84 Education and Health Vol.31 No. 4, 2013

In two previous issue of Education and Health ,I have examined various issues surrounding

the psychosocial impact of social networkingamong adolescents (i.e., Griffiths & Kuss, 2011;Kuss & Griffiths, 2011a). Most parents andteachers will be only too aware that the onlinesocial networking phenomenon has spreadrapidly in the UK. However, one socialnetworking activity that has only recently comeinto focus is gambling via social networkingsites. Although the playing of gambling gamesfor points (e.g., poker) have been popular for anumber of years (Griffiths, 2010; Griffiths &Parke, 2010), a number of gaming operators arenow using Facebook as a platform in which tooffer gambling for real money (Griffiths, 2013).In August 2012, Facebook hosted a gamblinggame (Bingo Friendzy developed by Gamesys)that allowed users to win jackpots up to £50,000of real money.

In the UK, there are 31 million registeredusers of Facebook who are over 18 years of age(Griffiths, 2013). According to a market researchstudy by Experian Hitwise, UK visitors have anaverage Facebook session time of 22 minutes. Thestudy also revealed that a quarter of thosevisiting Facebook visit other entertainmentwebsite such as games and music, immediatelyafter leaving the website (most of whom areadolescents and young adults). This showsgambling companies that there is a good marketsize to access and that users could be quitereceptive to gambling on the site.

Bingo Friendzy (at present only available in theUK) is now being followed by other gamblinggames including slot machine apps and sportsbetting. I was one of many who voiced concernsin the national press when Bingo Friendzy waslaunched. My main concern was that the gameitself features cartoon characters similar toMoshi Monsters.

Having studied youth gambling and writtentwo books (i.e., Griffiths 1995; 2002), I don’tbelieve gambling games should featureanything that might encourage children oradolescents to gamble. Although players haveto be aged 18 years to play Bingo Friendzy,research has shown that adolescents regularlybypass the minimum age limits to have aFacebook profile simply by giving falseinformation and/or with the help of theirparents (Griffiths & Kuss, 2011; Kuss &Griffiths, 2011a; 2011b).

Social gamesI and some of my colleagues have argued

previously that many social games played onsocial networking sites have gambling-likeelements – even if no money is involved(Griffiths, Derevensky & Parke, 2011; Griffiths,Parke & Derevensky, 2012; King, Delfabbro &Griffiths, 2010). Even when games don’t involvemoney (such as playing poker for points onFacebook), they introduce youth to the principlesand excitement of gambling (Griffiths & Parke,2010). On first look, playing games likeFarmville, may not seem to have muchconnection to activities like gambling but thepsychology behind such activities are verysimilar (Griffiths, 2010). Companies like Zyngahave been accused of leveraging the mechanicsof gambling to build their gaming empire. Oneof the key psychological ingredients in bothgambling (such as playing a slot machine) andsocial gaming is the use of operant conditioningand random reinforcement schedules. Basically,random reinforcement schedules in gamesrelate to the unpredictability of winning and/orgetting other types of intermittent rewards(Parke & Griffiths, 2007).

Getting rewards every time someone gamblesor plays a game leads to people becoming bored

Dr Mark D. Griffiths is Professor of Gambling Studies and Director of the International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Division,Nottingham Trent University.For communication, please email: mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk

Mark D. GriffithsAdolescent gambling via social networking sites: A briefoverview

85 Education and Health Vol.31 No. 4, 2013

quickly. However, small unpredictable rewardsleads to highly engaged and repetitivebehaviour for those playing such games. In aminority of cases, this may lead to addiction tothe game (Parke & Griffiths, 2010). Bothgambling operators and social gamingdevelopers can use intermittent andunpredictable rewards to get repeat custom.

Psychosocial impactThe psychosocial impact of this new leisure

activity has only just begun to be investigatedby academic researchers in the gaming field.Social networking sites have the potential tonormalise gambling behaviours as part of theconsumption patterns of a non-gambling leisureactivity, and may change social understandingsof the role of gambling among young people(Griffiths & Parke, 2010). There is no moneychanging hands but teenagers – as noted above– are learning the mechanics of gambling andthere are serious questions about whethergambling with virtual money encouragespositive attitudes towards gambling in people(and young people particularly). For instance,does gambling with virtual money lead to anincreased prevalence of actual gambling?Research carried out by Forrest, McHale andParke (2009) demonstrated that one of the riskfactors for problem gambling amongadolescents was the playing of the ‘play for free’gambling games on the Internet (games that arewidespread on Facebook and other socialnetworking sites).

It has been argued, based on the availableempirical literature, that it may be important todistinguish between the different types ofmoney-free gambling being made available –namely social networking modes (on socialnetworking sites) and ‘demo’ or ‘free play’modes (on internet gambling websites). Initialconsiderations suggest that these may bedifferent both in nature and in impact. Forexample, as Downs (2008) has argued, playersgambling in social networking modes mayexperience a different type and level ofreinforcement than those gambling in ‘demo’mode on an internet gambling site. On somesocial networking sites, the accumulation of‘play money’ or ‘points’ may have implicationsfor buying virtual goods or services or beingeligible for certain privileges. This may increase

the value and meaning of the gambling event tothe individual.

Additionally, when considering the ‘flow’ andintention of individuals accessing such sites, itcould be argued that individuals accessingmoney free gambling through social networkingsites may be more likely to be induced orpersuaded to play given that these websitevisitors’ primary intention may have been socialinteraction (i.e., the primary function of thewebsite) as opposed to those playing in ‘demo’mode where gambling is the primary functionof the website. A 2011 national gambling surveyof British adolescents (n=2739; aged 11-16 years)by Ipsos MORI reported that around one inseven children (15%) played free or practicegambling games in the past week, and that themost popular form of practice gaming wasthrough Facebook. One in ten children (11%) saidthey had played free games on socialnetworking website Facebook. The report alsonoted:

“There may be some value in tacklingchildren’s access to free online trial games.There is a clear link between playing freetrial games on the internet and gamblingfor real money (online and offline).However, regulators will need to target arange of games and websites to monitorthis effectively, as children report playinggames on a wide variety of websites.”

Exploiting psychological principlesI have already noted in previous writings

(e.g., Griffiths, 2012) that observers haveaccused companies like Zynga of exploitingwell-known psychological principles to increasetheir player base and to bring in new playersfrom a demographic who may never haveplayed games before (such as housewiveslooking after small children at home who mightplay poker or other quick play social games for30 minutes while their child is asleep).However, that alone does not explain thesuccess of Zynga games. Other features, such asstylish and appealing characters and graphics,and (what some might deem to be) aggressiveviral marketing tactics, also appear to play animportant part in the acquisition, development,and maintenance of social gaming behaviour(Griffiths, 2012).

86 Education and Health Vol.31 No. 4, 2013

I have also argued that introduction of in-game virtual goods and accessories (that peoplewillingly pay real money for) was apsychological masterstroke (Griffiths, 2012). Inthis sense, it becomes more akin to gambling, associal gamers know that they are spendingmoney as they play with little or no financialreturn. They are buying entertainment and theintrinsic play of the game itself is highlypsychologically rewarding.

Why pay real money for virtual items?The one question I am constantly asked

(particularly by the media) in relation to socialgaming is why people pay real money forvirtual items in games like Farmville (or whypeople will pay real money to buy virtualmoney to play Zynga poker games). Assomeone who has studied slot machine playersfor over 25 years, the similarities are striking.Many of the hard core slots players I haveinterviewed claim they know they will loseevery penny they have in the long run, and theyare playing with money rather than for it(Griffiths, 2002). To me, this appears to be whatsocial gamers do as well. Like slots players, theyactually love the playing of the game itself.Money is the price of entry that they are willingto pay. Unlike those involved in social gaming,gamblers do at least have an outside chance ofgetting some of the money they have stakedback. Therefore, allowing those who play socialgames the chance to actually get their moneyback (or gain more than they have staked) iswhy companies currently operating socialgames want to get into the pure gamblingmarket. This extra dimension to social gamescould be a huge revenue generator (Griffiths,2012).

Those in the social gaming business believethat their games tap into some of thefundamental drivers of human happiness andgive people pleasure, friendship, and a sense ofaccomplishment. Nicole Lazzaro, who has beeninterviewed in the mass media about gamingpsychology, claims there are four elementalkeys that determine game success. These are:

(i) Hard fun (i.e., players having toovercome difficult obstacles toprogress in the game in pursuit ofwinning)

(ii) Easy fun (i.e., players just enjoying thegame even if they don’t win)

(iii) Altered states (i.e., players engaging inthe game because it makes them feelgood psychologically and changestheir mood for the better)

(iv) The people factor (i.e., players wantingto socially interact with others in thegame).

Put in the most basic form, Lazarro says themost successful games “will engage players’curiosity, allow players to socialize with friends,challenge players to overcome obstacles toachieve goals and somehow relate to people’slives in a meaningful way”.

Lines are beginning to blurOver the past year, the rapid growth of social

media gaming has come to the attention ofGreat Britain’s Gambling Commission,particularly as the lines are beginning to blurbetween social gaming and gambling, andbecause online gambling operators andgambling software developers (e.g., Bwin, PartyGaming, PlayTech, etc.) are now positioningthemselves for entry into the social gamingmarket, and vice-versa (e.g., Zynga). There havealso been reports that virtual money can now betraded for real cash illegally. The GamblingCommission are particularly concerned aboutthe lack of regulation where children andadolescents are concerned. This is alsosomething I have written about extensively inthe past few years in relation to gambling andvideo game convergence (e.g., Griffiths, 2008;2011; King, Delfabbro & Griffiths, 2010).

New types of social gaming and gambling-like experiences that people of all ages are nowbeing exposed to and raises various moral,ethical, legal and social issues (Griffiths, 2013).Given that most of the issues highlighted hereare somewhat anecdotal, more empiricalresearch is needed in these new online activitiesas the line between social gaming, non-financialforms of gaming, and gambling are beginningto blur.

ReferencesDowns, C. (2008). The Facebook phenomenon: Socialnetworking and gambling. Paper presented at the Gambling andSocial Responsibility Forum Conference, ManchesterMetropolitan University, Manchester.

87 Education and Health Vol.31 No. 4, 2013

Forrest, D. K, McHale, I & Parke, J. (2009). Appendix 5: Fullreport of statistical regression analysis. In Ipsos MORI (2009)British Survey of Children, the National Lottery and Gambling2008-09: Report of a quantitative survey. London: NationalLottery Commission.Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Adolescent Gambling. London: RoutledgeGriffiths, M.D. (2002). Gambling and Gaming Addictions inAdolescence. Leicester: British PsychologicalSociety/Blackwells.Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Digital impact, crossover technologies andgambling practices. Casino and Gaming International, 4(3), 37-42.Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Gaming in social networking sites: Agrowing concern? World Online Gambling Law Report, 9(5), 12-13.Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Gaming convergence: Further legalissues and psychosocial impact. Gaming Law Review andEconomics, 14, 461-464.Griffiths, M.D. (2012). The psychology of social gaming. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, August/September, 26-27.Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Social gambling via Facebook: Furtherobservations and concerns. Gaming Law Review andEconomics, 17, 104-106.Griffiths, M.D. & Kuss, D. (2011). Adolescent social networking:Should parents and teachers be worried? Education and Health,29:2, 23-25.Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2010). Adolescent gambling on theInternet: A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicineand Health, 22, 59-75.

Griffiths, M.D., Parke, J. & Derevensky, J. (2011). Onlinegambling among youth: Cause for concern? In J.L. Derevensky,D.T.L. Shek & J. Merrick (Eds.), Youth Gambling: The HiddenAddiction (pp. 125-143). Berlin: DeGruyter.Griffiths, M.D., Derevensky, J. & Parke, J. (2012). Onlinegambling in youth. In R. Williams, R. Wood & J. Parke (Ed.),Routledge Handbook of Internet Gambling (pp.183-199).London: Routledge.Ipsos MORI (2011). Underage Gambling in England and Wales:A research study among 11-16 year olds on behalf of theNational Lottery Commission. London: AuthorKing, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Theconvergence of gambling and digital media: Implications forgambling in young people. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26,175-187.Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011a). Excessive online socialnetworking: Can adolescents become addicted to Facebook?Education and Health, 29:4, 63-66.Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011b). Online social networkingand addiction: A literature review of empirical research.International Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 8,3528-3552.Lapuz, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The role of chips in pokergambling: An empirical pilot study. Gambling Research, 22(1),34-39.Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). The role of structuralcharacteristics in gambling. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins & R.Williams (Eds.), Research and Measurement Issues inGambling Studies (pp.211-243). New York: Elsevier.

Education and HealthThe journal, published by SHEU since 1983, is aimed at those involved with education and healthwho are concerned with the health and wellbeing of young people. Readership is worldwide andin the UK include: primary; secondary and further education teachers; university staff and health-care professionals working in education and health settings. The journal is online and open access,continues the proud tradition of independent publishing and offers an eclectic mix of articles.

Contributors (see a recent list) - Do you have up to 3000 words about a relevantissue that you would like to see published? Please contact the Editor

SHEUSchools and Students Health Education Unit

The specialist provider of reliable local survey data for schools and collegesand recognised nationally since 1977.

"The survey reports have been used to inform commissioning at specific commissioning groups. They are also being used withinour Extended Schools Clusters and to inform The Annual Public Health and the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment."

Programme Manager - Young People

For more details please visit http://sheu.org.uk

TO SUPPORT YOUR WORK WITH YOUNG PEOPLE TRY SHEU’S FREE RESOURCES