Journal of gambling behavior

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 119–126 | Cite as

Effects of limited and unlimited stakes on gambling behavior

  • Robert Ladouceur
  • Anne Gaboury


The present study evaluated the effects of limited and unlimited stakes on motivational and cognitive activities of roulette players. Earlier studies have shown that irrational thinking dominates rational thinking during gambling. It was hypothesized that subjects in the limited stakes condition would be less motivated to play and would verbalize fewer irrational cognitions than subjects who were allowed to bet freely. Two groups of 15 individuals played 50 trials of American roulette. The results showed that, although each group emitted more irrational than rational thoughts, there was no difference between the groups in the percentage of irrational verbalizations. One unexpected difference between the groups was found. Subjects in the limited stakes condition made riskier bets than subjects in the unlimited stakes condition. Possible explanations for this difference are discussed.


Cognitive Activity Gambling Behavior Rational Thinking Unexpected Difference Irrational Thinking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abt, V., Smith, J.F., & Christiansen, E.M. (1985).The business of risk: Commercial gambling in mainstream America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  2. Blascowitch, J., Ginsburg, G.P., & Howe, R.C. (1975). Blackjack and the risky shift, II: Monetary stakes.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11 224–232.Google Scholar
  3. Blascowitch, J., Veach, T.L., & Ginsburg, G.P. (1973). Blackjack and the risky shift.Sociometry, 36 42–55.Google Scholar
  4. Gaboury, A., & Ladouceur, R. (1987).Irrational thinking and gambling. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
  5. Karen, G., Wagenaar, W.A. & Pleit-Kuiper, A. (1984). The multiple objectives of gamblers.Acta Psychologica, 56 167–178.Google Scholar
  6. Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Dumont, M., & Rochette, P. (1987).Gambling: The relationship between the frequency of wins and irrational thinking. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Ladouceur, R., & Mayrand, M. (1986). Caractéristiques psychologiques de la prise de risque monétaire des joueurs et des non-joueurs à la roulette.International Journal of Psychology, 21 433–443.Google Scholar
  8. Ladouceur, R., & Mayrand, M. (1987). The level of involvement and the timing of betting in roulette.The Journal of Psychology, 121 169–176.Google Scholar
  9. Ladouceur, R., Mayrand, M., & Talbot, C. (1987) Prise de risque en fonction de la présence ou l'absence de stratégies dans un jeu de hasard et d'argent.Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 8 44–53.Google Scholar
  10. Ladouceur, R., Mayrand, M., & Tourigny, Y. (1987). Risk-taking behavior in gamblers and nongamblers during prolonged exposure.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3 115–122.Google Scholar
  11. Ladouceur, R., Tourigny, M., & Mayrand, M. (1986). Familiarity, group exposure, and risk taking behavior in gambling.The Journal of Psychology, 120 45–49.Google Scholar
  12. Letarte, A., Ladouceur, R., & Mayrand, M. (1986). Primary and secondary illusory control and risk-taking in gambling (roulette).Psychological Reports, 58 299–302.Google Scholar
  13. Perkins, D.N. (1979).A primer on introspection. Paper presented at the Convention of the American Theater Association. New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Ladouceur
    • 1
  • Anne Gaboury
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole de PsychologieUniversité LavalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations