The Appropriateness of Using Laboratories and Student Participants in Gambling Research
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Increased recognition of the risks associated with gambling has resulted in a greater focus on empirical research to increase the understanding of gambling and design appropriate response strategies. Laboratory studies are a popular mode of research due to their relative ease and lower costs compared to field research; however such studies may be limited in the extent to which results can be generalized to real gambling scenarios. The current research investigated the validity of a laboratory research study using 127 university students (male = 97, mean age = 20.4) investigating the impact of harm-minimisation measures by replicating the study in gambling venues with 124 club patrons (male = 89, mean age = 44.1). The main results and effects of both studies were in the same direction, but fewer significant results were found in the venue study. Venue participants provided much less information in response to survey questions than student participants and were less likely to return follow-up questionnaires. It was concluded that both laboratory and field studies provide valuable contributions to the field, but caution should be taken in interpreting results, and where possible both methodologies should be used to verify conclusions.
- Anderson, G., & Brown, R. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling, sensation seeking and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 401–410.
- Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9. CrossRef
- Browne, B. A., & Brown, D. J. (1993). Using students as subjects in research on state lottery gambling. Psychological Reports, 72, 1295–1298.
- Burger, J. M., & Smith, N. G. (1985). Desire for control and gambling behavior among problem gamblers. Personality and Social Bulletin, 11, 145–152. CrossRef
- Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for applications. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197–207. CrossRef
- Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297–312. CrossRef
- Carlson, R. (1971). Where is the person in personality research? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
- Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality development across the life course: The argument for change and continuity. Psychological Inquiry, 12(2), 49–66. CrossRef
- Coulombe, A., Ladouceur, R., Desharnais, R., & Jobin, J. (1992). Erroneous perceptions and arousal among regular and occasional video poker players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 235–244. CrossRef
- Custer, R. L. (1982). Pathological gambling. In A. Whitfield (Ed.), Patients with alcoholism and other drug problems. New York: Year Book Publishers.
- Delfabbro, P. (2004). The stubborn logic of regular gamblers: Obstacles and dilemmas in cognitive gambling research. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 1–21. CrossRef
- Delfabbro, P. (2008). Australasian gambling review (third edition ed.). Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia.
- Dickerson, M. (1984). Compulsive gamblers. London: Longman.
- Dickerson, M., & Adcock, S. (1987). Mood, arousal, and cognitions in persistent gambling: Preliminary investigations of a theoretical model. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3, 3–15. CrossRef
- Dipboye, R. L., & Flanagan, M. F. (1979). Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? American Psychologist, 32, 141–150. CrossRef
- Dishkin, K., Hodgins, D., & Skitch, A. (2003). Psychophysiological and subjective responses of a community sample of video lottery gamblers in gambling venues and laboratory situations. International Gambling Studies, 3, 133–148. CrossRef
- Dixon, M., Hayes, L., & Ebbs, R. (1998). Engaging in illusionary control during repeated risk-taking. Psychological Reports, 83, 959–962. CrossRef
- Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioural research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(3), 281–286. CrossRef
- Ferber, R. (1977). Research by convenience. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 57–58. CrossRef
- Giedd, J. N. (2004). Structural magnetic resonance imaging on the adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1021, 77–85. CrossRef
- Goffman, E. (1969). Where the action is. London: Allen Lane.
- Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 191–207. CrossRef
- Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomores as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12, 157–159. CrossRef
- Griffiths, M. (1993). Tolerance in gambling: An objective measure using the psychophysiological analysis of male fruit machine gamblers. Addictive Behaviours, 18, 365–372. CrossRef
- Jacobs, D. F. (2004). Youth gambling in North America: Long-term trends and future prospects. In J. Derevensky & R. Gupta (Eds.), Gambling problems in youth: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 1–24). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
- Kraus, S. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behaviour: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58–75. CrossRef
- Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Bujold, A., Lachance, N., & Tremblay, S. (1991). Ecological validity of laboratory studies of videopoker gaming. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7, 109–116. CrossRef
- Ladouceur, R., & Mayrand, M. (1984). Evaluation of the “illusion of control”: Type of feedback, outcome sequence, and number of trials among regular and occasional gamblers. Journal of Psychology, 117, 37–46. CrossRef
- Ladouceur, R., Sevigny, S., Blaszczynski, A., O’Connor, K., & Lavoie, M. (2003). Video lottery: Winning expectations and arousal. Addiction, 98, 733–738. CrossRef
- Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328. CrossRef
- Leary, K., & Dickerson, M. (1985). Levels of arousal in high and low frequency gamblers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 635–640. CrossRef
- Levitt, S. T., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174. CrossRef
- Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1973). Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, (November), 16–23.
- Locke, E. A. (Ed.). (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
- Matute, H. (1995). Human reactions to uncontrollable outcomes: Further evidence for superstitions rather than helplessness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 142–157.
- May, R., Whelan, J., Meyers, A., & Steenbergh, T. (2005). Gambling-related irrational beliefs in the maintenance and modification of gambling behaviour. International Gambling Studies, 5, 155–167. CrossRef
- Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. CrossRef
- Meyer, G., Hauffa, B., Schedlowski, M., Pawlak, C., Stadler, M., & Exton, M. (2000). Casino gambling increases heart rate and salivary cortisol in regular gamblers. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 948–953. CrossRef
- Oakes, W. (1972). External validity and the use of real people as subjects. American Psychologist, 34, 329–339.
- Orne, M. T. (1959). The demand characteristics of an experimental design and their implications. Cincinnati: Paper read at American Psychological Association.
- Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. CrossRef
- Peterson, R. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461. CrossRef
- Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530. CrossRef
- Shaffer, H., Hall, M., & Vander Bilt, J. (1997). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behaviour in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis. Massachusetts: Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions.
- Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Holmes, C. J., Jernigan, T. J., & Toga, A. W. (1999). In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 859–861. CrossRef
- Strickland, L. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Katz, A. M. (1966). Temporal orientation and perceived control as determinants of risk-taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 143–151. CrossRef
- Thompson, S. C., Armstrong, W., & Thomas, C. (1998). Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: A control heuristic explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 143–161. CrossRef
- Walker, M. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon.
- Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M.-C. O., & Hoffman, J. H. (2008). The prevalence of problem gambling among U.S. adolescents and young adults: Results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 119–133. CrossRef
- Wulfert, E., Franco, C., Williams, K., Roland, B., & Maxson, J. H. (2008). The role of money in the excitement of gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 380–390. CrossRef
- The Appropriateness of Using Laboratories and Student Participants in Gambling Research
Journal of Gambling Studies
Volume 27, Issue 1 , pp 83-97
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Research methodology
- Laboratory studies
- Field studies
- Young adults