MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908567873 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2018.40.5

An Exploratory Study of Gamblers’ Perceptions of Music’s Effects on Gambling Behaviour

2018· article· en· W2908567873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Bramley, Nicola Dibben, Richard Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionCognitionSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background music is often present in gambling environments and has been found to influence gamblers’ behaviour. However, little is known about gamblers’ perception of environmental influences, including music, and whether gamblers believe that such influences can impact upon their gambling behaviour. An online questionnaire was administered to 136 gamblers to probe the perceived effects of gambling operator-selected and self-selected music on the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects of gambling. In general, few respondents believed that music influences aspects of gambling participation. However, the analysis indicated that some gamblers, particularly those classified as moderate-risk and problem gamblers, self-select music to accompany gambling, and analysis of free-text responses indicated that this was undertaken to match their musical preferences or out of habit. Some gamblers believed that self-selected music promoted positive moods and supported concentration. Furthermore, some poker players thought that music may serve unique functions such as helping them to mask outward emotions and filling time between games. This study demonstrates that self-selected music is sometimes purposefully used by gamblers to support the cognitive and emotional aspects of gambling. However, as few gamblers believed that music could influence the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects of gambling, this research reveals a disparity between subjective opinions and objective evidence, as gathered in published empirical laboratory experiments. This indicates the need to improve gamblers' awareness of the potential influence of background music on the gambling experience.Résumé Dans les environnements de jeu, il y a souvent une musique de fond, et on a constaté qu’elle influençait le comportement des joueurs. Cependant, on sait peu de choses de la perception qu’ont les joueurs des influences environnementales, notamment la musique, et de leur avis quant aux influences que ces facteurs environnementaux peuvent avoir sur leur comportement de jeu. Un questionnaire en ligne a été soumis à 136 joueurs compulsifs afin de sonder les effets perçus de la musique sélectionnée et choisie par les opérateurs de jeux d’argent, d’une part, et celle choisie par le joueur, d’autre part, sur les aspects cognitifs, émotionnels et comportementaux du jeu. En général, peu de répondants interrogés pensent que la musique influence certains aspects de la participation au jeu. Toutefois, l’analyse a montré que certains joueurs, en particulier ceux classés à risque modéré et à problème, choisissaient eux-mêmes leur musique pour accompagner les jeux de hasard, et l’analyse des réponses en texte libre indiquait que cela était fait pour correspondre à leurs préférences musicales ou par habitude. Certains joueurs étaient d’avis que la musique qu’ils choisissaient eux-mêmes favorisait une humeur positive et la concentration. De plus, certains joueurs de poker étaient d’avis que la musique pouvait potentiellement servir à des fonctions particulières, comme les aider à masquer leurs émotions et à combler le temps entre les parties. Cette étude démontre que les joueurs utilisent parfois délibérément de la musique qu’ils ont eux-mêmes choisie pour soutenir les aspects cognitifs et émotionnels du jeu. Cependant, comme peu de joueurs étaient d’avis que la musique pouvait influencer les aspects cognitifs, émotionnels et comportementaux du jeu, cette recherche révèle une disparité entre les opinions subjectives et les preuves objectives recueillies dans le cadre d’expériences empiriques de laboratoire publiées. Cette étude montre qu’il est nécessaire de sensibiliser davantage les joueurs à l’influence potentielle de la musique de fond sur l’expérience de jeu.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207