The Roulette Near-Miss Effect
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Analysis of Gambling Behavior Volume 4 Article 6 2010 The Roulette Near-Miss Effect Mark R. Dixon Southern Illinois University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb Recommended Citation Dixon, Mark R. (2010) "The Roulette Near-Miss Effect," Analysis of Gambling Behavior: Vol. 4 , Article 6. Available at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb/vol4/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Analysis of Gambling Behavior by an authorized editor of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dixon: The Roulette Near-Miss Effect Analysis of Gambling Behavior 2010, 4, 54–60 Number 1 (Summer2010) The Roulette Near-Miss Effect Mark R. Dixon Southern Illinois University The near-miss effect has been repeated documented in the published literature as a variable that impacts gambling behavior. The effect, however, has been almost exclusively studied using slot machines. The present investigation sought to explore the effect of almost winning while playing roulette. When 28 participants were given the opportunity to play roulette and rate the closeness to wins after every trial, ratings varied as a function of numerical value between number bet and number won for most players. These results extend the findings that almost winning (e.g., a near-miss effect) is present for the game of roulette and defines the parameters of such an effect. Implications for the treatment of pathological gamblers are presented. Keywords: Near-miss, Roulette, Gambling, Addiction, Risk-taking -------------------------------------------------- When partaking in a game of chance, Daugherty, & Small, 2007), as well as many players will find themselves becoming generate specific neurological activity quite pleased upon producing a winning usually only occurring during wins for outcome. The unexpected, probabilistic, pathological gamblers (Habib & Dixon, reinforcement schedule maintains behavior 2010). for great periods of time. However, when While there has been considerable that same player loses, yet his/her loss looks growth in the exploration of the near-miss "close" to a win, a paradox appears to occur. effect by persons who gamble, what has not Close-win outcomes are often rated by been seen is much extension beyond a players as being somehow closer to wins simple slot-machine preparation. With slot than other types of losses (Dixon, Nastally, machines, the near miss is clearly defined as Jackson, & Habib, 2009; Dixon & 2 winning symbols on the payoff line, and Schreiber, 2004). What is interesting is that the remaining 1 winning symbol somewhere all losses are just that - losses, and none are right above or below the payoff line. A more predictive of a win right around the notable exception to the exclusive study of corner. This tendency to categorize certain near misses via slot machines was conducted losses as more valuable or predictive of a by Dixon, Nastally, Hahs, Horner-King, and win has been termed the near-miss effect Jackson (2009) using the casino game of (Reid, 1986). Previous research has noted Blackjack. Using a single-deck game, the potential for these types of outcomes to participants rated how close 50 consecutive promote problem gambling (Griffiths, hands of blackjack were to a win. Losses 1991), produce preferences for such were latter categorized as either "busts" or outcomes over total losses (MacLin, Dixon, "non-busts" with the former being defined as a loss to the dealer where the player did Address all correspondence to: obtain card values of over 21, and the latter Mark R. Dixon being card values of less than 21. A near- Behavior Analysis and Therapy Program miss effect was shown only for the non-bust Rehabilitation Institute Southern Illinois University losses and it decreased in strength as the Carbondale, IL 62901 difference between dealer and player hand Email:[email protected] 54 Published by theRepository at St. Cloud State, 2010 1 Analysis of Gambling Behavior, Vol. 4 [2010], Art. 6 Mark R. Dixon 55 card values increased (Dixon et al., 2009). As a result, the present investigation Near misses thus appear to be present on attempted to explore the potential for the more than just slot machines, and their game of roulette to produce near-miss presence is not simply a factor of formal outcomes from gamblers. Using self-reports similarity to a win. In the above blackjack of "closeness to a win" this study examined study, the additional feature of "bust" or a series of wins and losses from individuals "non-bust" modulated the effect, suggesting gambling at roulette. a role for psychological function to impact participant outcomes (i.e., ratings). METHOD Additional research has demonstrated the Participants flexibility of the near-miss effect based on Twenty-eight college students with no conditioning history of the participants self-reported history of gambling disorders (Dixon et al., 2009). participated in the present study for course To date, the published gambling extra-credit and a chance to win a $50 gift literature has yet to aggressively explore the card to a local retail establishment. presence of near misses in other casino Additional contingencies were imposed such games. Such losses might be present at the that the first 5 students that selected a craps table when rolling dice "close" to winning number were given 10 extra-credit those that are designated as winning points towards their final course grade, the combinations or at the video-poker machine next 5 students to select a winning number where a royal flush is missed by just one received 5 extra-points, and the remainder of card. Expanding the scope of the the students received 1 extra-credit point. investigation of the near miss to other casino While not available during the current study, games is critical to determine if the effect is additional opportunities for course extra- a feature of actual slot machine or as a credit were afforded to the students that may psychological process that leads to faulty have wanted more. Participants recruited decision making. Behavior analytically, one for this study were informed that, if they had might consider this an issue of a structural a gambling problem, they would be allowed characteristic of one game or a frequently to obtain identical compensation for a non- occurring discriminative stimulus present gambling study. across many casino-type games that sets the occasion for players to respond by wagering Setting / Apparatus even when a win is not reliability The experimental procedure took place predictable. Others might also consider the in a single-room stadium style classroom near miss to be a contextual stimulus, setting following the completion of an undergrad- event, or motivational operation that graduate class lecture. The room cpntained participates in a field of interaction to a large number of chairs, desks, and speak- increase the probability of a gambler er's podium with two large screens for responding (gambling), under a certain set presentation displays which faced the class of stimulus conditions. However, regardless attendees. A computerized roulette interface of definition, as researchers we must was presented on one of the large screens continue to explore the robustness of the and can be seen in Figure 1. near miss across games, and determine the conditions under which it is demonstrated. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb/vol4/iss1/6 2 Dixon: The Roulette Near-Miss Effect 56 ROULETTE PLAYERS Figure 1. Display of the experimental interface. Roulette All programmed contingencies were at fair were able to win additional course extra odds. In other words, each location on the credit, and an opportunity for a cash prize roulette reel had an equal probability of for completion of the study. Course credit being displayed on the board (p = 1/38). was administered as described above, and Participants were also provided with a data the potential cash prize consisted of their sheet which included space to write trial name being entered into a lottery for the number, number on the board which they drawing of a single 50 USD gift card to a wished to wager upon, and the number on local retail establishment. the board which was eventually displayed as Participants were instructed the the winning number. They were also following verbally by the experimenter: provided with a Likert-type scale from 1 to 10 in which they were to circle the number "You will be asked tonight to wager on a single number that you see displayed on that they believed was "how close their this computerized roulette board. You will outcome was to a win." complete a data sheet whereby you will indicate the number of trial that you are Procedure on, the wager you make, and the resulting At the onset of the experiment, all outcome of each spin. After you select a number you think will win, place your pen participants completed an informed-consent on the desk, and your hands in your lap. document, and were instructed that they Once everyone's hands are down, I will Published by theRepository at St. Cloud State, 2010 3 Analysis of Gambling Behavior, Vol. 4 [2010], Art. 6 Mark R. Dixon 57 click on the spin button and we will all and observed data sheets. No participant watch the wheel spin. If the winning was ever observed attempting to alter a data number that is displayed on the board is the number you bet on, please raise your sheet mid or post spin of the reel. hand for me and let me know that you won. Correspondence between all participants' If you did not win, please keep your hands recording of the obtained winning number down until we have checked all 'winners.' and the experimenter's recording of the At that time you will be allowed to rate number matched 100% of the trials how close your wager was to the winning wager.