Electronic gaming machines: are they the 'crack-cocaine' of gambling?

BACKGROUND There is a general view that electronic gaming is the most 'addictive' form of gambling, in that it contributes more to causing problem gambling than any other gambling activity. As such, electronic gaming machines have been referred to as the 'crack-cocaine' of gambling. While this analogy has popular appeal, it is only recently that the scientific community has begun to investigate its validity. In line with the belief that electronic gambling has a higher 'addictive' potential than other forms of gambling, research has also begun to focus on identifying the characteristics of gaming machines that may be associated with problem gambling behaviour. AIMS AND METHODS This paper will review the different types of modern electronic gaming machines, and will use the introduction of gaming machines to Australia to examine the association between electronic gaming and problem gambling, with particular reference to the characteristics of modern electronic gaming machines. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Despite overwhelming acceptance that gaming machines are associated with the highest level of problem gambling, the empirical literature provides inconclusive evidence to support the analogy linking electronic gaming to 'crack-cocaine'. Rigorous and systematic evaluation is required to establish definitively the absolute 'addictive' potential of gaming machines and the degree to which machine characteristics influence the development and maintenance of problem gambling behaviour.

[1]  M. Griffiths,et al.  The UK National Telephone Gambling Helpline—Results on the First Year of Operation , 2004, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[2]  E. Langer.  The illusion of control. , 1975 .

[3]  R. Klein,et al.  Manipulations of the Features of Standard Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) Games: Effects in Pathological and Non-Pathological Gamblers , 2004, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[4]  Mark Griffiths,et al.  Fruit machine gambling: The importance of structural characteristics , 1993, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[5]  D. Rutter,et al.  Ten reasons why ANOVA theory and research fail to explain attribution processes: 1. Conceptual problems , 1982 .

[6]  Alex Blaszczynski,et al.  The Assessment of the Impact of the Reconfiguration on Electronic Gaming Machines as Harm Minimisation Strategies for Problem Gambling , 2001 .

[7]  M Dickerson,et al.  On the determinants of persistent gambling behaviour. I. High-frequency poker machine players. , 1992, British journal of psychology.

[8]  M. Zimmerman,et al.  Rapid Onset of Pathological Gambling in Machine Gamblers , 2004, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[9]  M. Griffiths,et al.  Current trends in slot machine gambling: Research and policy issues , 1995, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[10]  R. Nicki,et al.  The prevalence of problem gambling in Prince Edward Island , 1999 .

[11]  N. Petry,et al.  A comparison of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activity. , 2003, Addiction.

[12]  T. Fabian.  Pathological gambling: A comparison of gambling at German-style slot machines and “Classical” gambling , 1995, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[13]  Serge Sévigny,et al.  Interactive Messages on Video Lottery Terminals and Persistence in Gambling , 2003 .

[14]  Mark Griffiths,et al.  Gambling Technologies: Prospects for Problem Gambling , 2004, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[15]  Anthony H. Winefield,et al.  Poker‐machine gambling: An analysis of within session characteristics , 1999 .

[16]  R. Volberg.  Gambling and problem gambling in Oregon: Report to the Oregon Gambling Addiction Treatment Foundation , 1997 .

[17]  Nigel E. Turner,et al.  How do slot machines and other electronic gambling machines actually work , 2004 .

[18]  Paul H. Delfabbro,et al.  Predictors of Irrational Thinking in Regular Slot Machine Gamblers , 2000, The Journal of psychology.

[19]  E. Echeburúa,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Three Therapeutic Modalities in the Psychological Treatment of Pathological Gambling: Long-Term Outcome , 1996, Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[20]  M. Dickerson.  Internal and external determinants of persistent gambling: Problems in generalising from one form of gambling to another , 1993, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[21]  Mark D. Griffiths,et al.  The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. , 1994 .

[22]  Hans-Ludwig Kroeber.  Roulette gamblers and gamblers at electronic game machines: Where are the differences? , 1992, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[23]  M. Dickerson,et al.  Impaired control over gambling in gaming machine and off-course gamblers. , 2003, Addiction.

[24]  R. Volberg,et al.  GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING IN WASHINGTON STATE: A REPLICATION STUDY, 1992 TO 1998 Report to the Washington State Lottery , 1999 .

[25]  Garry J. Smith,et al.  VLT gambling in Alberta : a preliminary analysis : final report , 2004 .

[26]  F. Labrador,et al.  Slot machine gambling in Spain: An important and new social problem , 1995, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[27]  Howard J. Shaffer,et al.  Gambling and the Health of the Public: Adopting a Public Health Perspective , 2004, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[28]  A. Blaszczynski.  Pathways to Pathological Gambling: Identifying Typologies , 2000 .

[29]  Z. Steel,et al.  Personality Disorders Among Pathological Gamblers , 2004, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[30]  Mark D. Griffiths,et al.  The psychology of the near‐miss (revisited): A comment on Delfabbro & Winefield (1999) , 1999 .

[31]  M. T. A. Silva,et al.  A Comparison of Horse-Race, Bingo, and Video Poker Gamblers in Brazilian Gambling Settings , 2004, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[32]  B. Arroll,et al.  Pathological gamblers--will they use a new telephone hotline? , 1994, The New Zealand medical journal.

[33]  A. Blaszczynski,et al.  Plasma endorphin levels in pathological gambling , 1986, Journal of gambling behavior.