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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M.D., Constantine, R. & Pigott, S. (2007). The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.

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

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

Assassin’s greed: An unorthodox way to treat gaming addiction

A couple of days ago, I was interviewed by BBC Online News for a story about a Chinese father (Mr. Feng) who hired ‘virtual assassins’ to hunt down his son in online video games and kill off his avatar as a way of trying to get his video game addicted son to stop playing online games. The story emanated from the Kotaku gaming website that reported:

“Feng’s 23 year-old son, ‘Xiao Feng’ started playing video games in high school. Through his years of playing various online games, he supposedly thought himself a master of Chinese online role playing games. According to his father, Xiao Feng had good grades in school, so they allowed him to play games; but when he couldn’t land a job they started looking into things. He, however, says he simply couldn’t find any work that he liked…Unhappy with his son not finding a job, Feng decided to hire players in his son’s favorite online games to hunt down Xiao Feng…Feng’s idea was that his son would get bored of playing games if he was killed every time he logged on, and that he would start putting more effort into getting a job…One thing’s for sure; Feng’s way of deterring his son from playing games might be one of the best ideas to come out of China recently, particularly as reactions to ‘gaming and internet addiction’ have been very extreme”.

My quotes from the story were reproduced in over 100 newspapers and website stories within a 48-hour period including the Daily Mail (UK), New York Daily News (US), Epoch Times (China), Times of India (India), Deccan Herald (India), Pakistan Today (Pakistan),  National Post (Canada), Kenya Daily Eye (Africa) and Expressen (Sweden). I was quoted as saying:

“It’s not going to do much for family relations. I‘ve never heard of that kind of intervention before, but I don’t think these top-down approaches work. Most excessive game playing is usually a symptom of an underlying problem. I’ve spent 25 years studying excessive video game playing. I’ve come across very excessive players – playing for 10 to 14 hours a day – but for a lot of these people it causes no detrimental problems if they are not employed, aren’t in relationships and don’t have children. It’s not the time you spend doing something, it’s the impact it has on your life.”

My quotes (somewhat paraphrased from a 15-minute interview) were based on my research examining the role of context in determining whether someone is addicted to online gaming (and which I discussed at length last year in a previous blog). To me, the core of the issue concerning video game addiction is the extent to which excessive gaming impacts detrimentally on someone’s life. If there are no negative consequences as a result of excessive gaming, I wouldn’t class it as an addiction. However, for me, the most interesting part of the story was the intervention by the man’s father in trying to wean his son off playing video games. I’m not convinced that the father’s approach would work in general (and I’m not convinced it worked in this individual case).

The issue of online gaming addiction is a hot issue in South East Asia, and the prevalence of problematic online gaming appears to be higher in countries such as China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, than in Europe and North America. In South East Asia, there is a growing concern in relation to the need to develop treatment programs for online computer game addiction. According to one report by the Korean government, 2.4% of its population was said to be addicted to video games. The report also indicated that mental health counselling bears a heavy stigma in Korea. In one case discussed in the report, the father of a child addicted to gaming refused to acknowledge his son had a problem for three months, even though he had borrowed substantial amounts of money from family members to support his addiction. Similar accounts have also appeared in China. Reports such as these indicate cultural concerns and differences.

China introduced an anti-online gaming system and a few clinics as a response to the growing problem of excessive playing of online games there. The system allows for three hours a day of gaming without penalties, but after three hours the values of items won in the game starts to decrease. After five hours of gaming per day no experience or benefits can be accrued. This system was clearly designed by those who know ‘how to hit players where it hurts’ so to speak. However, without further details of how the program operates, it is hard to evaluate whether this would work effectively given that people might be able to create multiple accounts (with characters in each account) to get round the blocking. Such a system will also require monitoring and evaluation, and would be much less effective in countries where the government allows a greater level of personal freedom.

Press reports indicate that China’s system to curtail excessive game playing only applies to adult gamers. However the Chinese solution was predictably unpopular with gamers and led to a mass exodus from one server to another server when first implemented. The Chinese system also includes: (i) the banning teenagers from cyber-cafes, (ii) limiting online gaming sessions, (iii) boot camps, (iv) psychological counselling, and (v) electrocution. There is little detailed information about the treatment technique utilized in these therapy centres. The ‘electrocution’ technique is apparently more akin to acupuncture, but it is still hard to see how that might help. It could be that it is a type of aversive therapy where they shock players whilst they are playing computer games – but this is entirely speculative on my part.

Finally, I am a great believer that the gaming addiction treatment should be fitted to the individual although some of my recent papers with my Australian colleagues Dr. Daniel King and Dr. Paul Delfabbro (at the University of Adelaide) have recommended cognitive-behavioural therapy (which I will look at in a future blog). The cognitive-behavioural model is both better researched (though with reference to different disorders), has tried and tested therapeutic techniques, and is underpinned by a verified psychological theory. However, further research is required to establish the therapeutic efficacy of all treatment programs directed at excessive gaming.

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

Further reading

Beranuy, M., Carbonell, X., & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). A qualitative analysis of online gaming addicts in treatment. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, DOI 10.1007/s11469-012-9405-2

Griffiths, M.D. (1997). Video games and clinical practice: Issues, uses and treatments. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 639-641.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Diagnosis and management of video game addiction. New Directions in Addiction Treatment and Prevention, 12, 27-41.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Online video gaming: What should educational psychologists know? Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(1), 35-40.

Griffiths, M.D., Kuss, D.J. & King, D.L. (2012). Video game addiction: Past, present and future. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8, 308-318.

Griffiths, M.D. & Meredith, A. (2009). Videogame addiction and treatment. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 39(4), 47-53.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H., Griffiths, M.D. & Gradisar, M. (2011). Assessing clinical trials of Internet addiction treatment: A systematic review and CONSORT evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1110-1116.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H., Griffiths, M.D. & Gradisar, M. (2012). Cognitive-behavioural approaches to outpatient treatment of Internet addiction in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 68, 1185-1195.

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). Online gaming addiction: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 278-296.

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

Trivial pursuits: Can playing pub quiz machines be addictive?

This morning I appeared on BBC radio talking about excessive playing of trivia (quiz) machines because there is a story in today’s Daily Mail about a man (Christian Drummond) who claims he makes £60,000 a year from playing pub quiz machines. In the UK, trivia machines are a type of ‘Skill With Prize’ (SWP) machine where cash payouts (the prize) depends (at least in part) on the player’s skill. I certainly spent far too much of my student grant playing the snooker general knowledge SWP game Give Us A Break in the university bar. Quiz machines are the most common form of SWP machine and are known to be very profitable for operators. A Wikipedia entry on SWP machines notes that the SWP game Barber Cut was advertised as “more addicting than any other prize redemption game, and those repeat-plays will land right in your cash box!”.

Here’s a little background for those who are still not sure what I am talking about. SWP trivia machines usually have a pre-programmed set of ‘general knowledge’ questions. The machine game is activated after the insertion of money (now typically 50p or £1, although it used to be 10p-20p when I was a regular player). On answering a pre-determined number of multiple-choice questions correctly, successful players can win money (the most I ever remember winning was £5). In some cases, successful players may also be rewarded with free plays on the machine and/or with the added bonus on some games of being able to record names and high scores electronically on the game’s ‘hall of fame’ (something that I never achieved in all the times I ever played). I still occasionally play (my most recent session losing about £10 playing a Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? trivia game).

On a purely personal level, I love trivia, and it appears that I am not the only one. I came across an online article outlining the top ten “modern human addictions” and was surprised that ‘trivia’ was at No.7. As the article noted:

“Most of us love to learn and understand things, but how often do we absorb tiny little bits of inconsequential trivia? More often than you may think! TV advertisements and billboards coax us with facts and figures, magazines deliver tantalizing tit-bits of scandal and gossip, and the internet fills our minds with thousands of facts…The world is full of trivia. A trivia addict is often someone who’s main pleasure in life is to memorize random facts and spout them off to onlookers in an attempt to make themselves look good, and who often dreams of winning the pub quiz or a game show for a huge cash prize. Trivia buffs often wallow in small-talk, gossip, and rumor and sometimes aggrandize subjects the rest of us care little about”.

On a more academic footing, I wrote briefly about SWPs in both of my first two books (Adolescent Gambling, 1995; Gambling and Gaming Addiction in Adolescence, 2002) and noted that there was some anecdotal evidence of problematic and potentially addictive play. In my first book I also introduced the concept of ‘technological addictions’. I wrote that:

“My own operational definition is that [technological addictions] are non-chemical (behavioural) addictions which involve human-machine interaction. They can either be passive (e.g. television) or active (e.g. computer games) and usually contain inducing and reinforcing features which may contribute to the promotion of addictive tendencies. The category of technological addictions is not mutually exclusive and contains addictive activities that could be located under other kinds of addiction…There is little in the way of academic literature on technological addictions but possible activities that could be included under this category are television addiction, computer addiction (e.g. hacking, programming), video and computer game addiction, fruit machine addiction, pinball addiction, trivia machine addiction, telephone sex addiction and in the (near?) future, virtual reality addiction”.

Basically, I said that it was theoretically possible to become addicted to playing SWP machines, but had yet to come across any empirical evidence that such an addiction genuinely existed. And that’s still the case as far as I am concerned. I am still unaware of any empirical research study examining SWP addiction and problematic play (excluding video game addiction and a case study I published on pinball addiction back in a 1993 issue of Psychological Reports). Having said that, it’s not hard to see the psychological attraction of playing and how excessive playing develops. Like playing slot machines and video games, SWP machines utilize operant conditioning techniques, provide ‘near miss’ experiences, are deceptively inexpensive, simple to play, challenging, competitive, and excellent at modifying mood states. The rewards can be social, financial, psychological, and physiological. All in all, they contain many of the psychological ingredients that can be utilized in the addiction process.

I’ve searched online for any self-confessed accounts of SWP addiction but have found little. Here are a few quotes suggesting that for a tiny minority, SWP playing might be potentially problematic:

• Extract 1: “I think I might be slightly addicted to these quiz machines. At risk of sounding melodramatic, and to paraphrase the film ‘Fight Club’, after playing a quiz machine, the volume of the rest of life is turned down. Once you’ve played a few times, you no longer feel alive unless you’re playing a quiz machine. All you can see in front of you is victory; the massive debts that are mounting up are hidden behind a veil of aspiration and false hope. I seem to pour in pound after pound in the vague hope of one-upping a computer-controlled device with a fixed payout rate that will control the difficulty accordingly. My struggle transcends any monetary gain from playing these stupid quiz games and it becomes about winning”
• Extract 2: “I’m from England, and a massive fad of us legal to drink teenagers is to waste our money on these ‘Pub Quiz’ machines, to a stupid point of having no money at all left. The only problem is that the pub always closes at some point, and I need to feed my addiction for the games on them”
• Extract 3: “It’s official. I have a new addiction. It has descended upon me in the form of a game. A quiz machine game. And it goes by the name ELIMINATOR! It’s not just any game though. It is the most compulsively obsessive thing I have ever seen in my entire life”

Since November 1st 2010, all SWP machines in the UK must conform to strict guidelines by both the Gambling Commission and BACTA (British Amusement and Catering Trade Association). As the Wikipedia entry in SWP machines notes:

“These guidelines say that there must be NO element of chance within the game that can affect the outcome. There are also limits set on the level of skill needed to play, for example there must be a minimum amount of time for a player to react to the game. This is so that manufacturers and operators can’t be accused of setting ridiculous skill levels that aren’t physically possible…While SWP machines are generally not intended to be winnable by skilled players – otherwise such a player could continue to play and win and causes losses to the operator – it is sometimes possible that player skill, or using the machine in a way not anticipated by the manufacturer, can result in the game becoming winnable. This may result in service updates by the manufacturer to close the exploit”.

As I have noted in many of my academic writings, one of the key trends in the gaming world is convergence. The convergence between gambling and SWP machines means that the British Gambling Commission are frequently asked whether particular skill with prize machines are gambling machines. Their response is always to say that: “the answer to that question depends upon whether any of the games offered on the machine amount to ‘gaming’ as defined in…the Gambling Act” (which is a whole new blog in itself).

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

Further reading

Gambling Act (2010). Is a prize machine a gambling machine? Birmingham: Gambling Commission.

Griffiths, M.D. (1991). Amusement machine playing in childhood and adolescence: A comparative analysis of video games and fruit machines. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 53-73.

Griffiths, M.D. (1992). Pinball wizard: A case study of a pinball addict. Psychological Reports, 71, 160-162.

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Technological addictions. Clinical Psychology Forum, 76, 14-19.

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Adolescent Gambling. London: Routledge.

Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence. Leicester: British Psychological Society/Blackwells.

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

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

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.

Lifeschool (2009). Top 10 modern addictions. Listverse, October 15. Located at: http://listverse.com/2009/10/15/top-10-modern-human-addictions/

Wikipedia (2012). Skill with prize. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill_With_Prize

Character building: Can the buying of virtual assets be addictive?

The potentially addicting nature of online gaming has been well documented over the last decade by many researchers (including many papers from my own research unit). One of the unforeseen consequences of the online gaming revolution is the (sometimes seemingly extraordinary) demand for virtual within-game assets (such as the buying of clothing, cosmetic items, and other accessories for online characters). Given the increase of companies whose only products are virtual gaming accessories, there is clear evidence for the growing demand by online gamers for such virtual assets. (In fact, a story published online reviewed the case of a Chinese woman who in her divorce case demanded a share of the couple’s virtual assets from their gaming).

From a personal perspective, I can see the attraction of having a personalized avatar. When I first bought a Wii console for my children, we spent hours creating our in-game characters (mine was quite easy for my kids to create as almost any Wii character with dark hair, beard, moustache, and glasses looks vaguely like me). I prefer playing Wii tennis and other sports with my own avatar. I also know that from my own psychological research into Facebook use, that users on social networking sites will spend real money to buy virtual assets for games like Farmville, as well as using real money to buy virtual currency to play games like poker (for points).

Over the weekend, I was sent an online article published by Priyanka Singh on the MMOBUX website about someone who claimed they were becoming addicted to the buying of virtual assets for the game he was playing online (MapleStory, a 2-D fantasy multiplayer online role playing game where progress in the game is determined by the successful playing of a series of quests). The article provided a first person account written by a female adolescent (presumably in her middle to late teens) about her increasing buying behaviour at a virtual ‘Item Mall’. According to the anonymous person who wrote the account provided by Singh:

“An Item Mall is a dangerous place for players who demand more from the game. Instead of focusing their efforts on the task at hand, players usually turn to the Item Mall to spend real world money in it. It is a trend which continues to happen now, across every MMO which can be labeled an obsession. [An Item Mall] is a place that host items which cannot be purchased directly through vendors. So much so…[that] purchasing cosmetic items in the Item Mall using real world money [can] transform into a deadly, yet uncontrollable obsession”

In 2006 the young woman in question started to play MapleStory. It was while playing the game that she started to notice the bespoke outfits worn by other characters playing the game. She then discovered that MapleStory had its own Item Mall where players could buy (among other things) character outfits, pets, pet accessories, weapons, etc. It was at the Item Mall that the player first bought a $30 (Canadian) game card (that was converted into 20,000 Nexon points) that can only be spent on virtual items for use in the MapleStory online game. She only bought a few of the available items but all of the Nexon points were spent. It was over a fairly short period of time that the gamer noticed she was spending more time in the Item Mall than playing the game itself. As she noted:

“I’d be entering the Item Mall more often to look at the new cosmetic items posted for purchase. Eventually I caved in and bought more items which included a staff, a cat and accessories. Needless to say the idea of buying virtual items was appealing to me. Through my purchases, I was constantly reminded these items lasted only 60 days until they expire. Regardless of the reminders, I continued to purchase more items until the point it became a direct obsession and a habit which couldn’t be mended easily”.

She browsed in the Item Mall for longer and longer periods and would mix and match clothing and accessories for her avatar. Spending $100 (Canadian) was not uncommon, and the buying of the virtual assets “became second nature” to the point where she spent more time in the Item Mall than playing and going on quests in MapleStory. The spending of money on virtual assets at the item Mall (that he couldn’t afford) went on for half a year, and led to a number of negative consequences:

“My grades dropped [and] I was placed on probation for the semester. Of course, in addition to failing my subjects, the tension at home intensified. I was banned from the laptop. Taking matters into my own hands, I stopped myself from playing MapleStory for a week but it was unbearable. Once I gained access back into the game, I immediately headed for the Item Mall and purchased new items. After a month or so, I began to realize what I was becoming – an Item Mall addict. By that point I realized this got a little too out of hand and I uninstalled the game before the damage was permanent”.

Such consequences certainly look like the negative detrimental effects that I have encountered in other behavioural addictions such as gambling addiction. The excessive behaviour (or simply spending much more than could be afforded) led to a negative impact on her education. When he tried to stop, it became “unbearable” (presumably because of the withdrawal effects of mot being able to log into the Item Mall). After a week she relapsed and logged on and bought more virtual assets for her online gaming character. By her own admission, she realized he might be becoming an ‘Item Mall addict’. She also provided a more reflective outlook on her past behaviour when in the Item Mall:

“Now when I look back at my behavior, it was unacceptable. Although I can understand and sympathize why buying virtual items was addicting; [my] character was dressed up in the most fashionable threads or holding a bad-ass weapons others couldn’t afford. It gives you a sense of ‘uniqueness’ if it can be called that. I’m glad I quit the game before it couldn’t be controlled. It was money wasted when placed into perspective. Though I was lucky (in a way) I had own my own credit card and I didn’t use my parents’ card for the purchases. In conclusion, buying virtual items is a waste of money and time. Most of if not all virtual items contain an expiry date after which the item disappears from your inventory…I was lucky I wasn’t a complete addict but I was close to being one”.

My own take on this is that because the virtual items are (in effect) ‘rented’ (as the items bought ‘expire’ after six months), it is almost a licence to print money for the company selling the virtual assets. I have no idea if the gamer that wrote the account of her Item Mall behaviour was a genuine obsession or addiction, but it was certainly a behaviour that was problematic and impacted negatively on her life. Spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on virtual assets is not sustainable for most adolescents and is likely to lead to problems (irrespective of whether the behaviour can be defined as genuinely ‘addictive”). This is certainly an area where empirical research is needed as the buying of virtual assets is – for some gamers – likely to become a major part of how they spend their disposable income. This anecdotal case study also raises questions of whether the excessive spending of money on virtual assets for game characters is more of a female (than male) behaviour.

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

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Online video gaming: What should educational psychologists know? Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(1), 35-40.

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

Griffiths, M.D., Kuss, D.J. & King, D.L. (2012). Video game addiction: Past, present and future. Current Psychiatry Reviews, in press.

Hyped Talk (2010). Virtually addicted Chinese woman claims virtual assets in her divorce plea. http://hypedtalk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/virtually-addicted-chinese-women-claims.html

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., Griffiths, M.D. & Gradisar, M. (2012). Cognitive-behavioural approaches to outpatient treatment of Internet addiction in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 68, 1185-1195.

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.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Excessive online social networking: Can adolescents become addicted to Facebook? Education and Health, 29. 63-66.

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.

Singh, P. (2012). Maple Story Item Mall Addiction (A Virtual Asset Case Study). MMOBUX, October 12. Located at: http://www.mmobux.com/articles/3870/maple-story-item-mall-addiction-a-virtual-asset-case-study

For bidding, plan it: Can online auctions [like e-Bay] be addictive?

Back in 2007, a number of psychologists including Dr. Kimberly Young (Center for Internet Addiction Recovery, Pennsylvania, US), and myself were interviewed for a BBC news article about whether it was possible to become addicted to the online auction site eBay. In the article, Dr Young said she was seeing increasing numbers of people who were developing a problem concerning their eBay use. Dr Young claimed it was not the item bidded for on eBay itself that provided the “addictive buzz” but the excitement of bidding against others for it, and winning. She was quoted as saying that:

“eBay addicts will be there for the last few minutes of an online auction ready to outbid and bag the prize – ‘snipers’ as they are called in eBay circles. It gets more serious when eBay addicts feel a sense of accomplishment when they are the highest bidder and begin to bid on items they don’t need. Most people with eBay addiction] have financial and relationship problems. Some people come [for treatment] because they have been fired from work – doing eBay at work is not permitted, so they seek therapy after something like this happens. One woman was in debt by $400,000 and took a second mortgage out on her home and all the money from her retirement account. Her husband was furious when he found out. It does get pretty bad, with the lies to sustain the behaviour”

In an earlier 2004 paper on internet addiction published in American Behavioral Scientist, Dr. Young mentioned online auction [eBay] addiction in passing but presented no empirical evidence of its existence. The same observation was also made in a later 2009 paper by Dr. Tonino Cantelmi, and Dr. Massimo Talls in the Journal of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation (but again in the absence empirical evidence).

So can eBay really be addictive? All addictions rely on being rewarded in some way. Sometimes the rewards are financial (you win money), social (you get praised for your behaviour), physical (you get a buzz when you do the activity) and/or psychological (the activity raises your self-esteem). As I noted in a previous blog on internet addiction, people can develop addictions to the Internet (such as chat room addictions) and have addictions on the Internet (such as online gambling addictions, online gaming addictions, online shopping addictions). In many cases, the Internet provides an easily accessible and convenient medium that people can engage in their favourite behaviour (such as looking for online pornography or playing online computer games). In a small number of cases this may become addictive.

So what about eBay addiction? Most of the cases I have come across are from press and/or non-peer reviewed reports. Dr. Kimberley Young wrote briefly about a female eBay addict (called ‘Chris’) in an unpublished paper entitled ‘Subtypes of internet addiction’ available from her website (although to be honest there was no real detail provided). In another case (reported in the popular press), a 25-year old female estate agent, Charlotte Mahoney was featured as an eBay addict in an article in The Sun. In a seven-month period she spent £5000. In her newspaper interview, Mahoney said:

“Everybody was talking about [eBay], so I logged on for a look and couldn’t believe it when I saw loads of brand new designer items up for sale. When my bid for a gorgeous Dior T-shirt was accepted I was over the moon. The second buzz came when the parcel arrived. I would bid obsessively until I got something. It was so easy but also exciting because you knew you were getting a bargain. My card details were already online so it didn’t even feel like I was really spending. In fact I avoided buying anything that required payment by cheque, because it made me feel guilty. Once I spent more than £800 in a single weekend. The fantastic feeling I got when the postman arrived with all those parcels made it worth it. Subconsciously, I must have known it was getting out of hand because I arranged for all my parcels to be sent to work just so I could smuggle them home past my boyfriend. When I finally worked out that I had spent £5,500 since last December, I felt sick. [eBay] can be dangerously addictive”.

On the face of it, there are certainly some things in this account that are suggestive of addiction but there is just not enough detail to make an informed judgment. Dr Richard Wood, one of my good friends and research colleagues was also interviewed for the BBC on eBay addiction and was reported as saying:

“The label ‘addiction’ is being over used and incorrectly applied. There is no such diagnosis as “eBay” addiction that has been incorporated into any respectable criteria. Instead people like Dr Young are adapting the criteria for substance abuse and/or pathological gambling. Of course, some people will do all kinds of activities too much if they are distracting enough to allow them to escape from their reality. I would argue that these are not bona-fide cases of addiction unless the activity itself has severe negative consequences, that the experience itself is the main driver of their behaviour, and that it affects enough people that it can be considered problematic in and of itself. eBay does not fit into that category. Furthermore, by over applying the addiction label we are in danger of both unduly scaring the public and trivializing the negative impacts of genuine addiction cases”

Empirical research into eBay addiction (and online auction addiction more generally) has begun to occur.  For instance, a 2007 paper by Dr. Cara Peters and Dr. Charles Bodkin in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services examined problematic behaviour among online auction users. They explored (i) which consumer behaviours could be construed as problematic and potentially addictive, (ii) which of these behaviours generally reflect the core components of addiction, and (iii) and what the implications are for online auction retailers, managers, and society. Using qualitative methods, the authors identified four key themes related to eBay addiction among their small number of participants: (i) psychological distress, (ii) habitual usage, (iii) negative consequences, and (iv) dependence, withdrawal and self-regulation.

A 2008 paper by Chih-Chien Wang in the Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference examined the influence of harmonious passion and obsessive passion on online auction behaviour and online auction addiction on 322 individuals. It also investigated whether people exhibiting compulsive buying behaviour had spent more time on online auction web sites. They found that people with obsessive passion were more addicted to online auctions than those with harmonious passion, and that people with higher compulsive buying behaviour spent more time on online auctions.

Finally, a 2011 study carried out by Dr. Ofir Turel and colleagues published in the MIS Quarerly also explored online auction addiction. They reported their findings from two empirical studies of 132 and 223 eBay users (using three different operationalizations of addiction). I have to admit that I found it hard to understand what their study actually showed. They carried out various factor analyses and showed that some key factors explained significant amounts of the variance but didn’t give any insight into what these main factors were tapping into. In their own words, their results indicated that:

“The level of online auction addiction distorts the way the IT artifact is perceived. Informing a range of cognition-modification processes, addiction to online auctions augments user perceptions of enjoyment, usefulness, and ease of use attributed to the technology, which in turn influence usage intentions. Overall, consistent with behavioral addiction models, the findings indicate that users’ levels of online auction addiction influence their reasoned IT usage decisions by altering users’ belief systems. The formation of maladaptive perceptions is driven by a combination of memory-, learning-, and bias-based cognition modification processes”.

The empirical evidence on eBay addiction to date is somewhat sketchy. In the article in The Sun newspaper (mentioned above), I was asked to provide an outline of possible ‘danger signs’ that point to an unhealthy interest in eBay. If eBay addiction existed, I wrote that I would expect to see the following:

• e-Bay becomes the most important thing in the person’s life and they are totally preoccupied thinking about being on e-Bay.
• The person has built up the amount of time they have spent on e-Bay to the point where it is significantly impacting on other important activities (and preferring to engage in eBay use over other activities).
• The person experiences withdrawal symptoms when they are not on e-Bay (e.g., moodiness and irritability, anxiety, difficulty in concentrating, sweaty palms etc.).
• The person uses e-Bay as a way of modifying their mood. They either use e-Bay to get aroused (to get a buzz or a high) or they use it to tranquilize themselves (to escape or de-stress)
• The person’s e-Bay use compromises everything else in their life and affects their job, outside hobbies/interests, and relationships with partner, children, and/or friends.

I was also asked to speculate on why e-Bay might be addictive. Based on the anecdotal press and unpublished academic reports, I wrote that e-Bay use would appear to take over a very tiny minority of people’s lives. These people appear to spend vast amounts of time online in the hope of getting bargains and/or making money. Because there is a financial consequence, it would appear that many of the addictive effects and/or consequences are similar to addictive gambling. Getting a great bargain is like winning – and people want to do it again as quickly as possible. Putting an item up for sale and hardly breaking even is like losing. To eliminate the negative feelings, a person goes back onto e-Bay in the hope of feeling good again. This for some individuals may become an addictive cycle and may be a hard habit to break.

It may take some time (if ever) before online auction addiction is accepted as a genuine addiction. However, I do believe it is theoretically possible to become addicted even if the evidence at present doesn’t stand up to in-depth scrutiny.

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

Further reading

Black, G.S. (2007). A comparison of the characteristics of eBay consumers and eBay nonconsumers. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(1), 16-29.

Cantelmi, T & Talls, M. (2009). Trapped in the web: The psychopathology of cyberspace. Journal of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation, 2, 337-350.

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Technological addictions. Clinical Psychology Forum, 76, 14-19.

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. (2000). Internet addiction – Time to be taken seriously? Addiction Research, 8, 413-418.

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

Peters, C.  & Bodkin, C.D. (2007). An exploratory investigation of problematic online auction behaviors: Experiences of eBay users. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(1), 1-16.

Soteriou, H. (2007). Can you be addicted to eBay? BBC News, July 2. Located at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6519521.stm

Turel, O., Serenko, A. & Giles, P. (2011). Integrating technology addiction and use: An empirical investigation of online auction users. MIS Quarterly, 35, 1043-1061.

Wang, C-C. (2008). The influence of passion and compulsive buying on online auction addiction. Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference (pp. 1187 – 1192). IEEE.

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. (2006). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? (Revisited). In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Applications (2^nd Edition), pp.141-163. New York: Academic Press.

Young, K. (undated). Subtypes of internet addiction. Unpublished manuscript (available at netaddiction.com)

Yong, K. (2006). What is eBay addiction, compulsive online gambling, and other types of Internet addiction? Located at: http://www.netaddiction.com/net_compulsions.htm

Young, K. S. (2004). Internet addiction: A new clinical phenomenon and its consequences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 402–415.

Blog eat blog: Can blogging be addictive?

Unless you are one of my followers on Twitter, you probably have no idea that yesterday’s blog was the hundredth one I had published since I began my blog at the end of November 2011. I try to post a blog on every week day and the only time that I have not done this is when I don’t have internet access while on my travels or when I am on holiday. I’ve had a few emails asking how I manage to blog so frequently and/or whether I am “addicted to blogging”!! In honour of my century of blogs, I thought I would use today’s blog as an excuse to take a (not so-serious) look at blogging addiction.

As a psychologist there seems to be a predictable set of questions that I am asked by people when they first meet me. Things like “Oh God, you’re not analyzing me are you?”, “It’s all common sense isn’t it?” and “What’s my body language saying then?” spring to mind. However, for those that know me, my passion for publication, and my love of appearing in the media, I now seem to receive a set of predictable questions that other psychologists tend to ask me at conferences. These consist of variations on a theme: “Would you describe yourself as a ’writaholic’?”, “Are you a publicity junkie?”, “Have you written more papers than you’ve read?” and “Are you addicted to writing/appearing in the media?”. I’m sure you get the general picture.

I ought to say that I really don’t think I am addicted to writing and/or appearing in the media but can I really be sure? If you are a regular reader of my blog you will only be too aware that my specialist research interest is behavioural addiction. I talk about addiction all the time (to my students, to my colleagues, to my friends, to the media, and on this blog). I like to write or appear in the media as much as I can. I keep a detailed diary and I seem to be at my word processor or on the telephone to journalists a disproportionate amount of time. I write about writing. I write articles on productive writing. The fact that I’m writing this blog on this topic tells you something. Therefore what follows is a little bit of light-hearted self-analysis.

To begin with, I have asked myself the following questions. When did I first get into print? When did I first appear in the media? What is it about these activities that could be addictive? What are the rewards? Why don’t other people seem to get sucked in the way that I do? Well there’s no doubt that seeing your name in print can give you a little buzz. The first time I can remember seeing my name in print was when I was nine years old and I had a poem published in a poetry magazine called Cornucopia (a very alliterative poem entitled “Kung-Fu Karate Kim”. I kid you not!). I also remember seeing my name and photograph in the local newspaper which (at the young age of eight years old) also gave me a big buzz (although I don’t think I had ever heard of the word “buzz” at that tender age). My first proper radio appearance was at the age of 10 years old on a BBC Radio Leicester programme called Conkers (I was there to talk about a county Road Safety competition I had won). As early adolescence kicked in, I didn’t care about smoking, drinking, playing slot machines or the opposite sex. I wanted to do things that would get me into print.

So there you have the roots of my possible addictive tendencies towards seeing my name in print. I suppose it also partially explains why I like doing so much media work whether it be TV, radio or the press. I love writing. I write a diary. I write poetry. I write songs. I write academic papers. I write fiction. I write letters. I write, write, write. There is no doubt that I now require something special to give me a big buzz like getting a book published or seeing an article I’ve written in a top quality journal or a wide circulation publication. I find it quite amazing that someone like Sigmund Freud never had a thing published until he was 39 years old. There’s hope for me yet.

It may come as a surprise but some people (including a small percentage of academics) may be addicted to writing. Those who have an “ink problem” undertake ritualistic behaviour engaging in the activity and experience intense “highs” on the acceptance of an article or seeing the article finally in print. Tolerance occurs quickly with writers having to write longer and longer articles or books to get intense “highs” (a stage at which the writing is well and truly “booked”). Irritability and withdrawal effects are experienced when they (a) get an article rejected, (b) go more than a few weeks without getting anything published, (c) run out of ideas to write about (many writers fear developing a “think problem” and some may even resort to “clue sniffing” for inspiration) or (d) are on holiday without access to a word processor. This last problem can sometimes be avoided by carrying a writing implement. Anecdotal evidence suggests such addicts show cross-tolerance to pencils and biros but not to crayons.

So here I am writing the ending to another a blog that I know will be published. Admittedly not the best blog I’ve ever written but one that will help me feel as though I’ve been at least a little bit productive today. Some might say it’s been therapeutic. I’m certainly not the only blogger to consider the issue of ‘blogging addiction’. Check out the links below if you don’t believe me!

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

Further reading

Flodner (2012). Guest blogging addiction. February 27. Located at: http://flodner.com/guest-blogging-addiction/

Mitchell, J. (2008). Blogging: Addiction or conviction? Blogcritics Culture, October 2. Located ar: http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/blogging-addiction-or-conviction/

Online quiz: How addicted to blogging are you? Located at: http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/blog_addiction

Salkin, L. (2011). Why blogging is addictive. Blazing Minds, February 28. Located at: http://blazingminds.co.uk/blogging-addictive/

Vahni (2010). Are you addicted to blogging? Independent Fashion Bloggers, November 19. Located at: http://heartifb.com/2010/11/19/are-you-addicted-to-blogging/

Network premiere: Can Facebook be addictive?

Back in 1995, I published a paper entitled ‘Technological Addictions” that (as far as I am aware) was the first ever paper published using the term to encompass a wide range of activities that involved the potentially addictive use of technology. In that paper, I mainly made reference to slot machine addiction, video game addiction and television addiction (with a cursory mention of internet addiction thrown in for good measure). I never would have predicted that years later I would be writing on topics such as “social networking addiction”.

This month sees the publication of a new scale in the journal Psychological Reports that measures “Facebook Addiction”. The scale was led by a good research colleague of mine (Dr. Cecilie Andraessen at the University of Bergen, Norway) who I have have recently been working with on some research into other behavioural addictions (e.g., workaholism, shopaholism).

The measure has been named the ‘Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale’ (BFAS). The scale initially comprised a pool of 18 items, three reflecting each of the six core elements of addiction (salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse) that I overviewed in my very first blog. The scale was constructed and administered to 423 students together with several other standardized self-report scales (e.g., including various measures that assess personality and sociability characteristics, attitudes towards Facebook, the Addictive Tendencies Scale and questions about sleep). The items within each of the six addiction elements with the highest correlation were retained in the final scale. Scores on the BFAS converged with scores for other scales of Facebook activity. The scale was also shown to positively relate to various personality traits (e.g., neuroticism, extraversion), and negatively related to others (e.g., conscientiousness). High scores on the new scale were also associated with going to bed very late and getting up very late.

While I have no problem with the paper by Dr. Andraessen and her colleagues, I believe there are a number of wider issues that require further consideration and comment. As a consequence, I wrote a response to their paper published in the same issue of Psychological Reports – not so much a critique of the paper but a commentary on the field of those working in the area of ‘Facebook addiction’.

Over the last five years, the field of research into online social networking has developed rapidly (there is even a journal – Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking – that publishes papers dedicated to the topic). As with the introduction of other new technological phenomena and activities, research papers examining excessive, problematic, and/or addictive use of such new technological phenomena typically tend to follow. My research colleague (Daria Kuss, Nottingham Trent University, UK) and I recently wrote a comprehensive literature review on ‘social networking addiction’ and we have also published a number of articles examining particular sub-groups use of social networking sites (such as teenagers).

The development of the BFAS is most likely a proactive response to the fact that researchers studying problematic Facebook use currently have no psychometrically validated tool. On this level, the new BFAS is clearly of use to those in the field. However, there are a number of key issues that must be addressed for the ‘Facebook addiction’ field to move forward. These are the things that I have commented on in my new paper responding to the publication of the BFAS.

Firstly, I argued that from the spate of academic papers that have appeared over the last five years that Facebook has become almost synonymous with social networking. However, I made the point that researchers need to remember that Facebook is just one of many websites where social networking can take place. Therefore, the BFAS has been developed relating to addiction to one particular commercial company’s service (i.e., Facebook) rather than the whole activity itself (i.e., social networking).

Secondly, I argued that the real issue concerns what people on social networks are actually addicted to and what a Facebook Addiction Scale actually measures. These arguments are almost identical to those I have made in relation to Internet addiction and mobile phone addiction. I am the first to admit that Facebook is the biggest site for social networking activity in the world but there are other sizeable ones but which cater for a different demographic (e.g., Bebo, is a social networking site primarily used by young teenagers). Therefore, the new scale may only be relevant and/or applicable to people that are socially networking of the Facebook website.

Thirdly, I argued that although Facebook was originally set up to facilitate social contact between individuals, it is now a site on which people can do so much more than just communicate with other people. For instance, Facebook users can play games like Farmville, can gamble on games like poker, can watch videos and films, and can engage in activities such as swapping photos or constantly updating their profile and/or messaging friends on every minutiae of their life. In short – and just like the term ‘Internet addiction’ – ‘Facebook addiction’ as a term may already be obsolete because there are many activities that a person can engage in on the medium. Therefore, ‘Facebook addiction’ is not synonymous with ‘social networking addiction’ – they are two fundamentally different things as Facebook has become a specific website where many different online activities can take place.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a fundamental difference between addictions on the Internet and addictions to the Internet. The same argument now holds true for Facebook as well as activities such as mobile phone use. What this suggests is that the field needs a psychometrically validated scale that specifically assesses ‘social networking addiction’ rather than Facebook use. In the new scale, social networking as an activity is not mentioned, therefore the scale does not differentiate between someone addicted to Farmville or someone addicted to constantly messaging their Facebook friends.

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

Further reading 

Andraessen, C.S., Tosheim, T., Brunberg, G.S., & Pallesen, S. (2011). Development of a Facebook Addiction Scale. Psychological Reports, 110, 501-517.

Choliz, M. (2010). Mobile phone addiction: A point of issue. Addiction, 105, 373-374.

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Technological addictions. Clinical Psychology Forum, 76, 14-19.

Griffiths, M.D. (1999). Internet addiction: Internet fuels other addictions. Student British Medical Journal, 7, 428-429.

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

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

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Facebook addiction: Concerns, criticisms and recommendations. Psychological Reports, 110, 2, 518-520.

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

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.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Addiction to social networks on the internet: A literature review of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environment and Public Health, 8, 3528-3552.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Excessive online social networking: Can adolescents become addicted to Facebook? Education and Health, 29. 63-66.

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

Are Twitter and Facebook more ‘addictive’ than nicotine and alcohol?

Last week I was asked by the British media to comment on the story suggesting that using Twitter and Facebook were more addictive than activities like smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Once again this was a classic example of the media – for instance the Daily Telegraph – going beyond the data and not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

Before being interviewed for a radio programme, I had read the newspaper reports about the research but these didn’t seem to tell me very much. I wanted to know the aims of the research, the method that had been used to collect the data, and I wanted to know how the researchers had reported their results and what conclusions they had reached. The research was carried out by psychologists Dr Wilhelm Hofmann (University of Chicago), Dr Kathleen Vohs (University of Minnesota), and Dr Roy Baumeister (Florida State University). I emailed Dr Hofmann and told him that I wanted to write about his study in my blog. He immediately sent me a copy of the paper and a very helpful ‘media summary’. So what was the researchers’ aim and what did they actually do?

The first thing to note was that the research was not about addiction but about desire and temptation. The researchers point out that little is known about what types of urges are felt strongly (or only weakly), which urges conflict with other important things that we should be doing, and the extent to which urges can be resisted. The primary aim of the research team was to compare the various desires and the extent to which they are resisted in people’s day-to-day lives. The researchers used an innovative methodology to assess the frequency, intensity, conflict, resistance, and enactment of peoples’ desires.

The data were collected from 205 people (although interestingly, this turned into 250 in many of the press reports I read). They were aged 18 to 55 years and all living in (and around) Würzburg (in Germany). Two-thirds of the participants were female (66%) and three-quarters of the total sample were university students (73%). All of the people taking part in the study were provided with a handheld Blackberry device and carried it around with them for a one-week period. Each day, they were sent seven messages over a 14-hour period asking them for specific data relating to desires and urges. All those taking part were given a small financial incentive at the start the study and were given additional financial incentives if they completed data entry for more than 80% of the messages sent by the research team. On average, over 90% of messages sent by the research team resulted in data being sent back (so there was an excellent response rate).

After each message was sent, those taking part in the study had to indicate whether they were currently experiencing a desire (explained as a craving, urge, or longing to do certain things) or whether (in the previous half an hour) they had just experienced a desire. If they had a desire, they then had to indicate what kind of desire from a list of 15 domains (i.e., food, non-alcoholic drinks, alcohol, coffee, tobacco, other substances, sexual, media, spending, work, social, leisure, sleep, hygiene-related, or other). Additionally, they had to indicate:

(i) The strength of the desire on a scale from ‘0’ (no desire at all) to ‘ (irresistible)

(ii) The degree to which the desire conflicted with other personal goals on a scale from 0 (no conflict at all) to 4 (very high conflict)

(iii) The nature of the conflicting goals from a list of 20 options (such as sleep conflict, social conflict, work conflict, etc.) and whether they attempted to resist the desire (yes or no), and whether they yielded to the behaviour implied by the desire at least to some extent (yes or no).

Up to three desires could be reported any given measurement occasion. In total there were 10,558 responses and a total of 7,827 desires reported during the one-week period. So what did the results show? The main finding – perhaps unsurprisingly – was that the most frequently described desires related to basic bodily needs (e.g., eating, drinking, and sleeping). More specifically, the researchers reported significantly above-average desires for sleep, sex, hygiene (e.g., needing to go to the toilet), sports participation, social contact, and non-alcoholic drinks. The lowest average desire strength were for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes (and is where the sensationalist headlines came from).

The study also noted that the participants’ desires to work and use media (e.g., Twitter and Facebook) were especially prone to yielding to their urges. However, the authors rightly note that “resisting the desire to work when it conflicts with other goals such as socializing or leisure activities may be difficult because work can define people’s identities, dictate many aspects of daily life, and invoke penalties if important duties are shirked”. They also speculate that checking emails, surfing the web, texting, and/or watching television might be hard to resist in light of the constant availability, huge appeal, and apparent low costs of these activities. They also assert that “media consumption behaviors might, however, turn into strong habits or forms of pathological media abuse”.

I ought to add that I did ask Dr. Hofmann about the media reports and how the press had sensationalized the study. In an email to me he said:

“Our data can only speak to self-control failure rates in the different domains, not to the ‘addictiveness’ of these desires. To study the development of addiction, we would have to sample desires over longer time spans and see whether they become more frequent and pressing over time. Still, I believe our findings tell us that people have a hard time putting desires for media use of, perhaps because we did not really learn well how to control those (plus, given the constant availability of those gadgets). Whether the consequences of frequent media (over)use outweigh those of more risky things such as alcohol and nicotine consumption is a different ballgame, again”.

I was also interested to read the media summary that Dr Hofmann sent me. It said that:

“Our main finding can be summarized in just two words: people want. However, the present data are among the first to paint a clearer picture of what it is people desire, how they feel about it, and how successful they are in dealing with it. Extrapolating our findings to a 16-hour waking day, people on average spend about eight hours desiring things, three hours resisting desire, and a glorious half hour yielding to temptation”

The authors’ claim that based on their findings, their results challenge the stereotype of addiction as driven by irresistibly strong desires. They also claim that the knowledge they have generated can inform understandings about self-control, behavioral change, and addiction. However, there does seem to be one major limitation of the research. I couldn’t find anywhere in the paper that the authors had reported what percentage of the people who took part in the study were either cigarette smokers or drank alcohol. In fact there were no limitations mentioned whatsoever (such as the small non-representative sample – mainly female and mainly university students – from one German locality). If most of the sample were non-smokers/non-drinkers or casual smokers/casual drinkers it wouldn’t be surprising if there were few urges or desires to drink or smoke!

Postscript: Since writing this article, I received a very informative email from Dr Hofmann informing me that 22% of the sample in this study were current smokers (and that a very small minority were ex-smokers). Dr Hofmann informed me that they are doing further analysis on the data set. I look forward to seeing more papers from this interesting research study.

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

Further reading

Hofmann, W, Vohs, K.D. & Baumeister, R.F. (2012). What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everyday life. Psychological Science, in press.

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

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

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Addiction to social networks on the internet: A literature review of empirical research. International Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 8, 3528-3552.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Excessive online social networking: Can adolescents become addicted to Facebook? Education and Health, 29. 63-66.