Real and laboratory gambling, sensation‐seeking and arousal

Abstract

The existence and importance of excitement in gambling, the effects of runs of wins and losses on gambling behaviour and the relationships of both with sensation-seeking were investigated using samples of students and experienced gamblers in real and artificial gambling situations. Heart-rate increases, gambling behaviour and events such as 'stake decision time' were recorded as subjects played blackjack. Significant differences between real and artificial casinos were found for mean heart-rate increases over base-lines, for gambling behaviour and in the relationships between sensation-seeking, arousal and gambling in the two conditions. Doubt is cast on laboratory gambling as a valid analogue of the real gambling situation. Sensation-seeking and arousal are discussed briefly in relation to explanations of gambling.

An Empirical Study of Gender Differences in Online Gambling

“…However, the relationship between boredom and gambling problems has not been well explored. One view is that boredom motivates individuals to engage in gambling activities as a way of increasing arousal (Anderson & Brown, 1984;Brown, 1986;Mercer & Eastwood, 2010;Zuckerman, 1983). Conversely, the other view is problem gamblers gamble as a means of relieving or avoiding unpleasant emotional states like boredom, depression or loneliness (Blaszczynski Wilson, & McConaghy, 1986;Jacobs, 1986;Lesieur & Blume, 1987;Taber, McCormick & Ramirez, 1987).…”

The Appropriateness of Using Laboratories and Student Participants in Gambling Research

“…Several studies of physiological reactions have found significant increases in regular gamblers' heart rates when gambling (on cards or electronic gaming machines) in laboratory (Ladouceur et al, 2003;Leary & Dickerson, 1985;Wulfert et al, 2008) or natural settings (Coulombe et al, 1992;Griffiths, 1993;Meyer et al, 2000). However, in a direct comparison, Anderson and Brown (1984) found significant differences in heart rate between laboratory and casino gambling situations in a group of experienced blackjack gamblers, with a significantly lower mean increase in heart rate (7bpm as compared to 23bpm) measured in the laboratory situation. In addition, the majority of players used different strategies in laboratory as opposed to venue settings.…”

“…These results question the validity of using laboratory for studies of arousal during gambling. However, interpretation of results are limited by the dissimilarity in the samples used by Anderson and Brown (1984) as the laboratory study included 12 male undergraduate university students, none of whom gambled regularly or had played blackjack before and were not included in the casino session, and 12 regular male blackjack players, who also participated in the casino gambling sessions. Furthermore, the laboratory setting offered a smaller chance of winning a relatively small prize (£10), while the "natural" setting had a greater chance of winning larger prizes and did not represent a typical gaming session due to the presence of researchers and physiological measuring devices.…”

“…Anderson and Brown (1984) argued that there are hidden interactions which only occur in real-life situations that are ignored in laboratory settings. For example, Thompson, Armstrong, and Thomas (1998) contend that illusion of control will only occur in certain situations and will not occur if certain factors are not present, for example skill-related factors, emphasis on success or failure, need for the outcome, mood and the intrusion of reality.…”

How Do Gamblers End Gambling: Longitudinal Analysis of Internet Gambling Behaviors Prior to Account Closure Due to Gambling Related Problems

“…Similarly, experiments (Potenza et al 2003;Reuter et al 2005) that shed light on the association between pathological gambling status and reduced efficacy of the mesolimbic reward system often rely on self-report interview questions. Further, the value of physiological evidence derived from gamblers experiencing artificial gambling tasks is uncertain: using gambling experiments as a substitute for in vivo gambling raises important validity concerns about whether proxy gambling can stimulate responses that are sufficiently similar to actual gambling to yield useful results (Anderson and Brown 1984).…”