Superstition as a personal moderator in the development of commitment and loyalty to and within casinos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gambling is a popular leisure activity for people around the world and the global casino industry has expanded rapidly in recent years. Behavioural loyalty among gamblers can be very important to the success of casinos, which will benefit from marketing strategies used to induce loyal patronage. However, it must also be appreciated that extremely loyal behaviour may be an indication of problem gambling, by which this leisure activity becomes detrimental. This article presents 12 propositions related to behavioural loyalty and casino gambling, focusing on superstition's role as a personal moderator influencing the formation of casino gambling loyalties. This conceptualization is based on a pre-existing model that delineates the process by which behavioural loyalty develops in a leisure context. The propositions are divided into six main categories: the basic functions of superstition as a personal moderator, types of superstition, the casino as a setting for the development of superstition, loyalty towards different types of games, socio-demographic and cultural variables, and the prevention of problem gambling. Implications for casino management and the prevention of problem gambling are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".