|
 |
Player-specific factors
A number of player-specific
factors can impede the collection of reliable and valid data. These include
such factors as activity engrossment, dishonesty, social desirability,
motivational distortion, fear of ignorance, guilt, embarrassment, infringement
of player anonymity, unconscious motivation, lack of self-understanding,
chasing and lack of incentive to participate in research.
Activity engrossment.
Slot machine gamblers
can become fixated on their playing almost to the point where they "tune
out" to everything else around them. We have observed that many gamblers
will often miss meals and even utilise devices (such as catheters) so
that they do not have to take toilet breaks. Given these observations,
there is sometimes little chance that we as researchers can persuade them
to participate in research studies especially once they are already
gambling on a machine
Dishonesty and social desirability.
It is well known that some gamblers are dishonest about their gambling
behaviour. Social and problem gamblers alike are subject to social desirability
factors and may be dishonest about the extent of their gambling activities
to researchers as well as to those close to them. This obviously has implications
for the reliability and validity of any data collected.
Motivational distortion.
Many slot machine gamblers experience low self-esteem and when participating
in research may provide ego-boosting responses that lead to motivational
distortion. For this reason, many report that they win more (or lose less)
than they actually do. Again, this self-report data has implications for
the reliability and validity of the data.
Fear of ignorance. We
have observed that many slot machine gamblers claim to understand how
slot machines work when in fact they know very little. This appears to
be a face-saving mechanism so that they do not appear ignorant.
Guilt and embarrassment.
Slot machine gamblers may often be guilty and/or embarrassed to be in
the gambling environment in the first place. They may like to convince
themselves that they are not "gamblers" but simply "social
players" who visit gambling environments infrequently. We have found
that gamblers will often cite their infrequency of gambling as a reason
or excuse not participate in an interview or fill out a questionnaire.
Related to this, some gamblers just simply do not want to face up to the
fact that they gamble.
Infringement of player anonymity.
Some slot machine gamblers play on machines as a means of escape. Many
gamblers perceive the gaming establishment in which they gamble as a private
arena rather than a public one. Researchers who then approach them may
be viewed as infringing on their anonymity.
Unconscious motivation and
lack of self-understanding. Unfortunately, many slot machine gamblers
do not themselves understand why they gamble. Therefore, articulating
this accurately to researchers can be difficult. Furthermore, many gamblers
experience the "pull" of slot machines, the feeling of being
compelled to play despite better judgment, but they cannot articulate
why.
Chasing. Many frequent
gamblers do not want to leave "their" slot machine in case someone
"snipes" their machine while they are elsewhere. Therefore,
it is understandable that most gamblers are also more concerned with chasing
losses than participating in an interview or filling out a questionnaire
for a researcher.
Lack of incentive. Some
slot machine gamblers simply refuse to take part in research because they
feel that there is nothing in it for them (i.e. a lack of incentive).
Moreover, few gamblers view research about their gambling habits and experiences
as potentially helpful to others.
Researcher-specific factors
In addition to player-specific
factors, there are also some researcher-specific factors that can impede
the collection of data from slot machine gamblers. Most of these factors
concern research issues relating to such participant and non-participant
observational techniques as blending in, subjective sampling and interpretation,
and lack of gambling knowledge.
Blending in. The most
important aspect of non-participant observation research while monitoring
fruit machine players is the art of being inconspicuous. If the researcher
fails to blend in, then slot machine gamblers soon realise they are being
watched and are therefore highly likely to change their behaviour. For
instance, some players may get nervous, perhaps agitated and stop playing.
Others may do the opposite and try to show off by exaggerating their playing
ritual. Furthermore, some gamblers will discourage spectators if they
consider them to be "skimmers" (i.e. individuals who try to
win by playing "other peoples machines"). Blending into the
setting depends upon a number of factors, including whether the venue
is crowded and easy to wander around in without looking suspicious.
The researcher's experience,
age and sex can also affect the situation. In the United Kingdom, amusement
arcades are generally frequented by young men and elderly women. If the
arcade is not crowded and the researcher does not fit the general profile,
then there is little choice but to be one of the "punters." The researcher
will probably need to spend lengthy periods of time in the arcade; therefore,
spending money is unavoidable unless the researcher has a job there
an approach which may have benefits (see below).
Subjective sampling and
interpretation. It is impossible for the researcher to study everyone
at all times and locations in the gambling environment. Therefore it is
a matter of personal choice as to what data are recorded, collected and
observed. This affects the reliability and validity of the findings. Furthermore,
many of the data collected during observation will be qualitative in nature
and therefore, will not lend themselves to quantitative data analysis.
Lack of gambling knowledge.
Lack of "street knowledge" about slot machine gamblers and their
environments (e.g., knowledge of the terminology players use, machine
features, gambling etiquette, etc.) can lead to misguided assumptions.
For instance, non-participant observation may lead to recording irrelevant
data and idiosyncratic interpretation of something that is widely known
amongst gamblers. This can also lead to subjective interpretation issues.
External factors
In addition to player- and
researcher-specific factors, there are also external factors that can
impede the collection of data from slot machine gamblers. Most of these
factors involve the gaming industry's reactions to the presence of researchers
in their establishments, but there are other factors as well.
Gaming establishment design.
Years of research experience have demonstrated that many arcades and casinos
are not ideally designed for doing covert research. Non-participant observation
is often difficult in small establishments or in places where clientele
numbers are low.
Gatekeeper issues and bureaucratic
obstacles. The questions of how and where access to the research situation
can be gained raise ethical questions. According to Burgess (1984), access
is usually determined by an informant (often an acquaintance of the researcher)
or gatekeeper (usually the manager). Obtaining permission to carry out
research in a gambling establishment can be difficult and is often the
hardest obstacle that a researcher has to overcome to collect the required
data. Many establishments do not have the power to make devolved decisions
and must seek permission from the head office. The industry may prevent
access for many reasons. The main ones are described below.
Management concerns.
From the perspective of arcade and casino managers, the last thing they
want are researchers disturbing gamblers, their customers, by taking them
away from their gambling. Furthermore, they do not want researchers to
give their customers any chance to feel guilty about gambling. In our
experience, management sees researchers in this light, which influences
whether they give permission to carry out research.
Industry perceptions.
From the many years we have spent researching (and gambling on) slot machines,
it has become clear that some people in the gaming industry view researchers
as anti-gambling and expect research to report negatively about their
clientele, establishment or organisation. As with management concerns,
this also has an impact on obtaining permission to carry out research.
Practical advice for collecting
data on slot machine gamblers
Having presented what we believe
to be the main impediments to collecting data about slot machine gambling,
we offer some practical advice in this section on how to get around these
potential problems.
Network with the gaming
industry. Since gaining formal access to gambling establishments is
difficult, it is sensible to network with the gatekeepers in order to
facilitate access. The more they know about the researchers and what their
goals are, the more likely they are to make a decision based on informed
choice.
Be flexible and adaptable
in fieldwork. Researchers must constantly monitor their activities,
and they have to be flexible and adaptable. For instance, if a researcher
enters the field with certain hypotheses, misconceptions may result which
will need rapid revisions. Redefining methodology and hypotheses on the
basis of early observations may also be necessary (Burgess, 1984)
Collect relevant data. There
are few guidelines on what are relevant data when engaged in observational
work. Schatzman and Strauss (1973) suggest categorising behaviour into
these categories; (a) routine events, in which activities are part of
the daily round of life, (b) special events, which are fortuitous but
can be anticipated and (c) untoward events, which cannot be anticipated
or predicted. Alternatively, Spradley (1980) suggests three different
types of observation. These are (a) descriptive observations, which describe
the setting, the people and the events that took place, (b) focussed observations,
which give the descriptive observations a more detailed portrait and (c)
selective observations, which link the questions posed by the researcher.
Introduce incentives to
take part in research. To
get participants involved, it may be useful to pay the participants, give
them gifts or include them in prize draws, etc. There are of course ethical
issues concerning giving potential problem gamblers more money with which
to gamble, but such issues may be handled on an individual basis.
Utilise data that are already
there. For observational purposes it may be possible to use observational
behavioural data through such sources as surveillance footage. However,
ethical issues here are paramount and may affect if such approaches can
be employed at all.
Idiographic methodology.
When it is difficult
to recruit the appropriate participants, it may be necessary to study
a smaller sample size to gain valuable insights through collecting content-rich
data through means such as in-depth explorative interviews or observational
analysis (see following section) rather than simply doing questionnaires.
Researchers' evaluations can thus be triangulated with other methods of
data collection in order to be more confident about the validity and reliability
of their findings. For example, Griffiths (1995) researched adolescent
gambling utilising a range of methodologies including questionnaires,
interviews and participant and non-participant observation. If a participant
appears to have given socially desirable responses in the questionnaire
or initial interview, additional evaluations can be made through observational
sessions or a more probing interview.
Observational methodologies.
Fieldwork can be ideal
for studying "social worlds," described by Lindesmith, Strauss
and Denzin (1975) as "those groupings of individuals bound together
by networks of communication or universes of discourse and who share perspectives
on reality" (pp. 439-440). There are countless social worlds frequently
segmented into various subworlds (Strauss, 1978), many of which go unnoticed,
and so-called "invisible worlds" of socially problematic populations
(Unrah, 1983).
Whenever possible, it is recommended
to supplement self-report data with the use of observational methodologies.
Non-participant observation usually relies on the researcher being unknown
to the group under study. The one distinct advantage of non-participant
observation is that the researcher can study a situation in its natural
setting without altering the conditions -- but only if the researcher
can blend in naturally, as previously discussed. The one obvious advantage
is that non-participant observation relies only on observing behaviour.
Since the researcher cannot interact in the social behavioural processes,
most data collected will be qualitative, interpretative, and to some extent,
limited. However, by using other methodological research tools (e.g.,
structured interviews), suspicions, interpretations and even hypotheses
can be confirmed.
Contact treatment agencies.
Recovering pathological
gamblers may be more helpful in participating in research than gamblers
found in gambling establishments. However, there are problems with utilising
these populations. They will have distinctive viewpoints on gambling,
and gamblers recruited from treatment agencies to participate in research
do not represent a cross-section of the continuum of gamblers. These individuals
may have gambled much more frequently and taken more risks than the average
gambler. Furthermore, they may have experienced significantly higher levels
of life disruption as a result of their gambling. Thus, they view gambling
as a problem and are motivated and taking positive steps to combat related
problems. For these reasons, their opinions and attitudes may well be
different from those of the average gambler. Nevertheless, provided that
conclusions and generalisations are not based solely on such a population,
the data can often make a rich contribution to research findings.
Get employed in a gaming
establishment. One
way to collect invaluable data is to work in a gaming venue, an approach
that has been taken by prominent researchers in this field. For example,
Sue Fisher collected all of her observational data while employed behind
the change counter of her local amusement arcade. Employment within the
environment can be used to establish the researcher's identity and allow
blending into the environment. Slot machine gamblers are usually unaffected
by onlooking staff because there is no real risk of staff playing their
machine when they have finished their gaming (see "skimming"
referred to above). Hence, staff are fully permitted to observe playing
behaviour and are often required to do so to be vigilant for fraudulent
practices. Furthermore, while submerged in this social world, researchers
can gather large amounts of relevant and fruitful information indirectly
through participation in the gambling environment. We recently utilised
this approach to obtain data and it proved effective.
Become a gambler.
By becoming a gambler, the researcher can take an auto-ethnographic
approach in the collection of data. Auto-ethnography literally means the
study of one's own group (Rosecrance, 1986) and involves research processes
as well as research methods (Burgess, 1984). It can have a number of advantages;
for instance, it may allow acceptance by the group under study, familiarisation
with gambling terminology, longitudinal perspective and development of
tacit knowledge. According to Hayano (1979), the criteria for auto-ethnographic
research are knowledge of the people, culture and language, and the ability
to pass as a "native" member of the group.
Obviously, the choice of fieldwork
is dictated by the identity of the researcher and it is quite possible
for researchers to use this type of methodology without knowing their
approach was auto-ethnographic. However, it needs to be remembered that
the "insider role" (Rosecrance, 1986) can result in a lack of objectivity
resulting in a research bias in interpreting and reporting information.
Hayano (1979) countered this argument by stating that subjectivism and
personal involvement may not be methodological problems but rather assets
that can deepen ethnographic understanding. Furthermore, first-hand experiences
of gambling used in conjunction with some form of objective analysis may
enhance the researcher's understanding and outlook.
It is hoped that these proposed
explanations will benefit future research in this area by providing researchers
with an understanding of some of the difficulties of gathering data and
offering practical advice on what can be done to facilitate data collection,
and thus, improve validity and reliability. Unfortunately, identification
of slot machine gamblers is often accomplished by a "search and seek"
method of trawling local gambling establishments. Therefore, researchers
are often limited to collecting data during playing time and not outside
it. Data acquisition would be improved if gamblers were not occupied by
playing their slot machine.
References
- Burgess, R.G. (1984).
- In the Field: An Introduction
to Field Research. London: George Allen and Unwin.
- Griffiths, M.D. (1995).
- Adolescent Gambling.
London: Routledge.
- Hayano, D. (1979).
- Auto-ethnography: Paradigms,
problems and prospects. Human Organization, 38, 99104.
- Lindesmith, A., Strauss,
A. & Renzin, N. (1975).
- Social Psychology.
New York: Holt.
- Rosecrance, J. (1986).
- You can't tell the players
without a scorecard: A typology of horse players. Deviant Behaviour,
7, 7797.
- Schatzman, L. &
Strauss, A.L. (1973).
- Field Research: Strategies
for a Natural Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Spradley, J.P. (1980).
- Participant Obsevation.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Strauss, A. (1978).
- A social world perspective.
In N. Renzin (Ed.), Studies In Symbolic Interaction, Vol.1, pp.119128.
Greenwich, CN: In Press.
- Unrah, D. (1983).
- Invisible Lives: Social
Worlds of the Aged. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Submitted: October
16, 2001
This Opinion piece
was not peer-reviewed.
For correspondence:
Jonathan Parke
Psychology Division,
Nottingham Trent University
Burton Street,
Nottingham, U.K. NG1 4BU
Phone: +44 115
848 5635
Fax: +44 115
848 6826
Jonathan Parke is a postgraduate
researcher and part-time lecturer at Nottingham Trent University and
a visiting lecturer at Salford University, Manchester. In the past year,
he entered the field of gambling and gaming research with many conference
and research papers in the United Kingdom. He has also as a consultant
for government and industry.
Mark Griffiths, PhD,
is a reader in Psychology at Nottingham Trent University and is internationally
known for his research on gambling and gaming addictions. In 1994, he
was the first recipient of the John Rosecrance Research Prize for "outstanding
scholarly contributions to the field of gambling research." He has published
over 90 refereed research papers, numerous book chapters and over 250
other articles. His current interests are technological addictions,
especially computer games and the Internet.
|
 |