threaten legal action once as the majority of criticism I have received has been said without being libellous. This does not change my view that the tweets made by Parkinson are still potentially libellous.

I realize that the CFFG are likely to come back with yet another point-by-point retaliation but I am probably going to stop responding. I have done nothing wrong and I will simply have to accept that the CFFG will continue to smear my work. I have avoided the temptation of attacking their campaign philosophy and where they get their funding from as this has been written up by others. (If you are really interested in who funds the CFFG and why they do what they do, I suggest you check out this article by Mark Davies and the legal threats he then received – and this other article).

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, 29, 647-660.

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2014). Personalised feedback in the promotion of responsible gambling: A brief overview. Responsible Gambling Review, 1, 27-36.

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Behavioral tracking tools, regulation and corporate social responsibility in online gambling. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 17, 579-583.

Auer, M., Malischnig, D. & Griffiths, M.D. (2014). Is ‘pop-up’ messaging in online slot machine gambling effective? An empirical research note. Journal of Gambling Issues, 29, 1-10.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (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. (2014). The relationship between gambling and homelessness: A commentary on Sharman et al (2014). Journal of Gambling Studies, DOI 10.1007/s10899-014-9491-0

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2008). Responsible gaming and best practice: How can academics help? Casino and Gaming International, 4(1), 107-112.

Griffiths, M.D., Wood, R.T.A., Parke, J. & Parke, A. (2007). Gaming research and best practice: Gaming industry, social responsibility and academia. Casino and Gaming International, 3(3), 97-103.

Sharman, S., Dreyer, J., Aitken, M., Clark, L., & Bowden-Jones, H. (2014). Rates of problematic gambling in a British homeless sample: A preliminary study. Journal of Gambling Studies, DOI 10.1007/s10899-014-9444-7.

Campaign killer? Gambling with people’s reputations (revisited)

On Twitter last week, Adrian Parkinson of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling (and the associated Stop The FOBTs campaign) posted a number of tweets about me (and my research). In the tweets, Parkinson said that (a) I am a “supposed academic”, (b) I am the “industry ‘funded’ defender of FOBTs” (fixed odds betting terminals), (c) I am “doing more dirty work” for the Association of British Bookmakers, and (d) I do “what the industry tells [me] to do”.

Parkinson Libel Tweets 2014

All of these assertions are untrue and potentially libellous. According to legal dictionaries, the official definition of libel is “to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others”. Based on this defintion, Parkinson’s tweets are potentially libellous and are definitely an attack on my professional integrity. This cannot go unchallenged so here are the facts of the matter in relation to the claims made.

  • “Supposed academic”: Obviously the assertion by Parkinson that I am a “supposed academic” is both false and deliberately malicious. An academic by most dictionary definitions is a teacher or scholar in a university or other institute of higher education”. As a professor employed at an English university, there is nothing “supposed” about my occupation or status. To add to this, I would point out that on the basis of my academic research and reputation I became of one of the UK’s youngest ever professors (aged 34 years). So far in my career, I have been awarded 14 national and/or international awards and prizes for my gambling research and research dissemination including three Fellowship awards (British Psychological Society, Royal Society of Arts, and the Academy of Social Sciences) and two Lifetime Achievement awards. I am also one of the most highly cited psychologists in the world (currently 17,500 citations on Google Scholar that you can check here).
  • “Industry funded’ defender of FOBTs”: Parkinson claimed that I am “funded defender” of FOBTs and the gambling industry. In my career to date, I have published approximately 460 academic peer reviewed journal papers (which most academics would describe as ‘prolific’ – and not bad for a “supposed academic”) and another 1000+ academic articles (in professional/practitioner journals, gambling trade press, newspapers, magazines, etc.). Of these 1500 or so papers and articles, none were funded by a research grant from the gaming industry. Two of the papers I have published – both concerning social responsibility in gambling initiatives – did arise out of gaming industry consultancy (one study was about gamblers’ attitudes toward the social responsibility tool PlayScan funded by Svenska Spel, and the other was the development of a new social responsibility tool for the gaming industry to use to protect vulnerable player funded by the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation). Also, none of my published academic papers has ever been specifically about FOBTS. I have published a handful academic journal papers that have mentioned FOBTs in passing but all of those were papers based on data collected in the British Gambling Prevalence Surveys (of which I was one of the co-authors) and were funded by the Gambling Commission not the gambling industry. In 2008, I also wrote a report for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (again funded by the Gambling Commission) on high stake-high prize machines that included references to FOBTs. However, the only article I have ever published specifically on FOBTs was one of my previous blogs (which looked at FOBTS in relation to the BGPS findings). In short, the assertion that I am an “industry ‘funded’ defender of FOBTs” simply has no basis in truth whatsoever.
  • “Dirty work” for the Association of British Association of Bookmakers: Parkinson claimed I carry out “dirty work” for the ABB. In my academic career I have been a consultant in the area of responsible gambling for approximately 15 years and have written in the region of 150 consultancy reports. Of these reports, three have been for the Association of British Bookmakers. The first report (in June 2013) was evaluation and input into the new code of conduct concerning responsible gambling and player protection (and which I wrote about in a previous blog). I was invited to carry out this piece of work by Neil Goulden (Chairman of the UK’s Responsible Gambling Trust) specifically because of my reputation of being both totally independent and as someone that has been critical of the gambling industry on previous occasions in relation to social responsibility and player protection. More recently (July 2014), I was commissioned to carry out two further pieces of consultancy for the ABB. The first was a review of problem gambling in Great Britain and the second was a preliminary evaluation of the responsible gambling initiatives relating to the introduction of the ABB’s new Code of Conduct (both of which are being published today). All three pieces of consultancy that I have carried out for the ABB concerned player protection and responsible gambling. Far from being “dirty work” they are the very areas areas that are at the heart of almost all the research that I carry out into problem gambling.
  • “Doing what the industry tells me to do”: Of all the potentially libellous claims made about me by Parkinson, this is the one that is the most ludicrous. The main reason I was asked for my expertise in the first place by the ABB was because I have never been afraid to criticize the gaming industry when they have done something I believe to be wrong and/or socially irresponsible. Anyone who actually knows me and has followed my research career over the last three decades will tell you that the one common denominator is my absolute independence in anything that I do. For the best part of 15 years I was vilified and criticized by some members of the gaming industry because of my belief that vulnerable and susceptible people should be protected from the potential harms of gambling. When ‘social responsibility’ and ‘responsible gambling’ became important issues in gaining operating licenses, gaming companies soon started approaching me to help them develop their codes of conduct and player protection programs. In short, I have spent years telling the gambling industry what I think they should do to minimize problem gambling (not the other way around).

There are of course bigger issues here concerning research funding, and this is an issue on which I have published my own views (see ‘Further reading’ below). Parkinson’s incorrect and misguided comments about me appear to be based on the view that academics shouldn’t have any association whatsoever with the gambling industry. Unfortunately, this (in my opinion) is a blinkered view that will not help those that need it (i.e., vulnerable populations). Almost all of the ‘big name’ researchers in the gambling studies field have carried out research and/or consultancy funded by the gambling industry. When this happens it may call into question academic ‘independence’. However, industry funded research appears to be an increasing economic reality in many countries across the world. In the UK, the governmental philosophy of research funding relating to gambling is now ‘polluter pays’ (i.e., the UK government has said it will not fund research on gambling and that the industry will have to pay for such work itself). Although my own research is not industry funded, the current funding model is pushing researchers in the gambling field down such a route.

One researcher that I have published with (now retired from day-to-day university life) refuses to carry out research or consultancy if it is sponsored or funded by the gambling industry (even indirectly via the Responsible Gambling Trust because the money is accrued from voluntary donations by the gambling industry). Furthermore, he will not attend conferences that have gaming industry sponsorship and declines invitations to speak if they are held on gaming premises. Although laudable and highly principled, researchers who now want to pursue a research career in the gambling studies field will are likely to find that taking such principled actions will become a barrier to career enhancement.

Having been in the gambling studies field for nearly 30 years now, I feel very proud that over the last decade, some sectors of the gaming industry have now started to take the issue of social responsibility in gambling seriously. All the personal vitriol that I received for years from certain individuals working in the gaming industry appears (in retrospect) to have been worth it. My own view is that if those in the gambling industry are really serious about social responsibility, they need to sometimes work in partnership with researchers in the gambling studies field if the end goal is the same (i.e., protection of vulnerable individuals and minimization of problem gambling).

From my research, I have gotten to know people that have had gambling problems and that would like to ban slot machines (including FOBTs). This is highly unlikely to reduce gambling problems. We know that banning alcohol does not cure alcoholism. Similarly, banning gambling products will not solve the issue of problem gambling. It would only drive the activity underground. Most people that gamble (including myself) do not have a problem. The underlying principle of social responsibility is to maximize fun for those that enjoy gambling and minimize harm for those that may be vulnerable. Mr. Parkinson and his campaign have every right to express their views but what they say should have a basis in fact (rather than prejudice) and they definitely shouldn’t resort to questioning my reputation or research in the absence of the full facts.

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

Further reading

Adams P. J., Raeburn J., De Silva K. (2009). A question of balance: prioritizing public health responses to harm from gambling. Addiction, 104: 688–91.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Minimising harm from gambling: What is the gambling industry’s role? Addiction, 104, 696-697.

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Gambling research and the search for a sustainable funding infrastructure. Gambling Research, 21(1), 28-32.

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

Morrison, P. (2009). A new national framework for Australian gambling research: A discussion paper on the potential challenges and processes involved. Gambling Research, 21(1), 8-24.

Wood, R.T.A., Shorter, G.W. & Griffiths, M.D. (2014). Rating the suitability of responsible gambling features for specific game types: A resource for optimizing responsible gambling strategy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 94–112.

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.