Electronic Gaming Machine Characteristics: It’s the Little Things That Count

  • Jason Landon
  • Katie Palmer du Preez
  • Alyssa Page
  • Maria Bellringer
  • Amanda Roberts
  • Max Abbott
Article
First Online:

Abstract

A range of gamblers, from low-frequency social gamblers through to problem gamblers in treatment, participated in focus groups discussing the characteristics of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) that they found attractive. Analyses of the resulting transcripts resulted in two groups of EGM characteristics being identified as important, one group associated with winning and one with betting. Overall, free spin features were identified in all groups as the most attractive characteristic of EGMS. Beyond that it was smaller win-related characteristics, and low-denomination machines with multiple playable lines that were associated with increased duration and intensity of gambling behaviour. The important characteristics were consistent across different levels of gamblers, with the key behavioural difference being a self-reported ‘expertise’, and ‘strategic’ approach to gambling amongst higher-frequency gamblers and problem gamblers in treatment. The key characteristics all occur frequently and result in more wins and extended gambling sessions. The patterns identified resonated with established behavioural principles, and with models describing the development of problem gambling and addictions more generally.

Keywords

Gambling Problem gambling Electronic gaming machines Game characteristics Qualitative 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like the participants for generously giving their time to share their experiences, the New Zealand Ministry of Health for funding this project, and Hapai te Hauora Problem Gambling Team, the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand, and Ruth Herd for their support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Jason Landon, Katie Palmer du Preez, Alyssa Page, Maria Bellringer, Amanda Roberts and Max Abbott declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Funding

This research was funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Health under contract numbers 334040/00 and 01. The funder had no influence on the research design/conduct and there are no constraints on publishing the results.

References

  1. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruner, A., & Revusky, S. H. (1961). Collateral behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 349–350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C., & Cutts, D. (1963). Experimental control of superstitious responding in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 203–208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chóliz, M. (2010). Experimental analysis of the game in pathological gamblers: effect of the immediacy of the reward in slot machines. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 249–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chung, S. H., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1967). Choice and delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 67–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to Nominal Group and Delphi processes. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Delfabbro, P. H., & Winefield, A. H. (1999). Poker-machine gambling: analysis of within-session characteristics. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delfabbro, P., Falzon, K., & Imgram, T. (2005). The effects of parameter variations in Electronic Gaming Machine simulations: results of a laboratory-based pilot investigation. Gambling Research Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia), 17(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
  10. Dickerson, M. G., Hinchy, J., Legg England, S., Fabre, J., & Cunningham, R. (1992). On the determinants of persistent gambling behaviours: high frequency poker machine players. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 237–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher, M., Hares, T., Spencer, J., Bradshaw, C., & Webb, I. (1993). The Nominal Group Technique: a research tool for general practice? Family Practice, 10(1), 76–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffiths, M. (1993). Fruit machine gambling: the importance of structural characteristics. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrigan, K., & Dixon, M. (2010). Government sanctioned “tight” and “loose” slot machines: how having multiple versions of the same slot machine game may impact problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 159–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrigan, K., Dixon, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Modern multi-line slot machine games: the effect of lines wagered on winners, losers, bonuses, and losses disguised as wins. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31, 423–439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen, C., Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Sheepy, E., Fugelsang, J. A., & Jarick, M. (2013). Misinterpreting ‘winning’ in multiline slot machine games. International Gambling Studies, 13(1), 112–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995). Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. British Medical Journal, 311(7001), 376–380.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Ladouceur, R. (2004). Perceptions among pathological and nonpathological gamblers. Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 555–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Dumont, D., & Rochette, P. (1988). Gambling: the relationship between the frequency of wins and irrational thinking. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Livingstone, C., & Woolley, R. (2008). The relevance and role of gaming machine games and game features on the play of problem gamblers. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Primary Care.Google Scholar
  21. Loba, P., Stewart, S. H., Klein, R. M., & Blackburn, J. R. (2002). Manipulations of the features of standard video lottery terminal (VLT) games: effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods: whatever happened to qualitative description? Research on Nursing and Health, 23, 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skinner, B. F. (1948). “Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Templeton, J. A., Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). Upping the reinforcement rate by playing the maximum lines in multi-line slot machine play. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31, 949–964.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1972). The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. American Journal of Public Health, 62(3), 337–342.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J. S., & Telang, F. (2008). Overlapping neuronal circuits in addiction and obesity: evidence of a systems pathology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 3191–3200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., & Baler, R. D. (2011a). Reward, dopamine and the control of food intake: implications for obesity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 37–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J. S., Tomasi, D., & Telang, F. (2011b). Addiction: beyond dopamine reward circuitry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(37), 15037–15042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walker, M. (1992). The psychology of gambling. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, B. A., & Fantino, E. (1978). Effects on choice of reinforcement delay and conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 77–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason Landon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katie Palmer du Preez
    • 1
  • Alyssa Page
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria Bellringer
    • 1
  • Amanda Roberts
    • 3
  • Max Abbott
    • 1
  1. 1.Gambling and Addictions Research CentreAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health & Environmental SciencesAuckland University of TechnologyNorthcoteNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of LincolnLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations