Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EGM Jackpots and Player Behaviour: An In-venue Shadowing Study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Gambling Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although electronic gaming machine (EGM) jackpots are widespread, little research has yet considered the impact of this feature on gamblers’ behaviour. We present the results of an in-venue shadowing study, which provided measures of player investment and persistence (e.g. number of spins, time-on-machine) from participants undertaking one or more EGM sessions on their choice of machines. 234 participants (162 female) were recruited in-venue, with half (stratified by age and gender) primed by answering questions encouraging ’big-win’ oriented ideation. Primed participants were more likely to select jackpot-oriented EGMs, and primed at-risk [Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) > 4] gamblers tended to select machines with a higher median jackpot prize amount than others (\(W=\hbox {18,423}, p=0.003\)). Neither PGSI nor priming was associated with the rate at which participants switched machines. EGM jackpots were associated with great spend overall, and PGSI score was associated with a greater spend per play. Positive interactions were found between jackpots and PGSI, and PGSI and priming in terms of predicting greater persistence. Finally a structural model of session level variables is presented, that incorporates positive feedback between money won and number of plays in an EGM session.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aasved, M. J., & Schaefer, J. M. (1995). Minnesota slots: An observational study of pull tab gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11(3), 311–341. doi:10.1007/BF02104796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2011). Lottery gambling: A review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(1), 15–33. doi:10.1007/s10899-010-9194-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 5(1), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Arminger, G. (1995). Specification and estimation of mean and covariance-structure models. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 185–249). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., & Sundali, J. (2005). The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: Empirical data from casinos. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(3), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., & Casey, D. M. (2013). Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(2), 311–327. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9300-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., el-Guebaly, N., Wynne, H., & Chen, S. (2006). Risk of Harm among Gamblers in the general population as a function of level of participation in gambling activities. Addiction, 101(4), 570–580. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01392.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., el-Guebaly, N., Wynne, H., & Miller, N. (2008). Replication of low-risk gambling limits using Canadian provincial gambling prevalence data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(3), 321–335. doi:10.1007/s10899-008-9091-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delfabbro, P., King, D. L., & Griffiths, M. (2012). Behavioural profiling of problem gamblers: A summary and review. International Gambling Studies, 12(3), 349–366. doi:10.1080/14459795.2012.678274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, N., Smith, D., & Thomas, T. (2005). Electronic gaming machines: Are they the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling? Addiction, 100(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, T. A., & Sobel, R. S. (1999). Gamblers favor skewness, not risk: Further evidence from United States lottery games. Economics Letters, 63(1), 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. (1991). The observational study of adolescent gambling in UK amusement arcades. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1, 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M., & Wood, R. (2001). The psychology of lottery gambling. International Gambling Studies, 1(1), 27–45. doi:10.1080/14459800108732286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. A., & 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(1), 159–174. doi:10.1007/s10899-009-9154-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haruvy, E., Erev, L., & Sonsino, D. (2001). The medium prizes paradox: Evidence from a simulated casino. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22(3), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgins, D. C., Schopflocher, D. P., Martin, C. R., el-Guebaly, N., Casey, D. M., Currie, S. R., et al. (2012). Disordered gambling among higher-frequency gamblers: Who is at risk? Psychological Medicine, 42(11), 2433–2444. doi:10.1017/S0033291712000724.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joukhador, J., Maccallum, F., & Blaszczynski, A. (2003). Differences in cognitive distortions between problem and social gamblers. Psychological Reports, 92(3c), 1203–1214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. doi:10.2307/1914185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korn, D., Gibbins, R., & Azmier, J. (2003). Framing public policy towards a public health paradigm for gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(2), 235–256. doi:10.1023/A:1023685416816.

  • Korn, D. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(4), 289–365.

  • Livingstone, C., Woolley, R., Zazryn, T., Bakacs, L., & Shami, R. (2008). The relevance and role of gaming machine games and game features on the play of problem gamblers. Report prepared for the Independent Gambling Authority, South Australia. Retrieved from http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/monash:38545.

  • Marfels, C. (2001). Is gambling rational? The utility aspect of gambling. Gaming Law Review, 5(5), 459–466. doi:10.1089/109218801753204423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, A. (2012). A review of eight software packages for structural equation modeling. The American Statistician, 66(2), 129–138. doi:10.1080/00031305.2012.708641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parke, A., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Aggressive behaviour in slot machine gamblers: A preliminary observational study. Psychological Reports, 95(1), 109–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling (vol. 2). Government of Australia: Productivity Commission.

  • Quinlan, E. (2008). Conspicuous invisibility: Shadowing as a data collection strategy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 1480–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockloff, M., & Dyer, V. (2007). An experiment on the social facilitation of gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(1), 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10899-006-9042-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockloff, M. J., Greer, N., Fay, C., & Evans, L. G. (2011). Gambling on electronic gaming machines is an escape from negative self reflection. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(1), 63–72. doi:10.1007/s10899-010-9176-2.

  • Rockloff, M. J., & Hing, N. (2013). The impact of jackpots on EGM gambling behavior: A review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(4), 775–790. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9336-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14(2), 111–134. doi:10.1023/A:1023042708217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schottler Consulting. (2010). Factors that influence gambler adherence to pre-commitment decisions. Retrieved from http://www.gamblingresearch.org.au/home/research/gra+research+reports/factors+that+influence+a+gambler+pre-commitment+decisions+2010.

  • Sharp, C., Steinberg, L., Yaroslavsky, I., Hofmeyr, A., Dellis, A., Ross, D., et al. (2012). An item response theory analysis of the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Assessment, 19(2), 167–175. doi:10.1177/1073191111418296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, L. (2004). Patterns of autonomic arousal in imaginal situations of winning and losing in problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(1), 95–104. doi:10.1023/b:jogs.0000016706.96540.43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. C., Sullivan, G. B., & Allen, F. C. L. (2009). A theoretical model of EGM problem gambling: More than a cognitive escape. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(1), 97–107. doi:10.1007/s11469-008-9152-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N. E., & Ferentzy, P. L. (2010). The natural life history of a lottery: The importance of large wins in the establishment and survival of a lottery. International Gambling Studies, 10(1), 19–30. doi:10.1080/14459790903437492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior (3d ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrieze, S. I. (2012). Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychological Methods, 17(2), 228–243. doi:10.1037/a0027127.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by Gambling Research Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Health and Social Science Research, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4670, Australia

    Matthew Browne, Erika Langham, Matthew J. Rockloff, En Li, Phillip Donaldson & Belinda Goodwin

Authors
  1. Matthew Browne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erika Langham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew J. Rockloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. En Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Phillip Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Belinda Goodwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Browne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Browne, M., Langham, E., Rockloff, M.J. et al. EGM Jackpots and Player Behaviour: An In-venue Shadowing Study. J Gambl Stud 31, 1695–1714 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9485-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9485-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation