Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Gambling Studies
Published in: Journal of Gambling Studies 1/2018

Open Access 01-03-2018 | Original Paper

Near-Misses and Stop Buttons in Slot Machine Play: An Investigation of How They Affect Players, and May Foster Erroneous Cognitions

Authors: Mike J. Dixon, Chanel J. Larche, Madison Stange, Candice Graydon, Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Published in: Journal of Gambling Studies | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

In modern casinos, multiline slot machines are becoming increasingly popular compared to traditional, three-reel slot machines. A paucity of research has examined how the unique presentation of near-misses and the use of a stop button in multiline slot machines impact erroneous cognitions related to the perception of skill and agency during play. Our goal therefore was to determine the prevalence of erroneous cognitions pertaining to near-miss outcomes and the usage of a stop button and then to see whether the stop button affected players’ experiences of winning, losing and near-miss outcomes. We recruited 132 gamblers from a casino in Ontario. They played two versions of a slot machine simulator: one with a stop button and one without a stop button. We measured player’s arousal [skin conductance responses (SCRs), pressure on the spin-button), and behavioural responses (post-reinforcement pauses (PRPs)] to wins, losses and near-misses during play. We predicted more robust physiological SCRs and longer PRPs to wins in the stop button game. We also predicted that near-misses encountered in the stop button game would trigger greater levels of arousal and frustration in players, as indexed by larger SCRs, and greater force applied to the spin button to initiate the next spin. Erroneous cognitions pertaining to the stop button and near-misses respectively were assessed following play. Results showed that a small but meaningful percentage of players held erroneous cognitions about the stop button (13.6%) and near-misses (16%). Players depressed the spin button harder, and had larger SCRs for all outcomes when using the stop button. Players also paused longer for near-misses in the game involving the stop button. Our findings converge to suggest that the stop button encourages an erroneous perception of skill in some players, and consequentially impacts how such players perceive their outcomes in multiline slot machines.
Literature
Belisle, J., & Dixon, M. (2016). Near misses in slot machine gambling developed through generalization of total wins. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(2), 689–706.CrossRefPubMed
Berridge, K. C. (2004). Motivation concepts in behavioral neuroscience. Physiology and Behavior, 81(2), 179–209.CrossRefPubMed
Brown, R. F. (1986). Arousal and sensation-seeking components in the general explanation of gambling and gambling addictions. International Journal of the Addictions, 21(9–10), 1001–1016.CrossRefPubMed
Chóliz, M. (2010). Cognitive biases and decision making in gambling. Psychological Report, 107(1), 15–24.CrossRef
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(1), 123.CrossRefPubMed
Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2000). The electrodermal system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. L. Bernston (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 200–223).
Dixon, M. R. (2000). Manipulating the illusion of control: Variations in gambling as a function of perceived control over chance outcomes. The Psychological Record, 50(4), 705.CrossRef
Dixon, M., Harrigan, K., Jarick, M., Maclaren, V., Fugelsang, J., & Sheepy, E. (2011). Psychophysiological arousal signatures of near-misses in slot machine play. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 393–407.CrossRef
Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Sandhu, R.,  Collins, K., & Fugelsang, J. A.  (2010). Losses disguised as wins in modern multi-line video slot machines. Addiction, 105 (10), 1819–1824.CrossRefPubMed
Dixon, M. J., MacLaren, V., Jarick, M., Fugelsang, J. A., & Harrigan, K. A. (2013). The frustrating effects of just missing the jackpot: Slot machine near-misses trigger large skin conductance responses, but no post-reinforcement pauses. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(4), 661–674.CrossRefPubMed
Dixon, M. R., & Schreiber, J. (2004). Near-miss effects on response latencies and win estimations of slot machine players. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 335–348.CrossRef
Dixon, M. J., Templeton, J., Collins, K., Wojtowicz, L., Harrigan, K. A., Fugelsang, J. A., et al. (2015). Exploring attention in the ‘reel’ world: Visual and auditory influences on reactions to wins and near-misses in multiline slot machine play. In J. M. Fawcett, E. F. Risko, & A. Kingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of attention (pp. 589–621). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85(3), 351–369.CrossRef
Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M. J. (2009). PAR sheets, probabilities, and slot machine play: Implications for problem and non-problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23, 81–109.CrossRef
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–239.CrossRefPubMed
Ijsselsteijn, W., Poels, K., & de Kort, Y. A. W. (2008). The game experience questionnaire: Development of a self-report measure to assess player experiences of digital games. Eindhoven: TU Eindhoven.
Ladouceur, R., & Sévigny, S. (2005). Structural characteristics of video lotteries: Effects of a stopping device on illusion of control and gambling persistence. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(2), 117–131.CrossRefPubMed
Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., Lachance, S., Doucet, C., Leblond, J., et al. (2002). Cognitive treatment of pathological gamblers. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189, 774–780.CrossRef
Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328.CrossRef
Langer, E. J., & Roth, J. (1975). Heads I win, tails it’s chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 951–955.CrossRef
Lim, M., Bowden-Jones, S., & Rogers, M. (2014). Expressing gambling-related cognitive biases in motor behaviour: Rolling dice to win prizes. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(3), 625–637.CrossRefPubMed
Livingstone, C., & Woolley, R. (2007). Risky business: A few provocations on the regulation of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 7(3), 361–376.CrossRef
Livingstone, C., Woolley, R., Zazryn, T., Bakacs, L., & Shami, R. (2008). The relevance and role of gaming machine games and game features on the play of problem gamblers. Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia.
Lobbestael, J., Arntz, A., & Wiers, R. (2008). How to push someone’s buttons: A comparison of four anger-induction methods. Cognition and Emotion, 22(2), 353–373.CrossRef
Myrseth, H., Brunborg, G. S., & Eidem, M. (2010). Differences in cognitive distortions between pathological and non-pathological gamblers with preferences for chance or skill games. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(4), 561–569.CrossRefPubMed
Orgaz, C., Estévez, A., & Matute, H. (2013). Pathological gamblers are more vulnerable to the illusion of control in a standard associative learning task. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2004). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): Development, confirmatory factor validation and psychometric properties. Addiction, 99(6), 757–769.CrossRefPubMed
Reid, R. L. (1986). The psychology of the near miss. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2(1), 32–39.CrossRef
Sharman, S., Aitken, M., & Clark, L. (2015). Dual effects of ‘losses disguised as wins’ and near-misses in a slot machine game. International Gambling Studies, 15(2), 212–223.CrossRef
Templeton, J., Dixon, A., Harrigan, M., & Fugelsang, J. (2015). Upping the reinforcement rate by playing the maximum lines in multi-line slot machine play. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(3), 949–964.CrossRefPubMed
Wagenaar, W. A. (1988). Paradoxes of gambling behaviour. Hove, East Sussex: Erlbaum.
Walker, M. (1992). Irrational thinking among slot machine players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8(3), 245–261.CrossRefPubMed
Williams, R. J. & Volberg, R. A. (2013). Gambling and problem gambling in Ontario. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. June 17, 2013.
Williams, R. J., West, B. L., & Simpson, R. I. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence, and identified best practices. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Retrieved from http://​hdl.​handle.​net/​10133/​3121.
Williams, R. J., & Wood, R. T. (2007). The proportion of Ontario gambling revenue derived from problem gamblers. Canadian Public Policy, 33(3), 367–388.CrossRef
Witts, B., Ghezzi, N., & Manson, P. (2015). Simultaneously observing concurrently-available schedules as a means to study the near miss event in simulated slot machine gambling. The Psychological Record, 65(1), 115–129.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Near-Misses and Stop Buttons in Slot Machine Play: An Investigation of How They Affect Players, and May Foster Erroneous Cognitions
Authors
Mike J. Dixon
Chanel J. Larche
Madison Stange
Candice Graydon
Jonathan A. Fugelsang
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3602
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9699-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Gambling Studies 1/2018 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Cognitive Characteristics of Strategic and Non-strategic Gamblers

Original Paper

Dark Flow, Depression and Multiline Slot Machine Play

Original Paper

Health Outcomes in Individuals with Problem and Pathological Gambling: An Analysis of the 2014 North Carolina Behavioral Risk Factor Survey System (BRFSS)

Original Paper

Daily Grind: A Comparison of Causality Orientations, Emotions, and Fantasy Sport Participation

Original Paper

Gambling and the Reasoned Action Model: Predicting Past Behavior, Intentions, and Future Behavior

Original Paper

Barriers and Facilitators of Responding to Problem Gambling: Perspectives from Australian Mental Health Services