↓ Skip to main content

Physiological Responses to Near-Miss Outcomes and Personal Control During Simulated Gambling

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Physiological Responses to Near-Miss Outcomes and Personal Control During Simulated Gambling
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, April 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10899-011-9247-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke Clark, Ben Crooks, Robert Clarke, Michael R. F. Aitken, Barnaby D. Dunn

Abstract

Near-miss outcomes during gambling are non-win outcomes that fall close to a pay-out. While objectively equivalent to an outright miss, near-misses motivate ongoing play and may therefore be implicated in the development of disordered gambling. Given naturalistic data showing increases in heart rate (HR) and electrodermal activity (EDA) during periods of real gambling play, we sought to explore the phasic impact of win, near-miss and full-miss outcomes on physiological arousal in a controlled laboratory environment. EDA and HR were monitored as healthy, student participants (n = 33) played a simulated slot-machine task involving unpredictable monetary wins. A second gambling distortion, perceived personal control, was manipulated within the same task by allowing the participant to select the play icon on some trials, and having the computer automatically select the play icon on other trials. Near-misses were rated as less pleasant than full-misses. However, on trials that involved personal choice, near-misses produced higher ratings of 'continue to play' than full-misses. Winning outcomes were associated with phasic EDA responses that did not vary with personal choice. Compared to full-misses, near-miss outcomes also elicited an EDA increase, which was greater on personal choice trials. Near-misses were also associated with greater HR acceleration than other outcomes. Near-miss outcomes are capable of eliciting phasic changes in physiological arousal consistent with a state of subjective excitement, despite their objective non-win status.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 21%
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 61 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 9%
Neuroscience 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 33 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 29 November 2014.
All research outputs
#2,202,141
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#121
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,405
of 120,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 120,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them