Effects of winning cues and relative payout on choice between simulated slot machines

Abstract

Background and aims Cues associated with winning may encourage gambling. We assessed the effects on risky choice of slot machine of: (1) neutral sounds paired with winning, (2) casino‐related cues (such as the sound of coins dropping and pictures of dollar signs) and (3) relative payouts. Design Experimental studies in which participants repeatedly chose between safer and riskier simulated slot machines. Safer slot machines paid the same amount regardless of which symbols lined up. Risky machines paid different amounts depending on which symbols lined up. Effects of initially neutral sounds paired with the best payout were assessed between‐groups (experiment 1a) and within‐participants (experiment 1b). In experiment 2, pairing of casino‐related audiovisual cues with payout was assessed within participants, and cue timing was assessed between groups. Setting A university research laboratory in Edmonton, Canada. Participants Undergraduate students (n = 630 across three experiments). Measurements Preference for riskier over safer machines, preference between machines that differed in cues, payout recall and frequency estimates for payouts. Risky choice was calculated as the proportion of choices of the risky machine when presented with a fixed machine of the same expected value. Findings In experiment 1a, risky choice was slightly increased by pairing a sound with the best payout compared with pairing the sound with a lower payout (P = 0.04, d = 0.28) but not compared with no sound [P = 0.36, d = 0.13, Bayes factors (BF)10 = 0.22]. In experiment 1b, people did not prefer a machine with a best‐payout sound over one with a lower‐payout sound (P = 0.67, d = 0.03, BF10 = 0.11). Relative payout affected choice: risky choices were higher for high‐ than low‐payout decisions (P < 0.001, d = 0.53). In experiment 2, people preferred machines with casino‐related cues paired with winning (P < 0.001, r2 = 0.11) and cue timing (at choice or concurrently with the win) had no effect (P = 0.95, r2 = 0.0, BF10 = 0.05). Casino‐related cues also enhanced payout memory (P = 0.013 and 0.006). Cue effects were not specific to risk: people also preferred fixed‐payout machines with casino‐related cues (P < 0.001, r2 = 0.16). Conclusions In a gambling simulation, student participants chose more risky slot machines when payouts were relatively higher and when casino‐related cues were associated with payouts. Pairing a neutral sound with the best payout did not consistently affect slot machine choice, and the effect of casino cues did not depend on their timing. Casino‐related cues enhanced payout memory.

Biased confabulation in risky choice

“…Based on our results and previous ndings, we would predict that when choice involves repeated exposure to similar outcomes people rely on gist-based memory strategies but that when particular outcomes are made salient it is possible to shift risk preferences (Bornstein et al, 2017;Cherkasova et al, 2018;Ludvig et al, 2015;Spetch, Madan, Liu, & Ludvig, 2020).…”

Dopamine neurons gate the intersection of cocaine use, decision making, and impulsivity

“…The vast majority of rats employ an optimal strategy, as this maximizes the total amount of food they receive. Much like in real‐world casinos, and in experimental gambling tasks for humans, 6,7 adding casino‐inspired sound and light cues to wins in the rGT causes more rats to choose the risky options 8 . The addition of these casino‐like cues to the rGT also enhances the ability of volitionally self‐administered cocaine to sway choice toward the risky options 9 .…”

Pharmacological evidence of a cholinergic contribution to elevated impulsivity and risky decision-making caused by adding win-paired cues to a rat gambling task

“…However, during gameplay, if the player’s lever-pull produces a win, delivery of the reward is accompanied by a sequence of flashes and tones (reward-concurrent cues). Recently, this latter form of audiovisual cues, which occur simultaneously with winning outcomes, have been shown to enhance risky choice in laboratory-based decision-making tasks in large samples of healthy volunteers (Cherkasova et al, 2018; Spetch et al, 2020). The implication is that, not only does a conditioned cue promote addictive behaviors, but the addition of a temporally locked reward-cue pairing also alters the cognitive processing of an event.…”