Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 487–497 | Cite as

The Social Contagion of Gambling: How Venue Size Contributes to Player Losses

  • Matthew J. Rockloff
  • Nancy Greer
  • Carly Fay
Original Paper


The Social Facilitation Effect shows performance on many simple tasks is enhanced by crowds of onlookers or co-actors (others performing the same activity). Previous experimental research has shown that Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) betting behavior is intensified by the belief that others are gambling along with the subject (Rockloff and Dyer, J Gambl Stud 23(1):1–12, 2007). The present study extends these findings by simulating crowds of differing sizes using a fake video-conference along with a live confederate who gambles concurrently with the subjects. Fifty-four male and 81 female subjects aged 18–82 (M = 46.9, SD = 16.7) played a laptop simulated 3-reel EGM using a $20 stake in 3 conditions: (1) alone, (2) in a simulated group of 5 persons plus 1 live confederate, or (3) in a simulated group of 25 persons plus 1 live confederate. The EGM outcomes were rigged with a fixed 20 trial winning sequence followed by an indefinite losing sequence. As hypothesised, gambling intensity, as measured by trials played, speed of betting and final payouts, was progressively greater with larger crowd sizes (P < .05). In contrast, bet-size was slightly lower with larger crowds. The results suggest that gambling venues with more players tend to increase gambling persistence and contribute to greater long term monetary losses.


Group polarization Group effects Social influence Gambling Pathological gambling 



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

Conflicts of interest

No conflicts of interest are declared.


  1. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  2. Geen, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hardoon, K. K., & Derevensky, J. L. (2001). Social influences involved in children’s gambling behavior. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal; Journal Article]. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17(3), 191–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. LaPlante, D. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Understanding the influence of gambling opportunities: Expanding exposure models to include adaptation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 616–623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Martinez, F., Le Floch, V., & Gaffié, B. (2005). Perception of control and risk taking in a gambling game: What the other guy wins matters. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 18(3), 129–151.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R. A., & LaPlante, D. (2004). Laying the foundation for quantifying regional exposure to social phenomena: Considering the case of legalized gambling as a public health toxin. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(1), 40–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Suarez, T. L. (2007). Access Grid technology in classroom and research environments. The Journal of Supercomputing, 41(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Triplett, N. E. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an escape-based coping strategy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 80, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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