Push Outcomes Bias Perceptions of Scratch Card Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the domain of scratch card gambling, “pushes” refer to outcomes in which a prize is won that is equal to the cost of a scratch card game. Despite resulting in no net monetary gain, these outcomes are categorized as wins by lottery operators, effectively inflating published scratch card information (e.g., posted odds of winning). Additionally, the experience of obtaining a push shares similarities (e.g., the revealing of matching symbols) with the experience of obtaining a win and thus may be experienced similarly to wins by gamblers. Across four studies (N = 1502), we examined the impact of push outcomes on participants’ perceptions of scratch card games. In Studies 1 and 2, participants reported feeling more likely to win, more excitement to play, and a stronger urge to gamble when presented with a scratch card that categorized push outcomes as wins compared to when presented a scratch card that did not categorize these outcomes as wins. In Study 3, participants experiencing a push outcome prior to a loss reported feeling more likely to win compared to those not experiencing a push outcome yet experiencing the same net monetary loss. In Study 4, push outcomes were found to elicit more excitement and a stronger urge to gamble compared to losses but less excitement and a weaker urge to gamble compared to wins. Overall, the present investigation suggests that push outcomes, a prevalent feature of scratch card games, can bias gambling-related judgments and increase the appeal of scratch card games.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".