Abstract
The study examined the perception of random lines by people with gambling problems compared to people without gambling problems. The sample consisted of 67 probable pathological gamblers and 46 people without gambling problems. Participants completed a number of questionnaires about their gambling and were then presented with a series of random and non-random lines. The participants rated lines as random if the pattern stayed near zero (the middle of the screen) and did not form anything that resembled waves. The probable pathological gamblers rated 2 of the patterns (jumps, and multi-wave) as significantly less random than non-problem gamblers. They also rated random lines significantly less random than the non-problem gamblers. That is, they seem to be able to find patterns both when they are really there and when they only appear to be there as in the case of random drift.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1996). The New Zealand National survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(2), 143–60.
Brysbaert, M. (1991). Algorithms for randomness in the behavioral sciences: a tutorial. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 22, 45–60.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty (pp. 3–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Bujold, A., Lachance, N., & Tremblay, S. (1991). Ecological validity of laboratory studies of videopoker gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7, 109–116.
Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1184–8.
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1993). Revising the South Oaks Gambling Screen in different settings. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 213–33.
McCleary, R., & Hay, E. E. (1980). Applied time series analysis for the social sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Onghena, P. (1993). A theoretical and empirical comparison of mainframe, microcomputer, and pocket calculator pseudo random number generators. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 25, 384–395.
Toneatto, T., Blitz-miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, A. (1997). Cognitive distortions in heavy gambling. The Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 253–266.
Turner, N. E. (1998). Doubling vs. constant bets as strategies for gambling. The Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 413–429.
Turner, N. E. (2000). Randomness, does it matter? Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues. Issue 2. Available at http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue2/research/.
Turner, N. E. & Liu, E. (1999). The naive human concept of random events. Paper presented at the 1999 conference of the American Psychological Association, Boston, Aug.
Turner, N. E. & Horbay, R. (2003). Doubling revisited: the mathematical and psychological effect of betting strategy. Gambling Research, 15, 16–34.
Turner, N. E., Wiebe, J., Falkowski-Ham, A., Kelly, J., & Skinner, W. (2005). Public awareness of responsible gambling and gambling behaviours in Ontario. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 95–112.
Turner, N., Littman-Sharp, N., & Zangeneh, M. (2006). The experience of gambling and its role in problem gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6, 237–266.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Keith Stanovich, Roger Horbay, and Geoff Noonan for their help in designing and carrying out this study.
The research was supported by a grant from the National Centre for Responsible Gaming. In addition, support to CAMH for salary of scientists and infrastructure has been provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care or the National Centre for Responsible Gaming.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Turner, N.E., Liu, E. & Toneatto, T. What Does a Random Line Look Like: An Experimental Study. Int J Ment Health Addiction 9, 60–71 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9251-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9251-z