MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803324348 · doi:10.1037/adb0000364

Induced sadness increases persistence in a simulated slot machine task among recreational gamblers.

2018· article· en· W2803324348 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Clark, Pierre Maurage, Joël Billieux

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessPsychologyImpulsivityPersistence (discontinuity)MoodPsycINFOClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAngerMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gambling may constitute a strategy for coping with depressive mood, but a direct influence of depressive mood on gambling behaviors has never been tested via realistic experimental designs in gamblers. The current study tested whether experimentally induced sadness increases persistence on a simulated slot machine task using real monetary reinforcement in recreational gamblers. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to an experimental (sadness induction) or control (no emotional induction) condition, and then performed a slot machine task consisting of a mandatory phase followed by a persistence phase. Potential confounding variables (problem gambling symptoms, impulsivity traits, gambling cognitions) were measured to ensure that the experimental and control groups were comparable. The study showed that participants in the sadness condition displayed greater gambling persistence than control participants (p = .011). These data support the causal role of negative affect in decisions to gamble and persistence, which bears important theoretical and clinical implications. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207