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