Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 443–451 | Cite as

Audience Influence on EGM Gambling: The Protective Effects of Having Others Watch You Play

  • Matthew J. Rockloff
  • Nancy Greer
Original Paper


One component of social facilitation on gambling is the potential for an audience of people to observe the play of Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) gamblers and influence their behaviour without participating directly in gambling themselves. An experiment was conducted with an audience of onlookers, purported to be students of research methods, taking notes while watching the participants play an EGM. Forty-three male and 82 female participants (N = 125), aged 18–79 (M = 49.2, SD = 15.6), played a laptop simulated 3-reel EGM using a $20 stake in three conditions: (1) alone, (2) watched by a simulated audience of six persons, or (3) watched by an audience of 26. Outcomes on the poker machine were rigged with a fixed sequence of five wins in the first 20 spins and indefinite losses thereafter. The results found smaller bet-sizes associated with larger audiences of onlookers, and this outcome is consistent with a hypothesized motivation to display more wins to the audience. Moreover, final payouts were greater in the audience conditions compared to the control, further suggesting that an audience may be a protective factor limiting player losses.


EGM EGMs Poker Slot Fruit Gambling Pathological gambling 



This research was funded by a grant from the Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia.

Conflict of interest



  1. Baron, R. S., Moore, D., & Sanders, G. S. (1978). Distraction as a source of drive in social facilitation research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 816–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(6), 545–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 245–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  5. Rockloff, M. J., & 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rockloff, M. J., Greer, N., & Fay, C. (2010). The social contagion of gambling: How venue size contributes to player losses. Australia: Central Queensland University.Google Scholar
  7. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Health and Social Science ResearchCentral Queensland UniversityBundabergAustralia

Personalised recommendations