| Title |
Predictors of Return Rate Discrimination in Slot Machine Play
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10899-013-9375-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ewan Coates, Alex Blaszczynski |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which accurate estimates of payback percentages and volatility combined with prior learning, enabled players to successfully discriminate between multi-line/multi-credit slot machines that provided differing rates of reinforcement. The aim was to determine if the capacity to discriminate structural characteristics of gaming machines influenced player choices in selecting 'favourite' slot machines. Slot machine gambling history, gambling beliefs and knowledge, impulsivity, illusions of control, and problem solving style were assessed in a sample of 48 first year undergraduate psychology students. Participants were subsequently exposed to a choice paradigm where they could freely select to play either of two concurrently presented PC-simulated slot machines programmed to randomly differ in expected player return rates (payback percentage) and win frequency (volatility). Results suggest that prior learning and cognitions (particularly gambler's fallacy) but not payback, were major contributors to the ability of a player to discriminate volatility between slot machines. Participants displayed a general tendency to discriminate payback, but counter-intuitively placed more bets on the slot machine with lower payback percentage rates. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#865
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,862
of 210,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#14
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.