↓ Skip to main content

“I was that close”: Investigating Players’ Reactions to Losses, Wins, and Near-Misses on Scratch Cards

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, April 2015
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
“I was that close”: Investigating Players’ Reactions to Losses, Wins, and Near-Misses on Scratch Cards
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10899-015-9538-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madison Stange, Candice Graydon, Mike J. Dixon

Abstract

While scratch cards are a popular, accessible, and inexpensive form of gambling, very little is known about how they affect and influence the player. This study sought to understand the physiological and subjective experience of scratch card play, with special emphasis on the effect of near-miss outcomes (i.e. uncovering two out of three "grand prize" symbols needed to win said prize), which are remarkably prevalent in scratch card games. Thirty-eight undergraduate students from the University of Waterloo each played two custom scratch card games and experienced three types of outcomes (losses, wins and near-misses) while their skin conductance levels (SCLs) and post-reinforcement pauses were recorded. Each participant also rated each outcome in terms of its subjective level of arousal, valence, and frustration. Our results indicate that players interpreted near-misses as negatively valenced, highly arousing, frustrating losses, and were faster to move onto the next game following this type of outcome than following winning outcomes. Additionally, near-miss outcomes were associated with the largest amount of change in SCLs as the outcome was revealed. This work has implications for the problem gambling literature as it provides evidence of the frustration hypothesis of near-misses in scratch cards, and is the first study to examine the physiological and psychological experiences of scratch card players.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 33 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,394,392
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#174
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,363
of 279,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 82% 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 279,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.