Video lottery: winning expectancies and arousal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study investigates the effects of video lottery players' expectancies of winning on physiological and subjective arousal. DESIGN: Participants were assigned randomly to one of two experimental conditions: high and low winning expectancies. SETTING: Participants played 100 video lottery games in a laboratory setting while physiological measures were recorded. Level of risk-taking was controlled. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 34 occasional or regular video lottery players. They were assigned randomly into two groups of 17, with nine men and eight women in each group. INTERVENTION: The low-expectancy group played for fun, therefore expecting to win worthless credits, while the high-expectancy group played for real money. MEASUREMENTS: Players' experience, demographic variables and subjective arousal were assessed. Severity of problem gambling was measured with the South Oaks Gambling Screen. In order to measure arousal, the average heart rate was recorded across eight periods. FINDINGS: Participants exposed to high as compared to low expectations experienced faster heart rate prior to and during the gambling session. According to self-reports, it is the expectancy of winning money that is exciting, not playing the game. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the level of risk-taking, expectancy of winning is a cognitive factor influencing levels of arousal. When playing for fun, gambling becomes significantly less stimulating than when playing for money.
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".