Dr Daniel King
The University of Adelaide
Dr Daniel King (University of Adelaide)
Dr Paul Delfabbro (University of Adelaide)
Dr Mark Griffiths (Nottingham Trent University)
Outline of presentationDefinition of Internet/digital forms of gamblingStatus of the Internet gambling industryGambling-like experiences in adolescenceTrends in technology-based gamingEmpirical research: Prevalence and usage dataLinks to problem gamblingConvergence of gambling: Implications for youthDiscussion/conclusions
Definitions of Internet gambling
Very broadly, there is a need to distinguish between different forms of Internet gambling
Internet gambling: Online-only gaming activities, including casinos.
Internet-facilitated gambling: People using network technology to place bets on land-based activities (e.g., Betfair) or sign up accounts that charge up cards for use on slot-machines (e.g., in Sweden, Norway)
Definitions (continued)It is also possible to differentiate between:
Online wagering: Racing, sports, events
Online gaming: casino games, virtual EGMs
Lottery products: keno, lottery draws
Australia’s policy environmentInteractive Gambling Act 2001This allows online wagering (sports, race,
event betting via the internet)BUT prohibits online gaming services to be
provided to Australians. The Productivity Commission argues that
Australians are spending money on overseas sites (lost revenue) + and that these sites may not have the same levels of probity and regulation as land-based gambling in Australia
Scale of Internet gamblingIn 2008, it was estimated that annual Internet
revenue would reach around $25billion by 2010.In January 2008, there were over 2000 Internet
gambling sites in operation. Currently, over 3000.Estimates suggest that Australians are spending at
least $700m per annum on online casino games and poker (Productivity Commission, 2010).
Poker is particularly popular due to growing TV promotion of the activity, film and TV references.
Scale (cont.)Productivity Commission (2010)Very large increase in the number of active player
accounts
Casino: 2004 (n = 324,900) to 2008 (n = 703,300)Poker: 2004 (n = 131,300) to 2008 (n = 363,100)
Expenditure: Online poker: $249 millionOnline casinos: $541 million
Prevalence of Internet gamblingThe rates are quite lowIn Canada, Williams and Wood (2009) found
that only 2.1% of people gamble on the net (past 12 months)
In Australia, only 1-2% report gambling on the Internet in surveys, but the PC estimates the true rate to be 4.3% based on active player accounts (i.e., online gaming)
May be under-reported in surveys due to sampling error or a reluctance to admit to illegal activity
Prevalence vs. Active Account DataSome studies have also looked at actual
Internet gambling statistics, i.e., objective data of expenditure
LeBrie et al. (2008) formed a link with industry providers and tracked 4222 accounts over 2 years
Most people spend very small amounts (people lose only around AUS$10 per session of gambling)
Only 5% of bettors gambled regularly and lost a median of around AUS$70
Demographics
Best data from Canada (Wood & Williams, 2009)Over 80% of internet gamblers are maleTend to be youngerMore likely to be singleSlightly higher levels of education and incomeHigher rates of substance use, but lower rates
of physical and mental disability
Prevalence of online gambling among youthByrne (2004) - Over the past year, almost one in twenty (4.6%) of the
participants had gambled online with their own money. (N=2,087)Griffiths & Wood (2007) – 8% of young people aged 12 to 15 years
reported they had played a lottery game on the Internet in past year. (N=8,017)
Ipsos MORI (2009) - 1% of 11-15 year olds reported gambling on the Internet for money in the seven days prior to the survey (N=8,598)
Brunelle, Gendron et al (2009)- 8% of 14-18 year olds had gambled on the Internet in the previous 12 months. (N=1,876)
Olason et al. (2009a) - 20% of 16-18 year olds had gambled on the Internet, and just under 4% were regular Internet gamblers (N=1,513)
Olason et al. (2009b) - 24% of 13-18 year olds had gambled on the Internet, and just over 4% were regular Internet gamblers. (N=1,537)
Welte et al. (2009) - 2% of 14-21 year old respondents reported gambling online in the past year. (N=2,274)
Social responsibility and online gamblingSocial responsibility and online gamblingSmeaton and Griffiths (2004)Smeaton and Griffiths (2004) study of 30 online study of 30 online
gambling sites:gambling sites: Credit limit (90%)Credit limit (90%) Age verification (66%)Age verification (66%) Initial age check (50%)Initial age check (50%) Instant exit (37%)Instant exit (37%) No direct access to bank account (33%)No direct access to bank account (33%) No encouragement to keep gambling (17%)No encouragement to keep gambling (17%) Credit check (13%)Credit check (13%) Link to gambling help (13%)Link to gambling help (13%) Self-exclusion (3%)Self-exclusion (3%)
How is net-based gambling different? Is it riskier?
More isolated: Do not need to interact with others
Always accessible: no restrictions by hours and there are thousands of choices
Cashless: One gambles with credit or e-money so that real money is not visible during play
Anonymous: Staff cannot see who is gamblingFaster: Allows rapid bets on all forms of
gambling. This reduces the differences between different forms of gambling. All become more continuous
Links with Problem gambling
PG rates have been found to be higher in Internet gambling populations
Wood, Griffiths and Parke (2007) sampled online poker players in UK and found 18% met DSM-IV criteria
Delfabbro et al. (2007) found that 10% of young ( < 18 years) pathological gamblers had tried internet gambling
Links with PG (cont.)Wood and Williams (2009) found (in a
telephone survey in Canada) that 17.1% of net gamblers had moderate to severe problems vs. 4.1% of non-internet gamblers
An online sample: 16.6% vs. 5.7% (moderate to severe problems as based on the Canadian Problem Gambling Index)
But only 11% identified the Internet as a source of their problems
Methodological ChallengesIt is difficult to obtain useful prevalence
figures from population surveys because of the low base-rate of the behaviour
Online surveys are likely to be over-estimates because the population are already gamblers
Online samples are more likely to be younger and male- both demographic factors are associated with higher gambling rates and a higher risk of problem gambling
Gambling via SNSs (Facebook) and mobile appsGambling via SNSs (Facebook) and mobile apps
Gambling themes/content in computer gamesGambling themes/content in computer games
Structural similarities of gambling & gamingGambling machines
Computer games
Onscreen display of score Sound and graphics Audiovisual rewards Competitive elements Skill-based elements Require response to predictable visual stimuli
Rapid span of play Random elements Scripted ‘near miss’ event Entrapment No endpoint
= rare or atypical = common
Gambling-like experiences among youthNorth American studies have reported that anywhere between 25% to 50% of
teenagers have played 'free play' games via online gambling sites (Derevensky &
Gupta, 2007; McBride & Derevensky, 2009; Poulin & Elliot, 2007). Griffiths and Wood (2007) - Of the 8% who had gambled online, a quarter said they
had played free instant win games (24%) Ipsos MORI (2009) - Just over 25% of adolescents had played in ‘money- free mode’
in the week preceding the survey, with opportunities on the social networking sites
four or five times more popular than those presented on real gambling sites. Brunelle et al. (2009) report 35% of youth (49% males; 21% females) had played on
the ‘free play’/’demo’ mode on gambling sites. Byrne (2004) - More individuals under the age of 18 years than 18 to 24 years played
‘free play’ games on Internet gambling sites
OFLC ratings of gambling content in computer gamesOFLC ratings of gambling content in computer games
OFLC classification of gambling contentOnline gambling games and applications (e.g., via
SNSs) are not reviewed by the OFLC Board (reason: material considered “inherently unreviewable”)
Since 2000: Over 100 computer games with gambling content/themes reviewed by OFLC
70 games rated PG (Parental guidance), the remainder are classified ‘G’ (General audience)
However, drug use (legalised and illicit drugs) with in-game incentive carries a restricted classification rating
Computer games with high impact content (e.g., violence, sex) and gambling carry no consumer advice regarding gambling content
Research on gambling and video game playGupta and Derevensky (1996) study of 104 children aged 9 to 14 years
Children who regularly play video games exhibit a “false sense of confidence and security” and take greater risks and gamble larger amounts when playing a game of blackjack.
Wood, Gupta, Derevensky, and Griffiths (2004) study of 996 adolescents aged 10 to 17 years Small but significant correlation was found between the number of hours
spent playing video games and the severity of problem gamblingDelfabbro, King, Lambos, and Puglies (2009) survey of 2,669 adolescents aged
13 to 17 yearsVideo game playing was unlikely to be a significant risk factor for pathological
gambling in adolescence
Summary: Gambling and gambling-like experiencesType of gambling Gambling activities Availability
Gambling with money Casino websites:-Poker-BlackjackOther wagering:-Sports betting-Racing and other events
Over 3,000 online gambling sites worldwide
Gambling without money Gambling applications (“apps”):-Smartphones-Social networking sites-‘Free play’ online casinos
iPhone apps: 400 casino, 250 poker, 30 slots, and 42 sports
Facebook apps: 350 poker, 120 casino betting, 80 slot machines, and 20 sports betting
Gambling-like experiences
Video games with gambling themes and content
Online shopping or auction sites
Over 100 video games rated ‘G’ or ‘PG’ that contain gambling
Technological trendsGreater familiarity with, and use of, digital
technology among youth (“digital natives”)Growth in mobile gaming sectorIncrease in technological advertising and
marketing of gambling onlineGreater use of behavioural tracking dataIncrease in gambling via SNSsConvergence/integration of gambling technologies
(devices; networks; content)Emergence of non-financial problem gamblingOnline gambling help services
Implications of new gambling media for young people Implications of new gambling media for young people Greater accessibility and familiarity of gamblingGreater accessibility and familiarity of gambling
24hr access to gambling activities24hr access to gambling activities More visible, attractive, and ubiquitousMore visible, attractive, and ubiquitous Normalisation of the activityNormalisation of the activity More difficult to self-excludeMore difficult to self-exclude
Involvement in gambling at earlier ageInvolvement in gambling at earlier age Fewer restrictions on first gambling experienceFewer restrictions on first gambling experience Potential for non-supervised gambling activityPotential for non-supervised gambling activity Early development of gambling beliefs/strategies Early development of gambling beliefs/strategies Exposure to factually incorrect or misleading Exposure to factually incorrect or misleading
informationinformation
Implications (cont.)Implications (cont.) Greater likelihood of experiencing a ‘big win’Greater likelihood of experiencing a ‘big win’
Online sites engineer early big wins in ‘free play’ sectionsOnline sites engineer early big wins in ‘free play’ sections Lack of financial element may create dissociation between Lack of financial element may create dissociation between
actions and consequencesactions and consequences Gambling within skill-based domains like computer gamesGambling within skill-based domains like computer games May be other rewards of non-financial gambling (e.g., May be other rewards of non-financial gambling (e.g.,
social, excitement, relief of boredom)social, excitement, relief of boredom)
A way of coping for youthA way of coping for youth Gambling as an accessible escape or ‘safety’ behaviourGambling as an accessible escape or ‘safety’ behaviour Characteristics of the online environmentCharacteristics of the online environment
Asocial/AnonymousAsocial/Anonymous DisinhibitingDisinhibiting
Implications (cont.)Implications (cont.)
Peer-to-peer influencesPeer-to-peer influences Internet enables social dynamics of gambling (approval, Internet enables social dynamics of gambling (approval,
competition, knowledge-sharing, etc.)competition, knowledge-sharing, etc.) Mere presence effectsMere presence effects Opportunity for interaction with older, experienced Opportunity for interaction with older, experienced
gamblersgamblers
Parental beliefsParental beliefs Family entertainment: “Cocooning” effectsFamily entertainment: “Cocooning” effects Increase parental transmission of attitudesIncrease parental transmission of attitudes Lack of consumer adviceLack of consumer advice Protective factor: Earlier detection? Controlled gambling?Protective factor: Earlier detection? Controlled gambling?
SummaryPrevalence of Internet gambling appears to be low but
increasing
Research needed on youth gambling and new technologies: Demographics and motivations Psychosocial factors associated with Internet gambling Influence of gambling-like experiences Possible links to problem gambling Research in the Australian context
Australian policy environment offers few protections
Convergence of gambling and digital technologies may pose unique psychological risks for young people