Cargando…

On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study

Research on gambling near‐misses has shown that objectively equivalent outcomes can yield divergent emotional and motivational responses. The subjective processing of gambling outcomes is affected substantially by close but non‐obtained outcomes (i.e. counterfactuals). In the current paper, we inves...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wu, Yin, van Dijk, Eric, Li, Hong, Aitken, Michael, Clark, Luke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29081596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2010
_version_ 1783270693128896512
author Wu, Yin
van Dijk, Eric
Li, Hong
Aitken, Michael
Clark, Luke
author_facet Wu, Yin
van Dijk, Eric
Li, Hong
Aitken, Michael
Clark, Luke
author_sort Wu, Yin
collection PubMed
description Research on gambling near‐misses has shown that objectively equivalent outcomes can yield divergent emotional and motivational responses. The subjective processing of gambling outcomes is affected substantially by close but non‐obtained outcomes (i.e. counterfactuals). In the current paper, we investigate how different types of near‐misses influence self‐perceived luck and subsequent betting behavior in a wheel‐of‐fortune task. We investigate the counterfactual mechanism of these effects by testing the relationship with a second task measuring regret/relief processing. Across two experiments (Experiment 1, n = 51; Experiment 2, n = 104), we demonstrate that near‐wins (neutral outcomes that are close to a jackpot) decreased self‐perceived luck, whereas near‐losses (neutral outcomes that are close to a major penalty) increased luck ratings. The effects of near‐misses varied by near‐miss position (i.e. whether the spinner stopped just short of, or passed through, the counterfactual outcome), consistent with established distinctions between upward versus downward, and additive versus subtractive, counterfactual thinking. In Experiment 1, individuals who showed stronger counterfactual processing on the regret/relief task were more responsive to near‐wins and near‐losses on the wheel‐of‐fortune task. The effect of near‐miss position was attenuated when the anticipatory phase (i.e. the spin and deceleration) was removed in Experiment 2. Further differences were observed within the objective gains and losses, between “clear” and “narrow” outcomes. Taken together, these results help substantiate the counterfactual mechanism of near‐misses. © 2017 The Authors Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5638081
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56380812017-10-25 On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study Wu, Yin van Dijk, Eric Li, Hong Aitken, Michael Clark, Luke J Behav Decis Mak Research Articles Research on gambling near‐misses has shown that objectively equivalent outcomes can yield divergent emotional and motivational responses. The subjective processing of gambling outcomes is affected substantially by close but non‐obtained outcomes (i.e. counterfactuals). In the current paper, we investigate how different types of near‐misses influence self‐perceived luck and subsequent betting behavior in a wheel‐of‐fortune task. We investigate the counterfactual mechanism of these effects by testing the relationship with a second task measuring regret/relief processing. Across two experiments (Experiment 1, n = 51; Experiment 2, n = 104), we demonstrate that near‐wins (neutral outcomes that are close to a jackpot) decreased self‐perceived luck, whereas near‐losses (neutral outcomes that are close to a major penalty) increased luck ratings. The effects of near‐misses varied by near‐miss position (i.e. whether the spinner stopped just short of, or passed through, the counterfactual outcome), consistent with established distinctions between upward versus downward, and additive versus subtractive, counterfactual thinking. In Experiment 1, individuals who showed stronger counterfactual processing on the regret/relief task were more responsive to near‐wins and near‐losses on the wheel‐of‐fortune task. The effect of near‐miss position was attenuated when the anticipatory phase (i.e. the spin and deceleration) was removed in Experiment 2. Further differences were observed within the objective gains and losses, between “clear” and “narrow” outcomes. Taken together, these results help substantiate the counterfactual mechanism of near‐misses. © 2017 The Authors Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-04-03 2017-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5638081/ /pubmed/29081596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2010 Text en © 2017 The Authors Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Wu, Yin
van Dijk, Eric
Li, Hong
Aitken, Michael
Clark, Luke
On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study
title On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study
title_full On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study
title_fullStr On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study
title_full_unstemmed On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study
title_short On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study
title_sort on the counterfactual nature of gambling near‐misses: an experimental study
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29081596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2010
work_keys_str_mv AT wuyin onthecounterfactualnatureofgamblingnearmissesanexperimentalstudy
AT vandijkeric onthecounterfactualnatureofgamblingnearmissesanexperimentalstudy
AT lihong onthecounterfactualnatureofgamblingnearmissesanexperimentalstudy
AT aitkenmichael onthecounterfactualnatureofgamblingnearmissesanexperimentalstudy
AT clarkluke onthecounterfactualnatureofgamblingnearmissesanexperimentalstudy