n the 20 years that I have been studying gambling,
the question that I am most asked is Why do people
gamble?’ and variations on it, such as Why do people
gamble when most people consistently lose?’ All surveys of
gambling have shown that there are a broad range
1 motivational factors that are central to gambling, and that
attitudes towards gambling are positively related to availability
and cultural acceptability (Griffiths, 2006).
However, this perspective fails to take into account many
key findings and observations in gambling research. Surveys
have also shown that not everyone gambles and some people
gamble more than others (e.g., professional gamblers,
problem gamblers). Research has consistently shown that
people often gamble for reasons other than broad social and
economic reasons.
These other motivations may vary according to personal
characteristics of the gambler and the type of gambling
activity. Additionally, broad social and economic theories fail to
explain why certain gambling activities are more popular or
‘addictive’ than others (Griffiths, 2006).
| (,AMBIIN(. M O I I V A I I O N
Variations in gambling preferences are thought to result from
both differences in accessibility and motivation. Older people
tend to choose activities that minimise the need for complex
decision-making or concentration (e.g., bingo, slot machines),
whereas gender differences have been attributed to a number
of factors, including variations in sex-role socialisation, cultural
differences and theories of motivation (Griffiths, 2006).
Stereotypically, women tend to prefer chance-based
games and men tend to prefer skill based games. Even some
games that are predominantly chance-based, men attempt to
PLAYER P E R S P E C T I V E
impose some level of skill. For instance, poker which
people regard as skill-based has a massive amount of luck
involved.
Similarly, men often, in their own minds, change playing
a slot machine from a chance-based event into a more skill-
based activity via cognitive processes such as the illusion of
control. The other factor to consider is that (in general)
women don’t like it when other people see them losing. On a
slot machine, no-one sees the player is losing so it’s very
often a very guilt free, private experience. M e n , on the other
hand, even when they lose big, there’s a machismo attached
to it that says: ‘Yes, I’ve lost £500 but I can afford It.”
Variations in motivation are also frequently observed
among people who participate in the same gambling activity.
For example, slot machine players may gamble to win money,
for enjoyment and excitement, to socialise and to escape
negative feelings (Griffiths, 2002). Some people gamble for
one reason only, whereas others gamble for a variety of
reasons. A further complexity is that people’s motivations for
gambling have a strong temporal dimension; (hat is, they do
not remain stable over time.
As people progress from social to regular and finally to
excessive gambling, there are often significant changes in
their reasons for gambling. Whereas a person might have
initially gambled to obtain enjoyment, excitement and
socialisation, the progression to problem gambling is almost
always accompanied by an increased preoccupation with
winning money and chasing losses https://www.mavericksystemscorp.com/ (Griffiths, 2006).
Gambling is clearly a multifaceted rather than unitary
phenomenon. Consequently, many factors may come into
play in various ways and at different levels of analysis (e.g.,
biological, social or psychological). Theories may be
complementary rather than mutually exclusive, which
suggests that limitations of individual theories might be
overcome through the combination of ideas from different
perspectives. This has often been discussed before in terms
of recommendations for an ‘eclectic’ approach to gambling or
a distinction between proximal and distal influences upon
gambling. However, for the most part, such discussions have
been descriptive rather than analytical, and so far, few
attempts have been made to explain why an adherence to
singular perspectives is untenable (Griffiths & Larkin, 2004;
Griffiths, 2005a).