↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Jackpots on EGM Gambling Behavior: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
The Impact of Jackpots on EGM Gambling Behavior: A Review
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10899-012-9336-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J. Rockloff, Nerilee Hing

Abstract

This paper reviews literature on how jackpots influence Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) gambling behaviour. Most of the available evidence addresses the motivational effect of the mere presence of EGM jackpots on play, as actual wins are relatively rare for individual gamblers. The review identifies a distinction between rational, biased and irrational motivations that attract people to EGM jackpots. The evidence suggests that EGM jackpots should generate additional consumption on EGMs above machines that do not have such lottery-like features. Rational motivations are likely to lead to consumer surplus, whereas biased and irrational motivations are likely to contribute to excessive consumption. Moreover, there is evidence that excessive gambling consumption is strongly associated with gambling-related harm. Future research should identify how the structural features of different types of jackpots; such as progressive, deterministic, hidden, mystery, linked and wide-area jackpots; may differentially appeal to rational, biased and irrational gambling motivations. Jackpots are common feature of EGM games, and therefore it is important to have a better understanding of how jackpot features influence play on the machines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 27%
Social Sciences 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#599
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,972
of 192,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.