Advertisement

Online Data Collection From Gamblers: Methodological Issues

  • Richard T. A. Wood
  • Mark D. Griffiths
Article

Abstract

The paper outlines the advantages and disadvantages of using the Internet to collect data from gamblers, predominantly online gamblers. Drawing from experience of a number of studies carried out online by the authors and by reviewing the available literature, the authors discuss the main issues concerning data collected using computers and the Internet. The paper examines a number of areas including; recruiting and utilising participants, validity, suitable methods of data collection (i.e., questionnaire studies, online tests, participant observation, online interviews) and ethical issues. It is concluded that online research methods can be a useful way of examining the psychosocial aspects of online gambling and in some cases even traditional gambling activities.

Keywords

Online research methods Gambling Internet gambling Online gambling 

References

  1. Ashworth, J., Doyle, N., & Howat, N. (2000). Under 16s and the National Lottery: Tracking Survey July 2000, BMRB International Ltd. London: The National Lottery Commission: Located at: http://www.natlotcomm.gov.uk/uploadedFiles/trackingsurvey.pdf.
  2. Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2002). The e-interview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal], 3(2). Available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [Date accessed: 08/27/2003].
  3. Barak, A., & English, N. (2002). Prospects and limitations of psychological testing on the Internet. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19, 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruckman, A. S. (1993). Gender swapping on the internet. Paper presented at The Internet Society (INET ‘93) in San Fransisco, California.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, K. A., Rohlman, D. S., Storzbach, D., Binder, L. M., Anger, W. K., Kovera, C. A., et al. (1999). Test–retest reliability of psychological and neurobehavioral tests self-administered by computer. Assessment, 6, 21–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chappell, D., Eatough, V. E., Davies, M. N. O., & Griffiths, M. D. (2006). EverQuest—It’s just a computer game right? An interpretative phenomenological analysis of online gaming addiction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiLalla, D. L. (1996). Computerized administration of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Assessment, 3, 365–374.Google Scholar
  8. Griffiths, M. D. (2000). Does Internet and computer “addiction” exist? Some case study evidence. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffiths, M. D., & Davies, M. N. O. (2002). Excessive online gaming: Implications for education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 379–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. (2003). Breaking the stereotype: The case of online gaming. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6, 81–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. (2004a). Demographic factors and playing variables in online computer gaming. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 479–487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. (2004b). Online computer gaming: A comparison of adolescent and adult gamers. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 87–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. L. (1998). Adolescent gambling behaviour: A prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 319–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holge-Hazelton, B. (2002). The Internet: A new field for qualitative inquiry. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal], 3(2). Available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [Date accessed: 08/12/2003].
  15. Howard, G. S. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self-reports? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 399–404.Google Scholar
  16. Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by David Carr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kiesler, S., Siegal, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ladd, G. T., & Petry, N. M. (2002). Disordered gambling among university based medical and dental patients: A focus on internet gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 76–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newell, R. (1993). Questionnaires. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching Social Life (pp. 96–97). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Neuman, G., & Baydoun, R. (1998). Computerization of paper-and-pencil tests: When are they equivalent? Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Connell, R (2001). Be somebody else but be yourself at all times: Degrees of identity deception in chatrooms. Located at: http://www.once.uclan.ac.uk/print/deception_print.htm [Date accessed 06/01/04].
  22. Parke, A., Griffiths, M., & Parke, J. (2005). Can playing poker be good for you? Poker as a transferable skill. Journal of Gambling Issues, 14. Available at http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue14/jgi_14_parke.html.
  23. Suler, J. (1996). One of us: Participant observation research at the palace http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/partobs.html [Date accessed 06/07/05].
  24. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (1998). The acquisition, development and maintenance of lottery and scratchcard gambling in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 265–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004). Adolescent lottery and scratchcard players: Do their attitudes influence their gambling behaviour? Journal of Adolescence, 27, 467–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., Chappell, D., & Davies, M. N. O. (2004). The structural characteristics of video games: A psycho-structural analysis. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Gaming Research Unit (IGRU), Division of PsychologyNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations