Skip to main content
Log in

Environmental Factors in the Choice of EGMs: A Discrete Choice Experiment

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

Abstract

EGMs are a form of entertainment, and the gambling environment is an important contributor to the overall experience. Logically, to select a play-environment, EGM gamblers must choose the platform through which to access the EGM (e.g., internet, mobile application or land-based venue), a particular provider (e.g., specific website, app vendor or branded casino), and the game itself (e.g., based on graphical theme or bonus features; Thorne et al. in J Gambl Stud, 2016. doi:10.1007/s10899-016-9601-2). A discrete choice experiment was conducted to identify the features of the platform, provider and game that are most strongly preferred by EGM gamblers. Participants were 245 EGM gamblers from clubs in Victoria, Australia and 7516 EGM gamblers from an Australian online panel. Results indicate that the ideal environment for the average gambler consists of: gambling at a club that is close to home; with a group of friends; in a relatively quiet place that has air conditioning, cheap food and a large space to play in; on a classic game with quality animations and small bet sizes; where you feel safe and secure; and where there is a wide variety of other games to play when you are done. Segmenting these results by problem-gambler status highlights important differences in preferences between problem and non-problem gamblers. Problem gamblers are less likely to give weight to the company they share and have a preference for larger venues. Using a powerful paradigm from marketing research, the present study was able to determine the relative value of different features of the EGM gambling environment, and also contributes important insight towards what constitutes a safer environment for recreational play.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There was one domain with six options, three domains with four options each, two domains with three options each, and six domains with two options each. These are illustrated in Table 1. There were 300 unique environmental combinations generated, and each participant made 15 judgments.

References

  • Allenby, G. M., & Ginter, J. L. (1995). Using extremes to design products and segment markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(4), 392–403. doi:10.2307/3152175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. doi:10.2307/1252042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.

  • Browne, M., Langham, E., Rockloff, M. J., Li, E., Donaldson, P., & Goodwin, B. (2015). EGM jackpots and player behaviour: An in-venue shadowing study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(4), 1695–1714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delfabbro, P. H. (2006). Dissociation and problem gambling: A critical overview. In C. Allcock (Ed.), Current issues related to disassociation (pp. 10–14). Australian Gaming Council. http://www.rgtinfohub.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/AGC-Dissociation-2006.pdf#page=12.

  • Delfabbro, P. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of a limited reduction in electronic gaming machine availability on perceived gambling behaviour and objective expenditure. International Gambling Studies, 8(2), 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index final report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. http://ccgr.ca/sites/default/files/CPGI-Final-Report-English.pdf.

  • Fisher, S. (1993). The pull of the fruit machine: A sociological typology of young players. The Sociological Review, 41(3), 446–474. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb00073.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. D. (1991). The observational study of adolescent gambling in UK amusement arcades. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1(4), 309–320. doi:10.1002/casp.2450010406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, S. (2009). A study of gambling in Victoria: Problem gambling from a public health perspective. Victoria: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., & Haw, J. (2010). The influence of venue characteristics on a player’s decision to attend a gambling venue. Final Report for Gambling Research Australia by the Centre for Gambling Education & Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nerilee_Hing/publication/49403727_Influence_of_venue_characteristics_on_a_player’s_decision_to_attend_a_gambling_venue/links/02e7e51ccd033e518a000000.pdf.

  • Livingstone, C. H., Woolley, R., Zazryn, T. R., Bakacs, L., & Shami, R. G. (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 of South Australia.). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing (La Trobe).

  • Lucas, A. F. (2003). Slot servicescape satisfaction in a Las Vegas hotel casino. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 7(1), 1–19.

  • Markham, F., Young, M., & Doran, B. (2014). Gambling expenditure predicts harm: Evidence from a venue-level study. Addiction, 109(9), 1509–1516. doi:10.1111/add.12595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen. (2010). Internet and Technology Report. Macquarie Park, NSW: Nielsen. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/au/en.html.

  • Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries - productivity commission inquiry report. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling/report.

  • Rockloff, M. J. (2012). Validation of the consumption screen for problem gambling (CSPG). Journal of Gambling Studies, 28(2), 207–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rockloff, M. J., Greer, N., & Fay, C. (2011). The social contagion of gambling: How venue size contributes to player losses. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(3), 487–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schrans, T., Schellinck, T., & Walsh, G. (2000). Technical report: 2000 regular VLT players followup: A comparative analysis of problem development and resolution (pp. 193–214). Focal Research Consultants Ltd.

  • Sharpe, L., Walker, M., Coughlan, M.-J., Enersen, K., & Blaszczynski, A. (2005). Structural changes to electronic gaming machines as effective harm minimization strategies for non-problem and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(4), 503–520. doi:10.1007/s10899-005-5560-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The Commonwealth Government of Australia. (2001). Interactive gambling act 2001. Federal Register of Legislation. Attorney-General’s Department. April 12., 2016. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00279.

  • Thomas, J., Mora, K., & Rive, G. (2010). An investigation of the influence of gambling venue characteristics on gamblers’ behaviour. Lower Hutt: Opus International Consultants Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, H., Goodwin, B., Langham, E., Rockloff, M., & Rose, J. (in press). Preferred electronic gaming machine environments of recreational versus problem gamblers: An in-venue mixed methods study. Journal of Gambling Issues. JGI-Sep-15-RES-177.R2.

  • Thorne, H. B., Rockloff, M. J., Langham, E., & Li, E. (2016). Hierarchy of gambling choices: A framework for examining EGM gambling environment preferences. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-016-9601-2.

  • White, M. A., Mun, P., Kauffman, N., Whelan, C., Regan, M., & Kelly, J. E. (2006). Electronic gaming machines and problem gambling (pp. 1–105). Saskatchewan: Responsible Gambling Council (RGC).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. The authors would like to thank Keith Chrzan, SVP, Sawtooth Software for his assistance with statistical advice related to the discrete choice experiment. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (050/12-13).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Rockloff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Matthew Rockloff has received research grants from the Queensland Treasury, the Victorian Treasury, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Gambling Research Australia. Matthew Browne has received grants from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Gambling Research Australia. Hannah Thorne has received a grant from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. Neda Moskovsky and Gabrielle Bryden declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rockloff, M.J., Moskovsky, N., Thorne, H. et al. Environmental Factors in the Choice of EGMs: A Discrete Choice Experiment. J Gambl Stud 33, 719–734 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9622-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9622-x

Keywords

Navigation