Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 687–704 | Cite as

Examining the Roles of Rule Following, Reinforcement, and Preexperimental Histories on Risk-Taking Behavior

  • Mark R. DixonEmail author
  • Linda J. Hayes
  • Immaculada B. Aban
Article

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the participation of a variety of variables in gambling behavior. Forty-five subjects were exposed to an experimental roulette game played for course extra-credit points. In Phase 1, subjects played a fair game (i.e., completely random outcomes) without any instructions regarding the programmed contingencies for 75 trials. During Phase 2, subjects were exposed to an adjusted game with payback percentages of either p =.2, p =.8, or continued at p = fair and instructions related to play. Lastly, during Phase 3 all subjects were exposed to an adjusted game with a payback percentage of.2 and an option for escape. Results show that subjects exposed to inaccurate rules regarding play took higher levels of risk, made larger bets, and chose the escape option later than subjects exposed to accurate or no rules related to play. Although reinforcement density varied across subjects exposed to the same rule condition, there was no significant effect of that manipulation on subsequent gambles.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AGRESTI, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. CALDWELL, G. T. (1974). The gambling Australian. In D. E. Edgar (Ed.), Social change in Australia (pp. 13–23). Melbourne, Australia: Cheshire.Google Scholar
  3. CATANIA, A. C. (1992). Learning (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. CATANIA, A. C., MATTHEWS, B. A., & SHIMOFF, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. COLLINS, A. F. (1996). The pathological gambler and the government of gambling. History of the Human Sciences, 9, 69–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DICKERSON, M. G. FABRE, J., & BAYLISS, D. (1986). A comparison of Tab customers and poker machine players. In J. McMillen (Ed.), Gambling in the 80’s. Griffith University, Queensland: National Association for Gambling Studies.Google Scholar
  7. DIXON, M. R., & HAYES, L. J. (1998). Effects of different instructional histories on the resurgence of rule-following. The Psychological Record, 48, 275–292.Google Scholar
  8. DIXON, M. R., HAYES, L. J., & EBBS, R. E. (1998). Engaging in illusionary control during repeated risk-taking. Psychological Reports, 83, 959–962.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. DIXON, M. R., HAYES, L J., REHFELDT, R. A., & EBBS, R. E. (1998). An adjusting procedure for studying outcomes of risk-taking. Psychological Reports, 82, 1047–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FERSTER, C. B., & SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GHEZZI, P., LYONS, C., & DIXON, M. R. (2000). Gambling from a socioeconomic perspective. In W. K. Bickel & R. E. Vuchinich (Eds.), Reframing health behavior change with behavioral economics (pp. 313–338). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. HAYES, S. C (1986). The case of the silent dog — Verbal reports and the analysis of rules: A review of Ericsson and Simon’s Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 351–363.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. HAYES, S. C., BROWNSTEIN, A. J., HAAS, J. R., & GREENWAY, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule- governed behavior from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. HAYES, S. C., BROWNSTEIN, A. J., ZETTLE, R. D., ROSENFARB, I., & KORN, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. HAYES, S. C., ZETTLE, R. D, & ROSENFARB, I. (1987). Rule-following. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  16. KAHNEMAN, D., & TVERSKY, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgement of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. KNAPP, T. J. (1976). The Premack Principle in human experimental and applied settings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14(2), 133–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. KNOWLES, E. (1976). Searching for motivations in risk-taking and gambling. In W. Eadington (Ed.), Gambling and society: Interdisciplinary studies on the subject of gambling (pp. 295–307). Springfield, II: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  19. LADOUCEUR, R., BOISVERT, J. M., & DUMONT, J. (1994). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for adolescent pathological gamblers. Behavior Modification, 18, 230–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. LADOUCEUR, R., GABOURY, A., DUMONT, M., & ROCHETTE, P. (1988). Gambling: Relationship between the frequency of wins and irrational thinking. Journal of Psychology, 122(4), 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. LADOUCEUR, R., MAYRAND, M., & TOURIGNY, Y. (1987) Risk-taking behavior in gamblers and non-gamblers during prolonged exposure. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3(2), 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. LEFRANCOIS, J. R., CHASE, P. N., & JOYCE, J. H. (1988). The effects of a variety of instructions on human fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 383–393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. MARTIN, G., & PEAR, J. (1992). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. MAZUR, J. E. (1994). Learning and behavior. New York: Prentice Hail.Google Scholar
  25. RACHLIN, H., RAINERI, A., & CROSS, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 233–244.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. ROTTER, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1, Whole No. 609).Google Scholar
  27. SCHWARTZ, B. (1992). Psychology of learning and behavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  28. SHIMOFF, E., MATTHEWS, B. A., & CATANIA, A. C. (1986). Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 149–157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. VAUGHAN, M. E. (1985). Repeated acquisition in the analysis of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 175–184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. WULFERT, E., GREENWAY, D. E., FARKAS, P., HAYES, S. C., & DOUGHER, M. J. (1994). Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 659–671.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. YAMAGUCHI, K. (1991). Event history analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark R. Dixon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Linda J. Hayes
    • 2
  • Immaculada B. Aban
    • 2
  1. 1.Behavior Analysis and Therapy Program, Rehabilitation InstituteSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.University of NevadaUSA

Personalised recommendations