Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 63–83 | Cite as

Toward an Animal Model of Gambling: Delay Discounting and the Allure of Unpredictable Outcomes

  • Gregory J. Madden
  • Eric E. Ewan
  • Carla H. Lagorio
Original Paper


Laboratory investigations of gambling are sometimes criticized as lacking ecological validity because the stakes wagered by human subjects are not real or no real monetary losses are experienced. These problems may be partially addressed by studying gambling in laboratory animals. Toward this end, data are summarized which demonstrate that laboratory animals will work substantially harder and prefer to work under gambling-like schedules of reinforcement in which the number of responses per win is unpredictable. These findings are consistent with a delay discounting model of gambling which holds that rewards obtained following unpredictable delays are more valuable than rewards obtained following predictable delays. According to the delay discounting model, individuals that discount delayed rewards at a high rate (like pathological gamblers) perceive unpredictably delayed rewards to be of substantially greater value than predictable rewards. The reviewed findings and empirical model support the utility of studying animal behavior as an ecologically valid first-approximation of human gambling.


Gambling Random-ratio Choice Discounting Translational 


  1. Ainslie, G. (2005). Précis of breakdown of will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 635–673.Google Scholar
  2. Ainslie, G., & Haslam, N. (1992). Hyperbolic discounting. In G. Loewenstin & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 57–92). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Alessi, S. M., & Petry, N. M. (2003). Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure. Behavioral Processes, 64, 345–354.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM–IV). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, G., & Brown, R. I. F. (1987). Some applications of reversal theory to the explanation of gambling and gambling addictions. Journal of Gambling Studies, 3, 179–189.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, K. G., & Woolverton, W. L. (2005). Effects of clomipramine on self-control choice in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, & Behavior, 80, 387–393.Google Scholar
  7. Banschbach, V. S., & Waddington, K. D. (1994). Risk-sensitivity in honey-bees—no consensus among individuals and no effect of colony honey stores. Animal Behaviour, 47, 933–941.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, G. S., Grossman, M., & Murphy, K. (1991). Rational addiction and the effect of price on consumption. American Economic Review, 81, 227–241.Google Scholar
  9. Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. (1988). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy, 96, 675–700.Google Scholar
  10. Berns, G., McClure, S., Pafnoni, G., & Montague, P. R. (2001). Predictability modulates human brain response to reward. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 2793–2798.Google Scholar
  11. Bickel, W. K., & DeGrandpre, R. J. (1996). Psychological science speaks to drug policy: The clinical relevance and policy implications of basic behavioral principles. In: W. K. Bickel & R. J. DeGrandpre (Eds.), Drug policy and human nature: Psychological perspectives on the prevention, management, and treatment of illicit drug abuse (pp. 31–52). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: Delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 447–454.Google Scholar
  13. Bowman, C. H., & Turnbull, O. H. (2003). Real vs. facsimile reinforcers on the Iowa gambling task. Brain and Cognition, 53, 207–210.Google Scholar
  14. Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). “Chasing” in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1097–1111.Google Scholar
  15. Breslin, F. C., Sobel, M. B., Cappell, H., Vakili, S., & Poulos, C. X. (1999). The effects of alcohol, gender, and sensation seeking on the gambling choices of social drinkers. The Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13, 243–252.Google Scholar
  16. Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42.Google Scholar
  17. Caraco, T., Martindale, S., & Whittam, T. S. (1980). An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Animal Behaviour, 28, 820–830.Google Scholar
  18. Cartar, R. V., & Dill, L. M. (1990). Why are bumble bees risk sensitive foragers? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 26, 121–127.Google Scholar
  19. Cavedini, P., Riboldi, G., Keller, R., D’Annucci, A., & Bellodi, L. (2002). Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 334–341.Google Scholar
  20. Chung S., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1967). Choice and delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 67–74.Google Scholar
  21. Coffey, S. F., Gudleski, G. D., Saladin, M. E., & Brady, K. T. (2003). Impulsivity and rapid discounting of delayed hypothetical rewards in cocaine-dependent individuals. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 18–25.Google Scholar
  22. Collier G., & Johnson, D. F. (1997). Who is in charge? Animals vs. experimenter control. Appetite, 29, 159–180.Google Scholar
  23. Crossman, E. K., Bonem, E. J., & Phelps, B. J. (1987). A comparison of response patterns on fixed-, variable-, and random-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 395–406.Google Scholar
  24. Croy, M. I., & Hughes, R. N. (1991). Effects of food supply, hunger, danger and competition on choice of foraging location by fifteen-spined stickleback, Spinachia spinachia L. Animal Behaviour, 42, 131–139.Google Scholar
  25. Custer, R. L., & Milt, H. (1985). When luck runs out. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
  26. Davison, M. (1999). Statistical inference in behavior analysis: Having my cake and eating it. The Behavior Analyst, 22, 99–104.Google Scholar
  27. DeGrandpre, R. J., & Bickel, W. K. (1995). Human drug self-administration in a medium of exchange. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 4, 349–357.Google Scholar
  28. Deluty, M. Z. (1978). Self-control and impulsiveness involving aversive events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 250–266.Google Scholar
  29. Dixon, M. R., Marley, J., & Jacobs, E. A. (2003). Delay discounting by pathological gamblers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 449–458.Google Scholar
  30. Dixon, M. R., & Schreiber, J. E. (2004). Near-miss effects on response latencies and win estimations of slot machine players. The Psychological Record, 54, 335–348.Google Scholar
  31. Dodd, L. M. L., Klos, K. J., Bower, J. H., Geda, Y. E., Josephs, K. A., & Ahlskog, J. E. (2005). Pathological gambling caused by drugs used to treat Parkinson disease. Archives of Neurology, 62, 1377–1381.Google Scholar
  32. Essock, S. M., & Rees, E. P. (1974). Preference for and effects of variable as opposed to fixed reinforcer duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 89–97.Google Scholar
  33. Eysenck, S. B. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness. Their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247–1255.Google Scholar
  34. Fantino, E. (1967). Preference for mixed-versus fixed-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 35–43.Google Scholar
  35. Fernie, G., & Tunney, R. J. (2006). Some decks are better than others: The effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa gambling task. Brain and Cognition, 60, 94–102.Google Scholar
  36. Ferster, C. B. & Skinner, B. F. (1957) Schedules of Reinforcement. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Goldshmidt, J. N., & Fantino, E. (2004). Economic context and pigeons’ risk-taking: An integrative approach. Behavioural Processes, 27, 133–154.Google Scholar
  38. Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113–129.Google Scholar
  39. Gray, P. (1999). Psychology (3rd ed). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  40. Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myerson, J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison. Psychological Science, 5, 33–36.Google Scholar
  41. Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 769–792.Google Scholar
  42. Herrnstein, R. J. (1964). Aperiodicity as a factor in choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 179–182.Google Scholar
  43. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.Google Scholar
  44. Herrnstein, R. J., & Prelec, D. (1992). A theory of addiction. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 235–264). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383–451.Google Scholar
  46. Hills, A. M., Hill, S., Mamone, N., & Dickerson, M. (2001). Induced mood and persistence at gaming. Addiction, 96, 1629–1638.Google Scholar
  47. Ho, M. Y., Mobini, S., Chiang, T. J., Bradshaw, C. M., & Szabadi, E. (1999). Theory and method in the quantitative analysis of “impulsive choice” behaviour: Implications for psychopharmacology. Psychopharmacology, 146, 362–372.Google Scholar
  48. Hursh, S. R. (1984). Behavioral economics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 435–452.Google Scholar
  49. Hursh, S. R. (1991). Behavioral economics of drug self-administration and drug abuse policy. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 377–393.Google Scholar
  50. Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 129–146.Google Scholar
  51. Kacelik, A., & Bateson, M. (1996). Risky theories—The effects of variance on foraging decisions. American Zoologist, 36, 402–434.Google Scholar
  52. Kelleher, R. T. (1956). Intermittent conditioned reinforcement in chimpanzees. Science, 124, 279–280.Google Scholar
  53. Kendall, S. B. (1987). An animal analogue of gambling. Psychological Record, 37, 247–256.Google Scholar
  54. Kendall, S. B. (1989). Risk-taking behavior of pigeons in a closed economy. Psychological Record, 39, 211–219.Google Scholar
  55. Kheramin, S., Body, S., Ho, M. Y., Velazquez-Martinez, D. N., & Bradshaw, C. M. et al. (2004). Effects of orbital prefrontal cortex dopamine depletion on inter-temporal choice: A quantitative analysis. Psychopharmacology, 175, 206–214.Google Scholar
  56. Killeen, P. (1969). Reinforcement frequency and contingency as factors in fixed-ratio behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 391–395.Google Scholar
  57. Kirby, K. N. (1997). Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 54–70.Google Scholar
  58. Kosten, T. A., Miserendino, M. J. D., Haile, C. N., DeCaprio, J. L., Jatlow, P. I., & Nester, E.J. (1997). Acquisition and maintenance of intravenous cocaine self-administration in Lewis and Fischer inbred rat strains. Brain Research, 778, 418–429.Google Scholar
  59. Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Bujold, A., Lachance, N., & Tremblay, S. (1991). Ecological validity of laboratory studies of videopoker gaming. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7(2), 109–116.Google Scholar
  60. Ladouceur, R., Sevigny, S., Blaszczynski, A., O’Connor, K., & Lavioe, M. E. (2003). Video lottery: Winning expectancies and arousal. Addiction, 98, 733–738.Google Scholar
  61. Lagorio, C., & Madden, G. J. (2005). Delay discounting in human subjects when the consequence of every choice is real. Behavioral Processes, 69, 173–187.Google Scholar
  62. Lancaster, K. (1963). An axiomatic theory of consumer time preference. International Economic Review, 4, 221–231.Google Scholar
  63. Lesieur H., & Blume S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (the SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  64. Li, T. K., & Lumeng, L. (1984). Alcohol preference and voluntary intakes of inbred rat strains and the National Institutes of Health heterogeneous stocks of rats. Alcohol, Clinical and Experimental Research, 8, 485–486.Google Scholar
  65. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 272–292.Google Scholar
  66. Logan, F. A. (1965). Decision making by rats: Uncertain outcome choices. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 59, 246–251.Google Scholar
  67. Logue, A. W. (1988). Research on self-control: An integrating framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 665–679.Google Scholar
  68. Lorenz, V. C., & Yafee, R. A. (1986). Pathological gambling: Psychomatic, emotional and marital difficulties as reported by the gambler. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 40–49.Google Scholar
  69. Lyons, C. A., & Ghezzi, P. M. (1995). Wagering on a large scale: Relationships between public gambling and game manipulations in two state lotteries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 127–137.Google Scholar
  70. Madden, G. J., Bickel, W. K., & Jacobs, E. A. (1999). Discounting of delayed rewards in opioid-dependent outpatients: Exponential or hyperbolic discounting functions? Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 7, 284–293.Google Scholar
  71. Madden, G. J., Begotka, A. M., Raiff, B. R., & Kastern, L. L. (2003). Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 139–145.Google Scholar
  72. Madden, G. J., Dake, J. M., Mauel, E. C., & Rowe, R. R. (2005). Labor supply and consumption of food in a closed economy under a range of fixed- and random-ratio schedules: Tests of unit price. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 99–118.Google Scholar
  73. Madden, G. J., & Hartman, E. C. (2006). A steady-state test of the demand curve analysis of relative reinforcer efficacy. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 14, 79–86.Google Scholar
  74. Madden, G. J., Petry, N. M., Badger, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (1997). Impulsive and self-control choices in opioid-dependent patients and non-drug-using control participants: Drug and monetary rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 256–262.Google Scholar
  75. Malagodi, E. F. (1967). Acquisition of the token reward habit in the rat. Psychological Reports, 20, 1335–1342.Google Scholar
  76. Martin, S., Manzanares, J., Corchero, J., Garcia-Lecumberri, C., Crespo, J. A., Fuentes, J. A., & Ambrosio, E. (1999). Differential basal proenkephalin gene expression in dorsal striatum and nucleus accumbens, and vulnerability to morphine self-administration in Fischer 344 and Lewis rats. Brain Research, 821, 350–355.Google Scholar
  77. Mazur, J. E. (1983). Steady-state performance on fixed-, mixed-, and random-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 293–307.Google Scholar
  78. Mazur, J. E. (1984). Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 426–436.Google Scholar
  79. Mazur, J. E. (1986). Fixed and variable ratios and delays: Further tests of an equivalence rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 12, 116–124.Google Scholar
  80. Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  81. Mazur, J. E. (1997). Choice, delay, probability, and conditioned reinforcement. Animal Learning and Behavior, 25, 131–147.Google Scholar
  82. Mazur, J. E., & Logue, A. W. (1978). Choice is a self-control paradigm: Effects of a fading procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 11–17.Google Scholar
  83. McClure, S., Laibson, D., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306, 503–507.Google Scholar
  84. Meier, S. E., Brigham, T. A., Ward, D. A., Myers, F., & Warren, L. (1996). Effects of blood alcohol concentrations on negative punishment: Implications for decision making. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 85–96.Google Scholar
  85. Meyer, R. F. (1976). Preferences over time. In R. L. Keeney &H. Raiffa (Eds.), Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs (pp. 473–514). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  86. Miers, D. (1996). The implementation and effects of Great Britain’s National Lottery. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 343–373.Google Scholar
  87. Morse, W. H. (1966). Intermittent reinforcement. In W. K. Honig (Eds.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 52–108). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  88. Murphy, J. G., Vuchinich, R. E., & Simpson, C. A. (2001). Delayed reward and cost discounting. Psychological Record, 51, 571–588.Google Scholar
  89. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of Pathological Gambling (1999). Pathological gambling: a critical review, Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  90. Neuringer, A. J., & Schneider, B. A. (1968). Separating the effects of interreinforcement time and number of interrinforcement response. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 661–667.Google Scholar
  91. Nygren, T. E. (1998). Reacting to perceived high- and low-risk win-lose opportunities in a risky decision-making task: Is it framing or affect or both? Motivation & Emotion, 22, 73–98.Google Scholar
  92. Odum, A. L., Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Discounting of delayed health gains and losses in current, never-, and ex-smokers of cigarettes. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 4, 295–303.Google Scholar
  93. Ohmura, Y., Takahashi, T., Kitamura, N., & Wehr, P. (2006). Three month stability of delay and probability discounting measures. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 14, 3198–329.Google Scholar
  94. Orford, J., Sproston, K., Erens, B., White, C., & Mitchell, L. (2003). Gambling and problem gambling in Britain. New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  95. Orne, M. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.Google Scholar
  96. Perry, J. L., Larson, E. B., German, J. P., Madden, G. J., & Carroll, M. E. (2005). Impulsivity (delay discounting) as a predictor of acquisition of i.v. cocaine self-administration in female rats. Psychopharmacology, 178, 193–201.Google Scholar
  97. Petry, N. M. (2001). Pathological gamblers, with and without substance use disorders, discount delayed rewards at high rates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 482–487.Google Scholar
  98. Petry, N. M. (2005). Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  99. Petry, N. M., & Casarella, T. (1999). Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 56, 25–32.Google Scholar
  100. Petry, N. M., & Roll, J. M. (2001). A behavioral approach to understanding and treating pathological gambling. Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 6, 177–183.Google Scholar
  101. Poulos C. X., Le, A. D., & Parker, J. L. (1995) Impulsivity predicts individual susceptibility to high levels of alcohol self-administration. Behavioral Pharmacology, 6, 810–814.Google Scholar
  102. Rachlin, H. (1982). Economics of the matching law. In: M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior. vol. 2 (pp. 347–374). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  103. Rachlin, H. (1995). Self-control: Beyond commitment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 109–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rachlin, H. (1997). Four teleological theories of addiction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 462–473.Google Scholar
  105. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 233–244.Google Scholar
  106. Rosenthal, R. J., & Lorenz, V. C. (1992). The pathological gambler as criminal offender. Clinical Forensic Psychiatry, 15, 647–660.Google Scholar
  107. Ross, D., Spurrett, D., & Vuchinich, R. (2006). The behavioral economics and neuroeconomics of disordered gambling: A policy-focused survey of research. Report prepared for the South African Responsible Gambling Foundation.Google Scholar
  108. Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275, 1593–1599.Google Scholar
  109. Schweitzer, J. B., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1988). Self-control: Teaching tolerance for delay in impulsive children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 173–186.Google Scholar
  110. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1369–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sidley, N. A., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1964). Behavior stability and response rate as functions of reinforcement probability on “random ratio” schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 281–283.Google Scholar
  112. Simpson, C. A., & Vuchinich, R. E. (2000). Reliability of a measure of temporal discounting. Psychological Record, 62, 43–55.Google Scholar
  113. Sjöberg, L. (1969). Alcohol and gambling. Psychopharmacologia, 14, 284–298.Google Scholar
  114. Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden Two. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  115. Smart, R. G., & Ferris, J. (1996). Alcohol, drugs and gambling in the Ontario adult population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 36–45.Google Scholar
  116. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.Google Scholar
  118. Vitaro, F., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (1997). Dispositional predictors of problem gambling in adolescents. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1769–1770.Google Scholar
  119. Vitaro, F., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Impulsivity predicts problem gambling in low SES adolescent males. Addiction, 94, 565–575.Google Scholar
  120. Vitaro, F., Ferland, F., Jacques, C., & Ladouceur, R. (1998). Gambling, substance use, and impulsivity during adolescence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 12, 185–194.Google Scholar
  121. Volberg, R. A. (1994). The prevalence and demographics of pathological gamblers: Implications for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 237–241.Google Scholar
  122. Vuchinich, R. E., & Simpson, C. A. (1998). Hyperbolic temporal discounting in social drinkers and problem drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 6, 292–305.Google Scholar
  123. Weatherly, J. N., Sauter, J. M., & King, B. M. (2004). The “big win” and resistance to extinction when gambling. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 138, 495–504.Google Scholar
  124. Weiten, W. (2001). Psychology Themes and Variations (5th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  125. Wildman, R. W. (1997). Gambling: An attempt at an integration. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Wynne Recources.Google Scholar
  126. Williams, B. A. (1994). Conditioned reinforcement: Experimental and theoretical issues. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 261–285.Google Scholar
  127. Winstanley, C. A., Theobald, D. E. H., Dalley, J. W., Cardinal, R. N., & Robbins, T. W. (2006). Double dissociation between serotonergic and dopaminergic modulation of medial prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex during a test of impulsive choice. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 106–114.Google Scholar
  128. Zald, D. H., Boileau, I., El-Dearedy, W., Gunn, R., McGlone, F., Dichter, G. S., & Dagher, A. (2004). Dopamine transmission in the human striatum during monetary reward tasks. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 4105–4112.Google Scholar
  129. Zeiler, M. D. (1979). Output dynamics. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Advances in analysis of behaviour: Reinforcement and the organization of behaviour (pp. 79–115). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory J. Madden
    • 1
  • Eric E. Ewan
    • 2
  • Carla H. Lagorio
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Applied Behavioral ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin – Eau ClaireEau ClaireUSA
  3. 3.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations