Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 185–193 | Cite as

Effects of accuracy feedback versus monetary contingency on arousal in high and low frequency gamblers

  • Kevin J. Roby
  • Mark A. Lumley


This study examined the effects on arousal of feedback regarding prediction accuracy without monetary gain or loss versus accuracy feedback combined with monetary contingency involved in most gambling. Physiological and subjective arousal was assessed in frequent (n = 35; 16 females) and infrequent gamblers (n = 35; 16 females) during participation in a laboratory gambling game. Both samples consisted of undergraduate student volunteers. In one condition, subjects gambled money on their predictions about a sequence of events, hence receiving both feedback and monetary outcome. In the other condition, only feedback about accuracy was provided, with no money wagered. Arousal was greater for both groups during actual gambling than in the feedback only condition. Across both conditions, frequent gamblers exhibited greater arousal than did infrequent gamblers. There were, however, no significant Group X Condition interactions. These results suggest that actual monetary contingency rather than accuracy feedback alone is most motivating in gambling. Methodological limitations possibly related to the lack of Group X Condition interactions were discussed.


Prediction Accuracy Undergraduate Student Significant Group Condition Interaction Methodological Limitation 
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. Anderson, G., & Brown, R.I. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling, sensation-seeking and arousal.British Journal of Psychology, 75, 401–410.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dickerson, M., & Adcock, S. (1987). Mood, arousal and cognitions in persistent gambling: Preliminary investigation of a theoretical model.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hodes, R., Cook, E., & Lang, P. (1985). Individual differences in autonomic response: Conditioned association or conditioned fear?Psychophysiology, 22(5), 545–560.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ladouceur, R., Mayrand, M., & Tourignay, Y. (1987). Risk-taking behavior in gamblers and non-gamblers during prolonged exposure.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3(2), 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Leary, K., & Dickerson, M. (1985). Levels of arousal in high- and low-frequency gamblers.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23(6), 635–640.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lesieur, H., and Blume, S. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  7. Lesieur, H., Cross, J., Frank, M., Welch, M., White, C., Rubenstein, G., Moseley, K., & Mark, M. (1991). Gambling and pathological gambling among university students.Addictive Behaviors, 16, 517–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Phillips, J., & Amrhein, P. (1989). Factors influencing wagers in simulated blackjack.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structuring of mood.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin J. Roby
    • 1
  • Mark A. Lumley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWayne State UniversityDetroit

Personalised recommendations