Physiological Responses to Near-Miss Outcomes and Personal Control During Simulated Gambling

Abstract

Near-miss outcomes during gambling are non-win outcomes that fall close to a pay-out. While objectively equivalent to an outright miss, near-misses motivate ongoing play and may therefore be implicated in the development of disordered gambling. Given naturalistic data showing increases in heart rate (HR) and electrodermal activity (EDA) during periods of real gambling play, we sought to explore the phasic impact of win, near-miss and full-miss outcomes on physiological arousal in a controlled laboratory environment. EDA and HR were monitored as healthy, student participants (n = 33) played a simulated slot-machine task involving unpredictable monetary wins. A second gambling distortion, perceived personal control, was manipulated within the same task by allowing the participant to select the play icon on some trials, and having the computer automatically select the play icon on other trials. Near-misses were rated as less pleasant than full-misses. However, on trials that involved personal choice, near-misses produced higher ratings of 'continue to play' than full-misses. Winning outcomes were associated with phasic EDA responses that did not vary with personal choice. Compared to full-misses, near-miss outcomes also elicited an EDA increase, which was greater on personal choice trials. Near-misses were also associated with greater HR acceleration than other outcomes. Near-miss outcomes are capable of eliciting phasic changes in physiological arousal consistent with a state of subjective excitement, despite their objective non-win status.

Mixed Emotions to Near-Miss Outcomes: A Psychophysiological Study with Facial Electromyography

“…On each trial, one icon on the left reel is selected, and only the right reel spins; this task delivers near-misses when the selected icon lands either side of the payline on the right reel. Taking subjective ratings following the outcomes on this task, we have seen that near-misses reliably increase participants' motivation to continue the game (Billieux et al 2012;Chase and Clark 2010;Clark et al 2012), which is consistent with the data on gambling persistence.…”

“…Wins were also associated with a clear phasic (Clark et al 2012(Clark et al , 2013Lole et al 2012;Dixon et al 2011), coupled with increased zygomaticus activity and decreased corrugator activity. While zygomaticus activity is a well-established response to appetitive stimuli such as erotic pictures, only two previous experiments have generalized this response to financial outcomes within a gambling context (Bediou et al 2011;Wu et al 2015).…”

“…As well as measuring tonic arousal over several minutes of play, recent work has begun to characterize phasic 'event-related' arousal responses, showing for example that wins and near-misses both generate increased electrodermal activity (EDA) Clark et al 2013). The phasic cardiovascular response was increased after near-misses but not after wins, and this divergence may reflect the aversive/ frustrative component of the near-miss effect (Clark et al 2012). However, both EDA and heart rate are limited in their valence specificity.…”

Damage to insula abolishes cognitive distortions during simulated gambling

“…These effects may be mediated by the established role of the insula in the representation of bodily states, i.e., interoception (40). Certainly, gambling is an intensely exciting, visceral activity, and near misses were previously shown to induce physiological changes in skin conductance and heart rate (34,41). One could hypothesize that the central processing of these peripheral signals is abolished by insula damage.…”

Understanding Within-Session Loss-Chasing: An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Stake Size on Cognitive Control

“…However, structural characteristics of the gambling activity are also crucial determinants of arousal and reinforcement in the development of disordered gambling patterns (Blaszczynski 2013). Research has demonstrated that structural features, such as speed of game (Delfabbro et al 2005), schedule of reinforcement volatility (Coates and Blaszczynski 2013;Dixon et al 2006), maximum bet (Livingstone et al 2008), and near-misses Clark et al 2012), affect the gambler's willingness to continue gambling despite incurring significant losses (Blaszczynski 2013). It is possible that such structural characteristics can influence executive control in the individual in the short-term, including response inhibition and reflection impulsivity, and therefore potentially explain withinsession loss of cognitive control.…”