The Use of Online Methodologies in Data Collection for Gambling and Gaming Addictions

  • Mark D. Griffiths


The paper outlines the advantages, disadvantages, and other implications of using the Internet to collect data from gaming addicts. Drawing from experience of numerous addiction studies carried out online by the author, and by reviewing the methodological literature examining online data collection among both gambling addicts and video game addicts, the main issues concerning data collected using the Internet are discussed and reviewed. This paper extends upon previous methodological papers in the area by outlining some of the methodological and ethical issues associated with specific (rather then generic) online methodologies that have been used to carry out gaming addiction research. The specific online data collection methods examined include the collection of gambling and video game addiction research data via (i) online questionnaires, (ii) online forums, (iii) online participant observation, (iv) online secondary data, (v) online interviews, (vi) online exemplar websites, and (vii) mixed methods online evaluation. It is concluded that the many advantages of online research methods can be a useful and practical way of examining many different aspects of gambling and video game addictions.


Online research methods Gambling addiction Video game addiction Internet gambling Online gambling Online gaming 


  1. Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11469-006-9028-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing gamers. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10, 575–583. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Eyles, J. (1988). Interpreting the geographical world: Qualitative approaches in geographical research. In J. Eyles & D. Smith (Eds.), Qualitative methods in human geography, pp. 1–16. Totawa, NJ: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
  5. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal, 323, 1103–1105. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Current trends in slot machine gambling: Research and policy issues. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 239–247. doi: 10.1007/BF02104791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths, M. D. (1991). Amusement machine playing in childhood and adolescence: a comparative analysis of video games and fruit machines. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 53–73. doi: 10.1016/0140-1971(91)90045-S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffiths, M. D. (2000). Does internet and computer “addiction” exist? Some case study evidence. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3, 211–218. doi: 10.1089/109493100316067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffiths, M. D. (2002). Using the internet for qualitative clinical research. Clinical Psychologist, 10, 27–30.Google Scholar
  10. Griffiths, M. D. (2005a). The relationship between gambling and videogame playing: a response to Johansson and Gotestam. Psychological Reports, 96, 644–646. doi: 10.2466/PR0.96.3.644-646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffiths, M. D. (2005b). A “components” model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Abuse, 10, 191–197. doi: 10.1080/14659890500114359.Google Scholar
  12. Griffiths, M. D. (2008). Digital impact, crossover technologies and gambling practices. Casino and Gaming International, 4(3), 37–42.Google Scholar
  13. Griffiths, M. D., & Wood, R. T. A. (2000). Risk factors in adolescence: the case of gambling, video-game playing and the internet. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 199–225. doi: 10.1023/A:1009433014881.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffiths, M. D., & Barnes, A. (2008). Internet gambling: an online empirical study among student gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 194–204. doi: 10.1007/s11469-007-9083-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. (2003). Breaking the stereotype: the case of online gaming. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 6, 81–91. doi: 10.1089/109493103321167992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths, M. D., Parke, J., Wood, R. T. A., & Rigbye, J. (2009). Online poker gambling in university students: Further findings from an online survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-009-9203-7.
  19. Grüsser, S. M., Thalemann, R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Excessive computer game playing: Evidence for addiction and aggression? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10, 290–292. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9956.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbert, S. (2000). For ethnography. Progress in Human Geography, 2, 550–568. doi: 10.1191/030913200100189102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2008). Gender swapping and socialising in cyberspace: an exploratory study. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11, 47–53. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). Excessive use of massively multi-player online role-playing games: a pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-009-9202-8.
  23. King, D., Delfabbro, P., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). The psychological study of video game players: Methodological challenges and practical advice. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-009-9198-0.
  24. Ley, D. (1988). Interpretive social research in the inner city. In J. Eyles (Ed.), Research in human geography, pp. 121–138. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Lofland, J. (1976). Doing social life: The qualitative study of human interaction in natural settings. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising research evidence. In N. Fulop, P. Allen, A. Clarke & N. Black (Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Meredith, A., Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). Online gaming: A scoping study of massively multi-player online role playing games. Electronic Commerce Journal. doi: 10.1007/s10660-009-9029-1.
  28. Niemz, K., Griffiths, M. D., & Banyard, P. (2005). Prevalence of pathological Internet use among university students and correlations with self-esteem, GHQ and disinhibition. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 8, 562–570. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Paccagnella, L. (2006). Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(1). Located at: [Last accessed February 1 2009].
  30. Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2002). Slot machine gamblers—Why are they so hard to study? Journal of Gambling Issues, 6. Located at: (Last accessed February 2 2009).
  31. Parke, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2006). United Kingdom computer mediated communication and poker gambling: a cyber-ethnographic study of poker-web communities. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, Lake Tahoe, USA. May.Google Scholar
  32. Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2008). Participant and non-participant observation in gambling environments. ENQUIRE, 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
  33. Smeaton, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004). Internet gambling and social responsibility: an exploratory study. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 49–57. doi: 10.1089/109493104322820110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods, pp. 51–80. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Wardle, H., & Robinson, C. (2007). Who chooses web surveys? Mode choices among youth cohort studies respondents. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Association of Survey Computing.Google Scholar
  36. Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M. D., Constantine, R., et al. (2007). The Briish gambling prevalence survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  37. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007a). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an escape-based coping strategy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 80, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007b). Online data collection from gamblers: Methodological issues. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5, 151–163. doi: 10.1007/s11469-007-9055-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007c). Online guidance, advice, and support for problem gamblers and concerned relatives and friends: an evaluation of the Gam-Aid pilot service. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 35, 373–389. doi: 10.1080/03069880701593540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wood, R. T. A., Gupta, R., Derevensky, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2004a). Video game playing and gambling in adolescents: Common risk factors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 14, 77–100. doi: 10.1300/J029v14n01_05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., Chappell, D., & Davies, M. N. O. (2004b). The structural characteristics of video games: a psycho-structural analysis. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 1–10. doi: 10.1089/109493104322820057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Eatough, V. (2004c). Online data collection from videogame players: Methodological issues. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 511–518.Google Scholar
  43. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, A. (2007a). Experiences of time loss among videogame players: an empirical study. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10, 45–56. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, J. (2007b). The acquisition, development, and maintenance of online poker playing in a student sample. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10, 354–361. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Widyanto, L., Griffiths, M. D., Brunsden, V., & McMurran, M. (2008). The psychometric properties of the internet related problem scale: a pilot study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 205–213. doi: 10.1007/s11469-007-9120-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15, 215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Gaming Research UnitNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Division of PsychologyNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations