↓ Skip to main content

Toward an Animal Model of Gambling: Delay Discounting and the Allure of Unpredictable Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, December 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Toward an Animal Model of Gambling: Delay Discounting and the Allure of Unpredictable Outcomes
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, December 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10899-006-9041-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory J. Madden, Eric E. Ewan, Carla H. Lagorio

Abstract

Laboratory investigations of gambling are sometimes criticized as lacking ecological validity because the stakes wagered by human subjects are not real or no real monetary losses are experienced. These problems may be partially addressed by studying gambling in laboratory animals. Toward this end, data are summarized which demonstrate that laboratory animals will work substantially harder and prefer to work under gambling-like schedules of reinforcement in which the number of responses per win is unpredictable. These findings are consistent with a delay discounting model of gambling which holds that rewards obtained following unpredictable delays are more valuable than rewards obtained following predictable delays. According to the delay discounting model, individuals that discount delayed rewards at a high rate (like pathological gamblers) perceive unpredictably delayed rewards to be of substantially greater value than predictable rewards. The reviewed findings and empirical model support the utility of studying animal behavior as an ecologically valid first-approximation of human gambling.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 102 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Master 10 9%
Professor 8 7%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 12%
Neuroscience 9 8%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 15 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 May 2011.
All research outputs
#7,452,489
of 22,785,242 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#326
of 858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,779
of 156,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,785,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 156,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.