Differences in the Gambling Behavior of Online and Non-online Student Gamblers in a Controlled Laboratory Environment
- 301 Downloads
Although research suggests that approximately 1 in 4 college students report having gambled online, few laboratory-based studies have been conducted enlisting online student gamblers. Moreover, it is unclear the extent to which differences in gambling behavior exist between online and non-online student gamblers. The current study examined if online gamblers would play more hands, commit more errors, and wager more credits than non-online student gamblers in a controlled, laboratory environment. Online (n = 19) and non-online (n = 26) student gamblers played video poker in three separate sessions and the number of hands played, errors committed, and credits wagered were recorded. Results showed that online student gamblers played more hands and committed more errors playing video poker than non-online student gamblers. The results from the current study extend previous research by suggesting that online gamblers engage in potentially more deleterious gambling behavior (e.g., playing more hands and committing more errors) than non-online gamblers. Additional research is needed to examine differences in the gambling behavior of online and non-online gamblers in a controlled, laboratory environment.
KeywordsOnline gamblers Non-online gamblers Video poker Problem gambling
The first author was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T32AA018108. The project described was also supported by Award Number C06RR022088 from the National Center for Research Resources. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIAAA, National Center for Research Resources, or National Institutes of Health.
- Broda, A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., LaBrie, R. A., Bosworth, L. B., & Shaffer, H. J. (2008). Virtual harm reduction efforts for internet gambling: Effects of deposit limits on actual internet sports gambling behavior. Harm Reduction Journal, 5(27), 1–9.Google Scholar
- Di Nicola, M., De Risio, L., Pettorruso, M., Caselli, G., De Crescenzo, F., Swierkosz-Lenart, K., & Janiri, L. (2014). Bipolar disorder and gambling disorder comorbidity: Current evidence and implications for pharmacological treatment. Journal of Affective Disorders, 167, 285–298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Griffiths, M. (2001). Internet gambling: Preliminary results of the first UK prevalence study. Journal of Gambling Issues, 1–9. http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/300/e-gambling/html/2003/no8/archive/pdf/EJGI-issue5/EJGI-issue5-research2.pdf.
- Griffiths, M., & Whitty, M. (2010). Online behavioural tracking in Internet gambling research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(12), 104–117.Google Scholar
- Jackson, J. W. (2007). Using WinPoker 6.0 to study gambling behavior. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 1, 59–75.Google Scholar
- McMillen, J., & Grabosky, P. N. (1998). Internet gambling. Australian Institute of Criminology, 1–6. http://aic.gov.au/medialibrary/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi088.pdf.
- Rosenthal, R. J., & Lesieur, H. R. (1992). Self-reported withdrawal symptoms and pathological gambling. The American Journal on Addictions, 1(2), 150–154.Google Scholar
- Weatherly, J. N., & Meier, E. (2007). Studying gambling experimentally: The value of money. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 1(2), 133–140.Google Scholar