IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/intgms/v15y2015i2p212-223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dual effects of 'losses disguised as wins' and near-misses in a slot machine game

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Sharman
  • Michael RF Aitken
  • Luke Clark

Abstract

Individually, both near-misses and losses disguised as wins (LDWs) have been seen to exert pro-motivational effects on gambling. However, it is not clear whether both structural characteristics are effective within the same game. Participants (n = 40) played a slot machine simulation. The simulation delivered near-misses, wins and 'full-misses'. Half the participants also received LDWs that occurred independently of the outcomes on the payline. Valence and motivation ratings were collected after each round. Results showed that the LDW group reported increased valence ratings compared to the no-LDW group. Within the LDW group, trials with LDWs also resulted in increased enjoyment compared to trials without LDWs. We distinguished near-misses falling either side of the payline. Near-misses before the payline (NMB) were rated as more motivational than near-misses after the payline (NMA), whereas NMAs were rated as more aversive than NMBs. These differences between the two near-miss types were exacerbated by LDWs. Results demonstrate LDWs increase the trial-by-trial enjoyment of non-win outcomes. The motivational and hedonic effects of near-misses differed for events either side of the payline, and these differences were exaggerated by the presence of LDWs. Thus, near-misses can retain their effectiveness in complex forms of gambling that also deliver LDWs.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Sharman & Michael RF Aitken & Luke Clark, 2015. "Dual effects of 'losses disguised as wins' and near-misses in a slot machine game," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 212-223, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:intgms:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:212-223
    DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2015.1020959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14459795.2015.1020959
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14459795.2015.1020959?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    2. Gerhard Meyer & Marisa Fiebig & Jörg Häfeli & Chantal Mörsen, 2011. "Development of an assessment tool to evaluate the risk potential of different gambling types," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 221-236, August.
    3. Mike J. Dixon & Kevin A. Harrigan & Michelle Jarick & Vance MacLaren & Jonathan A. Fugelsang & Emily Sheepy, 2011. "Psychophysiological arousal signatures of near-misses in slot machine play," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 393-407, December.
    4. Candice Jensen & Mike J. Dixon & Kevin A. Harrigan & Emily Sheepy & Jonathan A. Fugelsang & Michelle Jarick, 2013. "Misinterpreting 'winning' in multiline slot machine games," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 112-126, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    2. Andrew W. Lo & Dmitry V. Repin & Brett N. Steenbarger, 2005. "Fear and Greed in Financial Markets: A Clinical Study of Day-Traders," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 352-359, May.
    3. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    4. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Min Gong & David Krantz & Elke Weber, 2014. "Why Chinese discount future financial and environmental gains but not losses more than Americans," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 103-124, October.
    7. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    8. Mohamed Es-Sanoun & Jude Gohou & Mounir Benboubker, 2023. "Testing of Herd Behavior In african Stock Markets During COVID-19 Pandemic [Essai de vérification du comportement mimétique dans les marchés boursiers africains au cours de la crise de covid-19]," Post-Print hal-04144289, HAL.
    9. Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2017. "Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 329-348.
    10. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Dalton, Patricio S. & Nhung, Nguyen & Rüschenpöhler, Julius, 2020. "Worries of the poor: The impact of financial burden on the risk attitudes of micro-entrepreneurs," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    12. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    13. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    14. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    15. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    16. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    17. Rosenboim, Mosi & Shavit, Tal & Cohen, Chen, 2013. "Do bidders require a monetary premium for cognitive effort in an auction?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 99-105.
    18. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    19. Einiö, Mikko & Kaustia, Markku & Puttonen, Vesa, 2008. "Price setting and the reluctance to realize losses in apartment markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 19-34, February.
    20. Raymond H. Chan & Ephraim Clark & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "New development on the third-order stochastic dominance for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors with application in risk management," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 108-132, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:intgms:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:212-223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RIGS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.