An experiment on the perceived efficacy of fear-based messages in online roulette
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the emotional and cognitive evaluations as well as the perceived efficacy of fear-based, text-only pop-up messages. The pop-up messages were presented when viewing a 3-minute prerecorded video of online roulette play. Fifty-nine people who gamble online viewed both low- and high-threat messages that reflected, by random assignment, either the financial (n= 27) or social (n= 32) consequences of gambling. Participants then reported their emotional and cognitive evaluations of the messages, as well as their perceived efficacy to facilitate responsible gambling. Eye-tracking was used as an objective measure of attention to the message. A 2 (message theme: social, financial) x 2 (threat level: low, high) mixed-model ANOVA was used to examine the evaluations and efficacy of the messages. The main effects of message theme/threat level were not significant. The 2 × 2 interaction for the outcome of overall effectiveness was significant, whereby the high-threat and social message combination was rated more effective than other combinations. For eye-tracking, there were no significant findings. The results suggest that fear-based social messaging may be more effective than non-fear inducing or financially-oriented messages. Further research can explore if messages that are perceived to be effective likewise lead to lower-risk gambling.
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) | 0.001 | 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".