Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 433–438 | Cite as

Near Wins Prolong Gambling on a Video Lottery Terminal

  • Denis Côté
  • Anne Caron
  • Jonathan Aubert
  • Véronique Desrochers
  • Robert Ladouceur
Article

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether near wins can prolong gambling activity on a video lottery terminal. In a three-reel game, near wins were operationally defined as two identical symbols followed by a third different symbol. Players in an experimental condition were exposed to 27% near wins in a series of continuous losses, whereas players in a control group were exposed to none. Participants played as long as they wished, and received real money for their wins. The results showed that players in the near win condition played 33% more games than did the control group. The results of this study suggest that near wins can be added to the list of factors that may motivate people to gamble despite the probability of monetary loss.

near wins near misses risk factors in gambling gambling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amsel, A. (1992). Frustration theory: An analysis of dispositional learning and memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Delfabbro, P. H., & Winefield, A. H. (1999). The danger of over-explanation in psychological research: a reply to Griffiths. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 447-450.Google Scholar
  3. Griffiths, M. (1995). Adolescent gambling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Griffiths, M. D. (1999). The psychology of the near-miss (revisited): a comment on Delfabbro & Winefield (1999). British Journal of Psychology, 90, 441-445.Google Scholar
  5. Ladouceur, R. & Walker, M. (1996). A cognitive perspective on gambling. In P.M. Salkovskis (Ed.), Trends in cognitive and behavioural therapies, pp. 89-120, Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Reid, R. L. (1986). The psychology of the near miss. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2, 32-39.Google Scholar
  9. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  10. Strickland, L. H., & Grote, F. W. (1967). Temporal presentation of winning symbols and slotmachine playing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 10-13.Google Scholar
  11. Walker, M. B. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Côté
    • 1
  • Anne Caron
    • 1
  • Jonathan Aubert
    • 1
  • Véronique Desrochers
    • 1
  • Robert Ladouceur
    • 2
  1. 1.Université LavalIsrael
  2. 2.Ecole de psychologieUniversité LavalCanada

Personalised recommendations