MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317569054 · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107626

Engineered highs: Reward variability and frequency as potential prerequisites of behavioural addiction

2023· article· en· W4317569054 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Clark, Martin Zack

Bibliographic record

VenueAddictive Behaviors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionIncentive saliencePsychologySalience (neuroscience)Sensation seekingCognitive psychologyPredictabilitySocial psychologyNeurosciencePersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Influential learning-based accounts of substance addictions posit the attribution of incentive salience to drug-associated cues, and its escalation by the direct dopaminergic effects of drugs. In translating this account to disordered gambling, we have noted how the intermittent nature of monetary rewards in gambling (i.e. the variable ratio) may allow for analogous learning processes, via effects on dopaminergic signalling. The aim of the present article is to consider how multiple sources of reward variability operate within modern gambling products, and how similar sources of variability, as well as some novel sources of variability, also apply to other digital products implicated in behavioural addictions, including gaming, shopping, social media and online pornography. Online access to these activities facilitates not only unparalleled accessibility but also introduces novel forms of reward variability, as seen in the effects of infinite scrolls and personalized recommendations. We use the term uncertainty to refer to the subjective experience of reward variability. We further highlight two psychological factors that appear to moderate the effects of uncertainty: 1) the timecourse of uncertainty, especially with regard to its resolution, 2) the frequency of exposure, allowing temporal compression. Collectively, the evidence illustrates how qualitative and quantitative variability of reward can confer addictive potential to non-drug reinforcers by exploiting the psychological and neural processes that rely on predictability to guide reward seeking behaviour.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictive BehaviorsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207