Hearing aid: A brief look at ‘the world’s most addictive sounds’

Throughout my career I’ve carried out quite a lot of research into the marketing and advertising of gambling and the way in which some gambling operators use psychology to exploit our senses to maximize profit. Connected to this, I’ve also published a number of papers that have examined the role of sound (and particularly music) can influence the way in which individuals gamble (see my previous blog on this and ‘Further reading’ below).

The reason I mention this was that I recently came across an online article by Fast Company entitled ‘The 10 most addictive sounds in the world’ based on some market research carried out by Martin Lindstrom, the Danish ‘neuromarketeer’, author of the book Buyology – Truth and Lies About Why We Buy (I do love a good pun). Lindstrom is known for using neuroscientific techniques to help commercial operators better understand their clientele. One of his collaborations was with Elias Arts (a sound and music design company) who joined forces to examine the world’s most ‘addictive sounds’ in what an article in The Village Voice dubbed a “neuromarketing experiment”.

Obviously, my interest was piqued when I saw the use of the word ‘addictive’ but their working definition of ‘addictive’ had nothing to do with individuals being addicted to sounds but simply referred to an individual’s response to specific sounds. (Even with this explanation, I still can’t see why the word ‘addictive’ was used but its’ use probably guarantees more people – like myself – will want to read about the study). Lindstrom told the media that:

“We have all those top 10s of everything, but most top 10s are based on the visual sense. What we realized in another study is the most prominent sense we have [when we see a commercial] is not the sense of sight or smell, but the sense of sound”.

As far as I can tell, the study Lindstrom carried out has not been formally published in a peer reviewed journal (although he has published academic papers). The study was described in the international media as involving 50 participants and the research team monitored their brainwave, pupil, and facial muscle activity while listening to 50 different everyday sounds (both man-made ‘branded’ sounds and those ‘non-branded’ sounds that occur naturally). Lindstrom concluded that the most ‘addictive sounds’ weren’t necessarily the non-branded sounds of nature because some of the commercial man-made branded sounds (described as “beeps, jingles and ditties”) were more ‘addictive’ than a number of familiar sounds found in everyday life.

Overall, sound of a baby giggling was ranked as the most ‘addictive sound’ (although I’ve not seen the specific methodology employed to ascertain how being the top ‘addictive sound’ was actually assessed. Apparently Lindstrom examined the “dimension of the responses” and the “contrast and balance of all three [brainwave, pupil and muscle] factors” – although he did admit that such factors can lead to both positive and negative reactions). The second and third spots were Intel’s computer startup chime and the sound of a vibrating mobile phone. Other top non-branded sounds were the sound of a sizzling steak and the lighting of a cigarette being inhaled. Lindstrom claimed that the participants “weren’t responding to the structures of the sounds, but what they mean in a greater social context”. In relation to what makes a sound ‘addictive’, Lindstrom did at least make one reference to a classic sign of addiction (i.e., craving):

“It’s not the sound itself, but the consequence of the sound. A laughing (or crying) baby elicits a maternal protection mechanism, a buzzing cell phone prompts a pick-up, a sizzling steak means a solid meal is on the way. For advertisers and consumers, the research indicates a whole new battleground of multi-sensory advertising. Sometimes the sound from one category generates a craving in another category. For example, given the links between tobacco and beverages, the sound of a cigarette being lit could be used in an ad for alcohol. Although sound is more intuitive for people, the field is still quite young. It will be a long time before it will be so prominent”.

In a story for ABC News, other academics were asked for their thoughts on Lindstrom’s study. One American ‘auditory neuroscientist, Professor Barbara Shinn-Cunningham (actually Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Boston University) said that:

“Although the sounds identified by the study are extremely meaningful, with the exception of the giggling baby, most are not inherently addictive. They’re identifiable. They brain responds to repetition. Our brains are good at picking out patterns that repeat. We’ve evolved to do that. If I chose an arbitrary sound, as long as it was clear and distinctive, and then played it 50 times a day for the next five years (as many of the branded sounds have been), it would become attention-grabbing. I don’t think [the sounds on the list are] so much addictive because of their acoustic properties, but because of their ubiquity. There is neurophysiological evidence showing that brain is hardwired to notice certain kinds of sounds. For example, the abrupt, jarring sound of a slamming door could prompt cells in a person’s brain stem to fire even before that person was conscious of it. For early humans, that kind of sound could have meant it’s time to run for the hills. [Also] studies have demonstrated the existence of a so-called ‘cocktail party effect’. At a party, if you hear your name in the background, even if you’re not paying attention, that’s something that will draw your attention involuntarily. Your brain is so exposed to your name and it’s tremendously important to you, so it encodes that so you respond to it”

According to Lindstrom’s research, the most ‘addictive sounds’ in the world (although they are arguably US-centric to say the least) are: (1) baby giggle, (2) Intel chime, (3) vibrating phone, (4) ATM/cash register, (5) National Geographic theme tune, (6) MTV theme tune, (7) T-Mobile ringtone, (8) McDonald’s jingle, (9) ‘Star Spangled Banner’ (tune), and (10) State Farm jingle.

The Fast Company article also noted that:

“Sound is immensely powerful. And yet 83% of all the advertising communication we’re exposed to daily (bearing in mind that we will see two million TV commercials in a single lifetime) focuses, almost exclusively, on the sense of sight. That leaves just 17% for the remaining four senses. Think about how much we rely on sound. It confirms a connection when dialing or texting on cell phones and alerts us to emergencies. When the sound was removed from slot machines in Las Vegas, revenue fell by 24%. Experiments undertaken in restaurants show that when slow music (slower than the rhythm of a heartbeat) is played, we eat slower–and we eat more!”.

These types of findings suggest that ‘audio branding’ is likely to be an increasing topic of academic research given that every company wants an edge in selling their product. While I am totally unconvinced that the word ‘addictive’ should be used in this type of research, that’s not to say that sound doesn’t have an influence in the development of addictive behaviour more generally. It looks like a case of watch (or should that be listen?) to this space.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK 

Further reading

Bark Soho (2016). 3 of the most addictive sounds in the world. October 16. Located at: http://www.barksoho.co.uk/blog/3-of-the-most-addictive-sounds-in-the-world/

Dixon, L., Trigg, R. & Griffiths, M. (2007). An empirical investigation of music and gambling behaviour. International Gambling Studies, 7, (3), 315-326.

Edroso, R. (2010). “Most addictive” sounds mostly jingles, machine noises. The Village Voice, February 22. located at: https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/02/22/most-addictive-sounds-mostly-jingles-machine-noises/

Fast Company (2010). The 10 most addictive sounds in the world. February 22. Located at: https://www.fastcompany.com/1555211/10-most-addictive-sounds-world

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. (2005). The psychology of music in gambling environments: an observational research note. Journal of Gambling Issues, 13.

Heussner, K.M. (2010). The world’s 10 most addictive sounds. ABC News, February 24. Located at: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/worlds-10-addictive-sounds/story?id=9923506

Lindstrom, M. (2008). Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. New York: Doubleday

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). The psychology of the fruit machine: The role of structural characteristics re-visited.  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.

Spenwyn, J., Barrett, D.K.R. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The role of lights and music in gambling behavior: An empirical pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 107-118.

Out of sports: The influence of structural and situational characteristics in online sports betting

In a paper that I recently co-wrote in the Journal of Sport and Social Issues with Hibai Lopez-Gonzalez and Ana Estevez, we argued that the growing conversion of sports betting into an online activity has prompted two types of transformations in the way companies market their betting products. Firstly, the Internet has not only extended the opportunities to bet but has also changed the characteristics of the betting practice itself. Such product characteristics can be divided into two categories, namely situational and structural characteristics, that appear to be associated with factors influencing the onset and maintaining of betting as well as the difficulty of discontinuing it (the focus of this blog). Secondly, the online dimension has also enabled the proliferation of cross-marketing strategies leading to a convergence between previously independent markets or the tightening of the relationship between those with already established synergies (which I will examine in a future blog).

The internet has substantially transformed the situational and structural characteristics of sports betting. Situational factors comprise all environmental features that might make gamblers feel comfortable (both psychologically and physically) while gambling including sensory factors like colour, music, and smell in the environment, novelty of the activity, accessibility or proximity to a gambling venue, social facilitation and intrinsic association, which is defined as ‘the degree to which gambling is associated with other interests and attractions’.

New situational factors in online sports betting include: (i) easier and faster accessibility to betting opportunities; (ii) ubiquity of bettable competitions around the globe and seamless availability of those competitions around the clock; (iii) anonymity (in terms of social stigma traditionally attached to gambling) and comfortable betting from home or elsewhere via mobile devices; (iv) greater social facilitation via online communities of bettors or betting leagues organized between groups of friends; and (v) an enhanced intrinsic association of sports betting with sporting values such as health, competition, team identification and loyalty, further facilitated by the proliferation of live sport content on television and social media.

Structural factors refer to the specific characteristics or design of the gambling activity such as win probability, sound and lighting effects of the game, bet frequency (how many bets a person can place in a given period of time), loss chasing facilitation (gambling to recover lost money), jackpot size, price structure, near-miss opportunities (the psychological bias of interpreting losses as nearly wins or anticipatory of a winning streak).

New structural factors in online betting include: (i) a greater frequency of bets, with shorter intervals between bets, and shorter event durations (e.g., virtual sports), meaning faster reward mechanisms; (ii) in-play betting, which encompasses a closer connection between watching sport and betting; (iii) contextual betting, with live markets that open after specific actions (e.g. betting on the outcome of a penalty kick seconds after being awarded by the referee); (iv) greater illusion of control over the bets with new functionalities that emphasize the skills involved and diminish the role of luck, such as cash out (the person can withdraw the bet before the end of the event at the price stipulated by the betting site), accumulators (a person can aggregate multiple events in a single bet, increasing the potential return), exchange (betting against other people instead of the bookmaker); and (v) a greater integration in the betting process of the knowledge about the sport (e.g., daily fantasy sports), resulting in the gamification of the betting experience.

In a 2013 scoping study that I published with Dr. Abby McCormack in the International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, we noted that new situational and structural factors associated with Internet gambling could influence the onset of problem gambling in non-sporting gambling contexts. The relative novelty of these situational and structural characteristics affecting the wagering on sports is reflected in the scarcity of research devoted to understanding them. However, there are a few studies.

An analysis of 47,603 Bwin betting website subscribers (by Dr. Debi LaPLante and colleagues in the journal Computers in Human Behaviors) showed some interesting results in the direction of the importance of structural factors determining excessive gambling. The most involved bettors (those comprising the most active 1% of the user sample) who gambled on final outcomes did not escalate their gambling behaviour over time whereas those who gambled in-play did so. In a 2014 follow-up study in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, LaPlante and her colleagues examined the effect of in-play betting in the development of problem gambling. The researchers expanded the sample to other forms of gambling and compared the role of breadth (i.e., many different gambling forms) and depth involvement (i.e., more frequent betting) in problem gambling onset. They hypothesised that more involved users would be more likely to become problem gamblers (which was shown to be the case). For every form and gambling, when controlling for depth and breadth involvement, the model was not able to predict gambling-related problems, with one exception: in-play betting. The study suggested that a structural characteristic of a game, the live betting action, could be a precipitant, in conjunction with other determinants, of gambling disorders.

Another study by Dr. Richard LaBrie and Dr. Howard Shaffer (in a 2011 issue of Addiction Research and Theory) found that self-limiting features – in which the bettor determines a maximum amount of money to be bet – made problem gamblers bet less frequently but, in turn, increased the stakes of the bets placed. Bettors who scored high on problem gambling scales chased their losses by implementing a risk aversion strategy, placing high bets conservatively on short odds events (i.e., events with unbalanced contenders in which the outcome can more likely be determined beforehand but with a lower monetary return).

While there has been an increasing amount of research that has examined the influence of situational and structural characteristics in gambling (particularly in relation to slot machine gambling), the impact of such characteristics on online sports betting (at present) remains largely unknown.

(Please not that this article was co-written with Dr. Hibai Lopez-Gonzalez and Dr. Ana Estevez).

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

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

Griffiths, M.D. (1999). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(3), 265–283.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005). A biopsychosocial approach to addiction. Psyke & Logos, 26(1), 9–26.

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

LaBrie, R. & Shaffer, H.J. (2011). Identifying behavioral markers of disordered Internet sports gambling. Addiction Research & Theory, 19(1), 56–65.

LaPlante, D., Nelson, S.E. & Gray, H.M. (2014). Breadth and depth involvement: Understanding Internet gambling involvement and its relationship to gambling problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 396-403.

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

Leino, T., Torsheim, T., Blaszczynski, A., Griffiths, M.D., Mentzoni, R., Pallesen, S. & Molde, H. (2015). The relationship between structural characteristics and gambling behavior: A population based study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31, 1297-1315.

Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estevez, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Marketing and advertising online sports betting: A problem gambling perspective. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, in press.

Lopez-Gonzalez, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2016). Is European online gambling regulation adequately addressing in-play betting advertising? Gaming Law Review and Economics, 20, 495-503.

Lopez-Gonzalez, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Understanding the convergence of online sports betting markets. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, in press.

Lopez-Gonzalez, H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). ‘Cashing out’ in sports betting: Implications for problem gambling and regulation. Gaming Law Review and Economics, in press.

McCormack, A. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). A scoping study of the structural and situational characteristics of internet gambling., 3(1), 29–49.

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.

Making scents of the situation: Where is sensory marketing going in gambling?

It is well known that most marketing plans tend to appeal to just two senses – sight and hearing. However, this is slowly starting to change with more companies trying to appeal to more of our senses in the hope that it will help increase brand awareness and strengthen the impression a brand leaves on its clientele. Welcome to the world of sensory marketing!

Sensory marketing is all about bombarding all of our senses (touch, taste and smell, in addition to sound and vision) and activating them as much as possible. It is also about making the financial transaction (in whatever commercial market) a more complete rounded experience that draws you in to go out and seek more of that product. Like memories, sensory perceptions are unique to each of us and have the capacity to emotionally stimulate.

The opportunity of brand building by leveraging the five senses is wide open. Few companies have integrated their brand-building strategies to appeal to all the senses. This is because not all media channels are able to connect with each of the five senses, and we really don’t know how to handle the phenomenon of total sensory appeal. Over 80% of information is received visually but other senses offer new opportunities to engage the customer. Sensory marketeers believe the theory of exploiting the senses can be applied to all brands – including gambling. It is claimed that sensory marketing provides a competitive advantage and has the capacity to make the unfamiliar seem familiar and appealing.

Let’s take smell. Psychological research has shown that smell is probably the most impressionable and responsive of the five senses. Smells invoke memories and appeal directly to feelings without first being filtered and analyzed by the brain. We all recognize and are emotionally stimulated by a wide variety of smells such as the scent of freshly cut grass or the smell of new leather car seats.

Some commercial operators have already got the hang of sensory appeal. For instance, supermarkets bake bread on the premises that carries the aroma of fresh bread to the shop entrance. The strategy works. Passers-by are struck with hunger and drawn inside the shop. A major British bank introduced freshly brewed coffee to its branches with the intention of making customers feel at home. The familiar smell is used to help relax the customers. Other examples include a leading chain of toiletry stores who pumped the smell of chocolate through its air conditioning system in the run up to Valentine’s Day, and a well-known clothes shop who filled its flagship stores with the smell of freshly laundered shirts.

The direct use of smell in gambling environments has rarely been investigated experimentally. In one infamous experiment in a 1995 issue of Psychology and Marketing by A.R. Hirsh, the effect of ambient aromas on gambling behaviour was investigated. In a Las Vegas casino, the amount of money spent by punters in slot machine areas were sprayed with pleasant but distinct aromas were compared with control areas that were left unsprayed. The amounts of money gambled in the areas were compared for the weekend of the scent spraying, and for the weekends before and after. The study found that the amount of money gambled on the sprayed slot machines during the weekend of the experiment was significantly greater than the amount gambled in the same area during the weekends before and after the experiment. The increase was greatest on Saturday night when the concentration of the smell was at its highest. In short, pleasant smelling slot machines increased the casinos’ takings.

And let’s not forget hearing. Like smell, sound also evokes memory and emotion. Meaningful sound is a cheap but very effective way of appealing to another of a customer’s senses and of powerfully enhancing a brand’s message or appeal. A pop song from your adolescence can help bring back the excitement felt in your teens. Sound effects and noise in the gambling environment are very important in getting people to gamble. Sound effects – particularly in activities like slot machine playing – are thought to be gambling-inducers. Constant noise and sound gives the impression of a noisy, fun and exciting environment. Walk into any casino in Las Vegas and you will experience this. It is also common for slot machines to play a musical tune or buzz loudly if you win with low denomination coins hitting a metal pay out tray making lots of noise. This is all deliberate. It gives the impression that winning is far more common than losing (as you cannot hear the sound of losing!). So next time you are in a room full of 1000 slot machines, remember that the sound of 20 of them paying out is more audibly noticeable than the 980 machines that are losing money for the gambler.

There are many directions in which casinos and other gambling environments may go along the sensory marketing route. They could introduce their own brand aroma, their own sound, and a different quality of light that could set a mood in accordance with each type of gambling (setting up sensory landscapes). There are now the materials and the technology to take punters into a different sort of experience of their chosen gambling environment.

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

Further reading

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. (2009). Casino design: Understanding gaming floor influences on player behaviour. Casino and Gaming International, 5(1), 21-26.

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.

Hirsch, A.R. (1995). Effects of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las Vegas casino. Psychology-and-Marketing, 12, 585-594.

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.