The near win effect on observing behaviour in simulated slot-machine gambling: The role of conditioned reinforcement

<p>Slot machines are a remarkably popular mode of gambling even though they are programmed to make a profit by paying out less money than is put in. One common feature of slot machines, which may increase the likelihood of persistent gambling in the face of this monetary loss, is the near win. This study’s aim was to investigate the conditioned reinforcing properties of near wins using an observing response procedure in the context of a simulated slot machine. In an observing response procedure, participants can use an observing button to produce a stimulus correlated with the availability of reinforcement (S+) or a stimulus correlated with no reinforcement or less reinforcement (S-). The percentage of observing responses made for each stimulus is thought to reflect the reinforcing efficacy of the reinforcer correlated with each stimulus. Experiment 1 successfully tested the procedure with an obvious reinforcer - wins - and found consistently more observing for the S+. In Experiment 2 and 3 the S+ was correlated with near wins, and in Experiment 2 only those with slot-machine experience had consistently more observing for the S+. Experiment 3 increased the probability of wins to enhance the reinforcing efficacy of near wins, but failed to find consistently more observing for the S+, regardless of slot machine or scratchie card experience. These results indicated that near wins are not conditioned reinforcers. However, participants tended to bet more following near wins than losses, which suggested that near wins may instead function as discriminative stimuli.</p>

The near win effect on observing behaviour in simulated slot-machine gambling: The role of conditioned reinforcement

<p>Slot machines are a remarkably popular mode of gambling even though they are programmed to make a profit by paying out less money than is put in. One common feature of slot machines, which may increase the likelihood of persistent gambling in the face of this monetary loss, is the near win. This study’s aim was to investigate the conditioned reinforcing properties of near wins using an observing response procedure in the context of a simulated slot machine. In an observing response procedure, participants can use an observing button to produce a stimulus correlated with the availability of reinforcement (S+) or a stimulus correlated with no reinforcement or less reinforcement (S-). The percentage of observing responses made for each stimulus is thought to reflect the reinforcing efficacy of the reinforcer correlated with each stimulus. Experiment 1 successfully tested the procedure with an obvious reinforcer - wins - and found consistently more observing for the S+. In Experiment 2 and 3 the S+ was correlated with near wins, and in Experiment 2 only those with slot-machine experience had consistently more observing for the S+. Experiment 3 increased the probability of wins to enhance the reinforcing efficacy of near wins, but failed to find consistently more observing for the S+, regardless of slot machine or scratchie card experience. These results indicated that near wins are not conditioned reinforcers. However, participants tended to bet more following near wins than losses, which suggested that near wins may instead function as discriminative stimuli.</p>

Uncertainty avoidance versus conditioned reinforcement: exploring paradoxical choice in rats

Paying a cost to reduce uncertainty can be adaptive, because better informed decision-makers can align their preferences to opportunities. However, birds and mammals display an appetite for information that they cannot use to functionally alter behaviour or its outcomes. We explore two putative motivational mechanisms for this paradoxical behaviour. The information hypothesis proposes that reducing uncertainty is reinforcing per se, consistent with the concept of curiosity: a motivation to know, in the absence of instrumental benefits. In contrast, the conditioned reinforcement hypothesis sees information-seeking as a consequence of asymmetries in secondarily acquired reinforcement: responding increments caused by post-choice stimuli announcing positive outcomes (S+) exceed decrements caused by stimuli signalling absence of reward (S−). We contrast these hypotheses experimentally. Rats chose between two equally profitable options delivering food probabilistically after a fixed delay. In the informative option (Info), the outcome (food/no food) was signalled immediately after choice, whereas in the non-informative option (NoInfo) outcomes were uncertain until the delay lapsed. Subjects preferred (Info) when (1) outcomes were signalled by salient auditory cues, (2) only the absence of reward was signalled, and (3) only reward was signalled, though acquisition was slower when rewards were not explicitly signalled. Our results show that a salient good news signal is not required as a conditioned reinforcer to generate paradoxical preferences. Terminal preferences support the information hypothesis but the slower acquisition of (Info) preference when S+ is not present is consistent with the conditioning account. We conclude that both uncertainty reduction and conditioned reinforcement influence choice.