↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Social Contagion of Gambling: How Venue Size Contributes to Player Losses
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, September 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10899-010-9220-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J. Rockloff, Nancy Greer, Carly Fay

Abstract

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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 66 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Student > Master 13 19%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 38%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,138,411
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#161
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,398
of 106,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 106,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them