MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106908159 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2020.45.7

Scratch Card Game Type Impacts Psychophysiological Reactivity, but Not Subjective Evaluations of Experienced Outcomes

2020· article· en· W3106908159 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Madison Stange, Michael Pinnau, Michael J. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArousalOutcome (game theory)PsychologyMatching (statistics)ScratchSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many types of scratch cards exist, research on gamblers’ physiological responses to scratch card wins, losses, and near misses has been limited to a single type of game. We created two distinct scratch card types. In a “Match Three” game, we expected arousal to rise with each successive matching symbol—hence arousal would change even before the final outcome was known. In a “Number Matching” game, where players were given a set of lucky numbers and hoped to find a match within a scratch-off play area, we expected arousal to rise only once a match was made. A near miss in a Match Three game involved uncovering two large-prize symbols (but not the third). A near miss in a Number Matching game involved just missing a match (lucky number 18, uncovering a 17). For each game type, participants played four cards (small win, near miss, and two losses) while their physiological arousal was recorded. Participants rated each outcome on a number of subjective measures. For wins, arousal changes occurred as predicted (pre-outcome changes for Match Three vs. only post-outcome changes for Number Matching games). Participants rated near-miss outcomes in both card types as being more subjectively arousing, disappointing, negative, frustrating, and urge inducing than for regular losses, but we found no strong evidence for physiological near-miss effects. We provide evidence that the structure of scratch card games influences the timing of individuals’ physiological responses to various outcomes.RésuméBien qu’il existe de nombreux modèles de cartes à gratter, les recherches menées jusqu’ici sur les réactions physiologiques des joueurs face à un gain, une perte ou un quasi-gain se limitent à un seul type de jeu. Nous avons conçu deux jeux de cartes à gratter distincts. Le premier était un jeu « à trois correspondances »; nous nous attendions à ce que le degré d’excitation monte à chaque apparition d’un symbole identique - et ce, avant même que le résultat final soit connu. Le second jeu consistait à donner aux joueurs un jeu de chiffres chanceux avec instruction de dévoiler un chiffre correspondant dans la partie à gratter de la carte; nous nous attendions à ce que l’excitation monte seulement après le dévoilement d’une correspondance. Dans le premier jeu, un quasi-gain consistait en la découverte de deux symboles représentant un lot important (mais pas du troisième). Dans le second jeu, un quasi-gain consistait en l’obtention d’un nombre très proche du chiffre gagnant (obtention d’un 17 alors que le gagnant est le 18). Les participants ont été invités à gratter quatre cartes par jeu (un petit gain, un quasi-gain et deux pertes) tandis qu’on enregistrait leurs réactions physiologiques, puis à donner une évaluation subjective de chaque résultat. Les réactions anticipées se sont produites dans le cas des gains (soit avant le dévoilement du résultat dans le premier jeu et seulement après dans le second). Peu importe le type de carte, les sujets ont qualifié le quasi-gain, comparativement aux pertes régulières, d’expérience excitante, décevante, négative, frustrante et propre à attiser le désir de jouer, mais nous n’avons recueilli aucune preuve de réaction physiologique dans ce cas précis. Selon nos conclusions, la structure des jeux de cartes à gratter a une incidence sur le moment de la réaction physiologique aux différents résultats 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.410
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207