INTERVIEW
Interview with Dr Mark Griffiths: 38 Years of Gambling and Behavioral Addiction Research
A researcher’s perspective on technology shifts, policy development, and effective player protection in modern gambling.
Interview with Dr Mark Griffiths
Our editor had a conversation with Dr Mark D. Griffiths, who is a global authority on gambling research, behavioral addiction, and player protection. His career was inspired by a close family member affected by gambling problems, which gave Griffiths unique insight into the personal and societal impacts of addiction. His research spans more than three decades, during which he has published widely and advised both governments and operators internationally.
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Behavioural Addiction at Nottingham Trent University Dr Mark Griffiths. Photo courtesy of Dr Mark Griffiths
Box-out: Dr Mark Griffiths – Researcher Profile
Name: Dr Mark D. Griffiths
Title: Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Behavioural Addiction
Company: Nottingham Trent University
Previous Roles: Director, International Gaming Research
Unit Sector Experience: Over 35 years in gambling, gaming, and behavioral addiction research; advisor to regulators across UK, Europe, Australia, and North America
Expertise: Gambling disorder, behavioral addiction, digital and technology-facilitated gambling, internet and gaming addiction, social responsibility in gambling
Recognized Publications: Author of over 1650 refereed papers, six books (e.g., “Gambling Addiction and its Treatment Within the NHS,” “Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence”), 200+ book chapters, and 1,500+ other articles
Recognition: Recipient of 24 national and international awards for research, including the US National Council on Problem Gambling Lifetime
Research Award; editorial board member for leading journals in gambling studies
The Beginning: Academic Choices and Real-World Impact
Dr Mark D. Griffiths is a global authority on gambling research, behavioral addiction, and player protection, whose career began with a personal connection to gambling harm—a close family member’s experience illustrated for him the real-world consequences of addiction and its ripple effect on the whole family.
When the psychologist Mark Griffiths was starting his PhD, there were three subjects to choose from, and the most interesting was adolescent gambling, a field where very little research had been published at the time.
This rare opportunity allowed Griffiths to begin publishing papers as an undergraduate—a highly unusual achievement—and to quickly make a mark in the new discipline.
Over the last 38 years, Mark Griffiths has worked in the field of addiction behavior, developing a research portfolio that now spans gambling, internet gaming, work, sex, and smartphone addiction.
Group playing cards and gambling, historical painting – Prisma Archivo/Alamy
Gambling: Universal, Historic, and Enjoyable—Like Music
In our interview, Dr Mark Griffiths compared the history and reach of gambling to music—a phenomenon found in every human society and crossing every cultural boundary.
“Gambling has always existed, and, like music, it is a global language,” he explained. “Everywhere you go, you’ll find some form of gambling, whether it’s organized play or just a casual bet among friends.”
Griffiths emphasizes that the vast majority gamble for enjoyment, much like people listen to music for entertainment.
Only a small proportion—between 0.2% and 3% of the population by international estimates—ever experience gambling problems severe enough to need clinical support.
His research and policy advice consistently stress the importance of maximizing protection for those vulnerable to harm, without restricting recreational enjoyment for everyone else.
This evidence-driven perspective shapes Griffiths’s approach to responsible gambling: interventions should be precisely targeted, allowing most people to participate safely while offering real safeguards for those at higher risk.
The Six Components of Addiction
Professor Mark D. Griffiths approaches behavioral addiction through his “components model,” which has influenced international research and policy on gambling and other repetitive behaviors. The model identifies six key criteria, each of which must be present in a clinically significant addiction:
Salience: The activity becomes the dominant feature of a person’s life.
Mood Modification: Participation consistently provides emotional release or excitement.
Tolerance: Individuals need increasing amounts or intensity to achieve the same effect.
Withdrawal: Stopping evokes unpleasant feelings or physical symptoms.
Conflict: Disruption occurs in relationships, personal well-being, or within oneself.
Relapse: Persons repeatedly attempt but fail to control or stop the activity.
Griffiths’s empirical work shows most gamblers never experience all these effects; only a minority are genuinely addicted.
His emphasis on precise criteria underscores a key message for prevention policy: interventions should be carefully targeted, maximizing protection for those truly at risk while allowing recreational gamblers to enjoy their pastime without undue restriction. This evidence-based distinction continues to inform the design and evaluation of harm minimization strategies in regulated gambling markets.
Researcher perspective
“We went from slot machines in shops open 12 hours, to 24/7 access online. It’s like having a bookmaker in your pocket.”
— Professor Mark D. Griffiths, Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Behavioural Addiction, Nottingham Trent University
The Technology Revolution in Gambling
Since the mid-1990s, online gambling has transformed the market from a venue-based, time-limited activity to an always-available digital experience, accessible via smartphones and computers. For many, gambling now spans both offline venues and online sites, with individuals participating whenever and wherever they choose. Griffiths notes, however, the emergence of a younger, digital-first generation—known as “screenagers”—whose entertainment and habits, including gambling, are conducted almost entirely online. This trend towards exclusive online play in younger cohorts signals a significant shift in how gambling is approached and how risks manifest.
Advances in technology have introduced rapid event frequency, product diversity, targeted advertising, and behaviourally-informed digital interfaces. These features amplify risk for vulnerable individuals, while making gambling easier and more personalised for the majority. Griffiths and other researchers argue that online gambling can be “doubly addictive,” with anonymity, ease of access, and immersive environments strengthening both appeal and potential harm, especially for digital-native populations.
As market revenues expanded dramatically, early academic work recognized the societal implications. Griffiths, for example, published pioneering research on internet gambling as early as 1996, anticipating many of the regulatory, consumer protection, and public health debates that would follow. His analysis continues to inform international policy conversations on technology use, responsible product design, and the industry’s evolving landscape.
While both offline and online gambling coexist for most individuals, the generational shift towards screen-based play introduces new challenges for harm minimisation and player protection. Griffiths’s own policy advice stresses the need for adaptive interventions and tailored safeguards—strategies shaped by the behaviours and risks unique to contemporary digital users.
Sweden and Norway – Early Adopters of Responsible Gambling Technology
Pioneering Big Data and Harm Minimization in Scandinavia
Between 2005 and 2006, Sweden and Norway emerged as global leaders in responsible gambling technology through the launch of behavioral data-driven systems like Playscan at Svenska Spel and early programs at Norsk Tipping.
Dr Mark Griffiths played an advisory role, helping implement what was likely the world’s first use of big behavioral data not just for marketing but for harm prevention. These pioneering systems provided players with personalized, neutral feedback comparing their gambling behavior to average benchmarks and flagged risk patterns early, often predicting potential problems up to three months ahead.
When multiple markers of harm were detected, telephone interventions were triggered, initiating conversations aimed at helping people regain control.
What made these tools distinctive was the embedding of personalized messaging throughout the player journey. For example, if a gambler’s time or spending significantly exceeded peers, Playscan would send neutral alerts that encouraged self-evaluation. Accumulating “red flags” culminated in active player support via phone calls, showing early evidence of effectiveness in reducing risk and preventing escalation.
The success of these harm-minimization approaches owes much to a strong duty-of-care culture within the state monopoly frameworks of Scandinavia and a tradition of collaboration between operators and regulators. These lessons have since informed harm reduction policies globally.
However, differences in regulatory models matter: Norveigan and Swedish monopolies benefit from consolidated player data, enabling comprehensive risk prediction and intervention. In contrast, open-market systems, with multiple operators accessing only partial data, face challenges in delivering similarly effective and coordinated harm minimization.
Lessons from Finland: Why Limits Alone Don’t Protect
Through his work across Scandinavia, Professor Mark Griffiths observed that culture and market structure play a decisive role in player protection. In Finland, the introduction of mandatory gambling limits and restrictive controls was designed to prevent gambling harm. Yet, the policy had an unintended consequence: many at-risk gamblers simply shifted their play to unlicensed offshore operators, undermining the goal of greater protection.
As Griffiths put it, “Systems can become too strict and lose players to what some call Pirates of the Caribbean—unlicensed operators working offshore.” The Finnish experience illustrates that robust harm minimization is not just about setting strict limits; it requires balance, context, and an understanding of local player behaviors. “The real lesson from Finland is that protective measures must be flexible and built on collaboration, data, and trust. Otherwise, well-intentioned policies may drive risk underground instead of reducing harm.”
Regulation, Advertising, and Harm
“Countries banning gambling would never work; it’s counterproductive, like banning alcohol. Balance is key—regulation and player protection,” Griffiths insists.
Recent measures in Denmark, such as the sporting events ad ban, are well-intentioned, but researchers and industry experts remain uncertain whether such regulations yield tangible reductions in problem gambling. Industry leaders warn that excessively strict policies risk pushing gamblers into unregulated online markets.
In the UK, the latest Gambling Survey for Great Britain shows the problem gambling rate rising only slightly, from 2.5% to 2.7%—despite an approximately 800% increase in advertising during the same period.
“The UK’s latest survey shows a slight increase in problem gambling, but with an 800% increase in advertising, we haven’t seen an 800% increase in problem gambling,” Griffiths notes.
Protecting minors from exposure to betting ads and online casinos is a bigger challenge than simple bans. Over 60% of UK adults say gambling promotions are “everywhere,” and a third remember seeing such ads before turning 17.
Griffiths argues for targeted interventions that protect younger people and vulnerable groups without excessive invasion of privacy—pointing to the difficulty of shielding minors from advertising on social platforms and video-sharing sites.
Illustration of Collaboration and Dialogue in Gambling Policy
Bigger Surveys, Sharper Insights
The evidence base for gambling research has changed fundamentally over the past decade. Where early studies often relied on surveys of a few hundred gamblers, contemporary national research now routinely draws on samples of tens of thousands, and in some cases well over 20,000 respondents. The 2024 Gambling Survey for Great Britain is a landmark example, engaging more participants than any previous study and allowing for far more reliable identification of at-risk groups, gambling behaviours, and treatment needs.
For Mark Griffiths, better evidence brings sharper policy decisions—and it underscores the limits of prohibition. “Countries banning gambling would never work; it’s counterproductive, like banning alcohol,” he explains. Data show that most players prefer regulated brands they can trust, benefitting from consumer protections and access to support.
But when regulations become overly strict or burdensome, history and recent survey results confirm a shift: at-risk gamblers and heavy players increasingly turn to unlicensed sites, often based offshore and outside the reach of national authorities—the so-called “Pirates of the Caribbean” effect.
Griffiths’s analysis points to the need for balanced, evidence-driven regulation, tailored to local market context and drawing on insights from today’s much larger studies. Stronger research datasets allow policymakers not only to measure harm, but also to react more quickly to new trends and adapt protections for vulnerable groups—without risking an exodus to less safe, unregulated gambling environments.
Toward Real Cooperation
Throughout his career, Professor Mark D. Griffiths has consistently emphasised that effective player protection and harm minimisation require genuine collaboration between researchers, operators, regulators, and treatment providers.
“Stakeholders must talk to each other. Researchers need to cooperate with operators—they have the real data,” Griffiths asserts.
He argues that open dialogue, transparent sharing of information, and regular multi-stakeholder meetings are critical to progress. Silos hamper innovation; collective learning from successes and failures can drive evidence-based policy and safer gambling outcomes. Only through sustained cooperation—beyond occasional conferences and published reports—can the industry balance growth with social responsibility and keep pace with evolving risks.
