The Psychological Record

, Volume 65, Issue 1, pp 115–129 | Cite as

Simultaneously Observing Concurrently-Available Schedules as a Means to Study the Near Miss Event in Simulated Slot Machine Gambling

  • Benjamin N. Witts
  • Patrick M. Ghezzi
  • Morgan Manson
Original Article

Abstract

Traditionally, near-miss events in games of skill provide feedback to an individual regarding his or her performance. However, in games of chance, like slot machine gambling, the use fails to carry over. A near miss in slot machine gambling may still be endorsed when most of the symbols falling on a payline match, though technically this arrangement provides no real measure of skill or progress. To date, attempts to study the near miss in slot machine gambling have used resistance to extinction and preference assessment preparations, both of which unsuccessfully capture any putative reinforcement properties. The current investigation introduces a new methodology to assess putative conditioned reinforcement properties of stimuli correlated with the near miss in simulated slot machine gambling by incorporating the observing response with concurrently available schedules, termed simultaneous observing. Successful tests of the methodology regarding schedule-correlated stimuli in relation to win rates demonstrate its potential use, and failure to identify a near-miss event as producing reinforcing effects for schedule-correlated stimuli adds credibility to its ability to discriminate between functions.

Keywords

Gambling Conditioned reinforcement Observing response Humans 

References

  1. Case, D. A., & Fantino, E. (1981). The delay-reduction hypotheses of conditioned reinforcement and punishment: observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 93–108.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry. Neuron, 61, 481–490.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, L., Crooks, B., Clarke, R., Aitken, M. R. F., & Dunn, B. D. (2012). Physiological responses to near-miss outcomes and personal control during simulated gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 123–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  5. Côté, D., Caron, A., Aubert, J., Desrochers, V., & Ladouceur, R. (2003). Near wins prolong gambling on a video lottery terminal. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 433–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daugherty, D., & MacLin, O. H. (2007). Perceptions of luck: near win and near loss experiences. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 1, 123–132.Google Scholar
  7. DeLeon, I. G., Bullock, C. E., & Catania, A. C. (2013). Arranging reinforcement contingencies in applied stings: Fundamentals and implications of recent basic and applied research. In G. J. Madden et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior Analysis: Vol. 2. Translating principles into practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  8. Dillen, J., & Dixon, M. R. (2008). The impact of jackpot and near-miss magnitude on rate and subjective probability of slot machine gamblers. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 2, 121–134.Google Scholar
  9. Dixon, M. R. (2010). The roulette near-miss effect. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 4, 54–60.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Dixon, M. R., MacLin, O. H., & Daugherty, D. (2006). An evaluation of response allocations to concurrently available slot machine simulations. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 232–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon, M. R., Nastally, B. L., Hahs, A. D., Homer-King, M., & Jackson, J. W. (2009a). Blackjack players demonstrate the near miss effect. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 3, 56–61.Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, M. R., Nastally, B. L., Jackson, J. E., & Habib, R. (2009b). Altering the near-miss effect in slot machine gamblers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 913–918.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fantino, E. (2008). Choice, conditioned reinforcement, and the Prius Effect. The Behavior Analyst, 31, 95–111.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fantino, E., & Moore, J. (1980). Uncertainty reduction, conditioned reinforcement, and observing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 3–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fantino, E., & Romanowich, P. (2007). The effect of conditioned reinforcement rate on choice: a review. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 409–421.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fantino, E., & Silberberg, A. (2010). Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 157–170.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fantino, E., Preston, R. A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay reduction: current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159–169.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghezzi, P. M., Wilson, G. R., & Porter, J. C. K. (2006). The near-miss effect in simulated slot machine play. In P. M. Ghezzi, C. A. Lyons, M. R. Dixon, & G. R. Wilson (Eds.), Gambling: Behavior theory, research, and application (pp. 155–170). Reno: Context Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  22. Griffiths, M. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Győző, K., & Körmendi, A. (2012). Can we perceive near miss? An empirical study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Habib, R., & Dixon, M. R. (2010). Neurobehavioral evidence for the “near-miss” effect in pathological gamblers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 313–328.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrigan, K. A. (2007). Slot machine structural characteristics: distorted player views of payback percentages. Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrigan, K. A. (2008). Slot machine structural characteristics: creating near misses using high award symbol ratios. International Journal of Mental Health, 6, 353–368.Google Scholar
  27. Harrigan, K. A. (2009). Slot machines: pursuing responsible gaming practices for virtual reels and near misses. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 7, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haw, J. (2008). The relationship between reinforcement and gaming machine choice. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 55–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hendry, D. P. (1969). Introduction. In D. P. Hendry (Ed.), Conditioned reinforcement. Homewood: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jensen, M. (2010). The big book of slots and video poker (2nd ed.). Las Vegas: Cardoza Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Kassinove, J. I., & Schare, M. L. (2001). Effects of the “near miss” and the “big win” on persistence at slot machine gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 155–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 1184–1188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacLin, O. H., Dixon, M. R., Daugherty, D., & Small, S. L. (2007). Using a computer simulation of three slot machines to investigate a gambler’s preference among varying densities of near-miss alternatives. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 237–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Madden, G. J., & Perone, M. (1999). Human sensitivity to concurrent schedules of reinforcement: effects of observing schedule-correlated stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 303–318.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mead, D. R. (1983). Handbook of slot machine reel strips. Las Vegas: Mead Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  36. Nastally, B. L., & Dixon, M. R. (2012). The effect of a brief acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention on the near miss effect in problem gamblers. The Psychological Record, 62, 677–690.Google Scholar
  37. Nastally, B. L., Dixon, M. R., & Jackson, J. W. (2009). The effect of stopping devices and win rate on preference in slot machine players. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 3, 27–30.Google Scholar
  38. Near miss. (2012). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/125544?redirectedFrom=near+miss#eid34963145
  39. Peterson, J. M., & Weatherly, J. N. (2011). Comparing three strategies of motivating gambling behavior in the laboratory environment. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 5, 28–34.Google Scholar
  40. Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid, R. L. (1986). The psychology of the near miss. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shahan, T. A. (2002). The observing-response procedure: a novel method to study drug-associated conditioned reinforcement. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10, 3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shahan, T. A., & Lattal, K. A. (1998). On the functions of the changeover delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 141–160.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shahan, T. A., Podlesnik, C. A., & Jimenez-Gomez, C. (2006). Matching and conditioned reinforcement rate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 167–180.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shull, R. L., & Lawrence, P. S. (1998). Reinforcement: Schedule performance. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 95–129). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Silberberg, A., & Fantino, E. (2010). Observing responses: maintained by good news only? Behavioural Processes, 85, 80–82.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skinner, B. F. (1948). ‘Superstition’ in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Skinner, B. F. (1980). Notebooks. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Strickland, L. H., & Grote, F. W. (1967). Temporal presentation of winning symbols and slot-machine playing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 10–13.Google Scholar
  51. Sundali, J. A., Safford, A. H., & Croson, R. (2012). The impact of near-miss events on betting behavior: an examination of casino rapid roulette play. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 768–778.Google Scholar
  52. Weatherly, J. N., Thompson, B. J., Hodny, M., & Meier, E. (2009). Choice behavior of nonpathological women playing concurrently available slot machines: effect of changes in payback percentages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 895–900.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitton, M., & Weatherly, J. N. (2009). The effect of near-miss rate and card control when American Indians and non-Indians gamble in a laboratory situation: the influence of alcohol. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 16(2), 28–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, B. A. (1994). Conditioned reinforcement: experimental and theoretical issues. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 261–285.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Witts, B. N. (2013). Cumulative frequencies of behavior analytic journal publications related to human research on gambling. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 7, 59–65.Google Scholar
  56. Witts, B. N., Ghezzi, P. M., & Weatherly, J. N. (2011). Altering probability discounting in a gambling simulation. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 5, 83–92.Google Scholar
  57. Wyckoff, L. B., Jr. (1952). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning: part I. Psychological Review, 59, 431–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin N. Witts
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patrick M. Ghezzi
    • 1
  • Morgan Manson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community Psychology, Counseling, and Family TherapySt. Cloud State UniversitySt. CloudUSA

Personalised recommendations