Role%20of%20cognitive%20bias%20and%20skill%20in%20fruit%20machine%20gambling

1
Role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine
gambling

• Professor Mark Griffiths
• International Gaming Research Unit
• mark.griffiths_at_ntu.ac.uk

2
THE STUDY IN CONTEXT (1988-1990)

• Exploratory observational/semi-structured
  interview study of eight adolescent fruit machine
  gamblers (Griffiths, 1990a - JGS)
• Semi-structured interview study of 50 adolescent
  fruit machine gamblers (Griffiths, 1990b - JGS
  1990c - JGS)
• Case studies of adolescent fruit machine gamblers
  (Griffiths, 1991- BJA 1993 - JGS)
• Longitudinal observational study of adolescent
  gamblers in amusement arcades (Griffiths, 1991-
  JCASP)
• Postal study of Parent of Young Gamblers
  members and their adolescent gambling children
  (Griffiths, 1993a - JGS)
• Experimental study of cognition in fruit machine
  gamblers (Griffiths, 1994 - BJP)
• Experimental study of arousal in fruit machine
  gamblers (Griffiths, 1993b - Add.Behs)

3
GLOBAL MODEL OF GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR(Griffiths,
2006 Parke Griffiths, 2007)
4
Individual Characteristics(Griffiths
Delfabbro, 2001)
5
Situational Characteristics(Griffiths Parke,
2003)Example UK Amusement Arcade
6
Structural characteristics(Griffiths, 19931995
Parke Griffiths, 2001 2007)Example Slot
machines
7
COGNITIVE BIAS IN GAMBLING(Wagenaar, 1988)

• Gamblers are motivated by a way of reasoning,
  not by defects of personality, education or
  social environment
• Gamblers gamble not because they have a bigger
  repertoire of heuristics but because they select
  heuristics at the wrong occasions

8
STUDYS MAIN HYPOTHESES

• Hypothesis 1
• There would be significant differences in the
  thought processes (irrational verbalisations)
  between regular and non-regular gamblers
• Hypothesis 2
• There would be no significant differences in the
  (skill-based) behaviours of regular and
  non-regular gamblers

9
METHOD

• Quasi-experiment
• Two groups of participants
• IV regular or non-regular gambler

10
PARTICIPANTS

• 30 regular gamblers
• 30 non-regular gamblers
• Regular (29 males 1 female play at least once
  week)
• Non-regular (15 males 15 females play once
  month or less)
• Volunteer Sample
• Mainly recruited via a poster

11
THE SUBJECTIVE DVs

• (1) COGNITIVE ACTIVITY
• Measured by thinking aloud
• (2) PERCEPTION OF SKILL
• Measured by post-experiment semi- structured
  interview

12
THE OBJECTIVE (BEHAVIOURAL) DVs

• Total number of plays in session
• Total minutes of play in session
• Play rate - Total plays per minute in session
• End stake total winnings
• Total number of wins in session
• Win rate (time) time between wins
• Win rate (plays) number of plays between wins

13
PROCEDURE

• In arcade each participant given 3 to gamble on
  machine that gave 30 free gambles
• Objective To stay on machine for 60 gambles
• To break even and win back the 3
• If they achieved 60 gambles they could choose to
  keep the money or carry on gambling

14
CONTROLS

• Participants played same machine FRUITSKILL
• Randomly assigned to thinking aloud/non-thinking
  aloud
• All recordings transcribed within 24 hours
• - Say everything that goes through your mind
• - Do not censor your thoughts
• - Keep talking continuously
• - Dont have to speak in complete sentences

15
(No Transcript)
16
MAIN RESULTS (Behavioural variables)

• ANOVAs showed no significant differences on all
  variables except
• Regular gamblers stayed on the machine slightly
  longer (F(1,56) 4.27, p0.044)
• Regular gamblers had a significantly higher play
  rate (F(1,56) 7.96, p0.007)
• Non-regular gamblers who thought aloud had
  slightly more wins than any other group (F(1,56)
  5.09, p0.028)
• Regular gamblers who thought aloud had a
  significantly lower win rate than any other group
  (F(1,56) 7.85, p0.007)

17
MAIN RESULTS (Cognitive variables)

• Content analysis of thinking aloud transcripts
• 31 different categories (4 irrational, 27
  rational)
• Regular gamblers produced significantly more
  irrational verbalisations than non-regular
  gamblers (14 vs. 2.5 p lt 0.001)
• Further analysis of transcripts revealed gamblers
  using a variety of heuristics (e.g., hindsight
  bias)

18
(No Transcript)
19
IRRATIONAL VERBALISATION

• This fruity is not in a good mood
• It wants its money back
• Putting only a quid in bluffs the machine
• The machine thinks I am a Fwit
• This machine wont pay out happily

20
CONCLUSIONS

• Regular gamblers are slightly more skilful (e.g.
  knowing the reels and when to nudge)
• Regular gamblers believe they are more skilful
  than they are
• Gamblers know they will lose but they play
  with money not for it (staying on the machine is
  the objective)
• Regular gamblers make more irrational
  verbalisations demonstrating cognitive bias

21
APPLICATIONS?

• May help to rehabilitate gambling addicts
  through cognitive behavioural therapy
• Can be used to help problem gamblers change the
  way they think (recognise and change their
  cognitive bias) and behave
• e.g. by playing back their irrational thinking

22
EVALUATION

• Both quantitative and qualitative DVs
• Validity the thinking aloud method??
• Reliability of content analysis??
• Biased sample (29 male regular gamblers) - does
  this matter??
• Ecological validity (level of realism)
• Generalisability to other forms of gambling
  (e.g horse racing, dice, roulette)

23
Thankyou! Any questions?