psyc335 midterm 2

history of ‘gambling addiction’ as a diagnosis

• pathological gambling = first introduced in ICD-9 and DSM-3 → as an IMPULSE CONTROL disorder

• DSM-5: renamed gambling disorder + moved to substance-related and addictive disorders category 

• ‘problem gambling’ = used as a lower threshold (full criteria not met) 

• gambling disorder = new condition in DSM-5 and ICD-11 

DSM-5 criteria of gambling disorder

4 or more of: symptoms and observable signs

a. pre-occupied with gambling 

b. needs to gamble with increasing amounts [tolerance]

c. repeated attempts to reduce or quit gambling 

d. restless or irritable when attempting to stop gambling [withdrawal]

e. gamble as means of escape or to alleviate mood 

f. frequently returns to get even [loss chasing]

g. lies to conceal involvement

h. jeopardised/lost r/s or job due to gambling 

i. forced to borrow money due to gambling debt 

*exclusion criteria: not better explained by manic episode (bipolar disorder) → risk-taking and spending 

loss chasing (desperate pursuit)

• hallmark of point when casual gambling becomes problematic

• ‘a spiral of intensifying gambling until all financial options are exhausted’

• can chase WITHIN and BETWEEN sessions (increase bet size/go back sooner)

withdrawal from gambling

physiological and psychological symptoms

• approx 50% feelings of irritability and restlessness

• 2/3 gamblers reporting >1 SOMATIC symptom (nausea, shaking, sweating)

what is the inequality of items

loss chasing: too sensitive 

• too many gamblers say yes to it (even if they only have 1 symptom, 50% of the time its loss chasing)

illegal acts: insensitive

• no leverage to make diagnosis until >8 symptoms 

• removed in DSM-5

withdrawal symptoms: just right 

• increases as gambling severity increases 

5 pieces of evidence for re-classification into addictions category

1. symptom hallmarks (withdrawal, tolerance) 

2. co-morbidities (other MH probs) 

3. shared heritability/genetics (twin studies) 

4. neuroimaging/neurocognitive similarities 

5. effective treatments  

DSM diagnosis of problem gambling

involves face to face INTERVIEW w clinician who is trained and qualified (expert judgement) 

• cannot be self-report questionnaire 

2 short self-report tools for diagnosis

1. south oaks gambling screen (SOGS)

• binary ratings, lifetime gambling 

• translated into many other languages → may be used in countries with little gambling research

2. problem gambling severity index (PGSI) 

• gold standard; prevalence surveys 

• detects various LEVELS of PG 

• scores range from 0-27 

• NOT mapped directly to DSM criteria 

• poker players: length of time spend playing more harmful than financial losses 

2014 BC prevalence survey (via PGSI)

telephone survey, n = 3058

• “risk” implied likelihood of developing it in future VS actual meaning = currently have signs of gambling harm 

demographic predictors of gambling problems

robust factors → reliable across provinces

1. men 

2. younger age (20s vs 50s/60s)

3. lower SES (hhld income)

4. racialized groups (indg ppl, asian communities, migrant communities) 

5. other MH problems 

*risk factors = statistical and NOT absolute 

latest data (2024) MHRC online survey

n = 8211 adults

• correlates to more ONLINE behaviour → not directly comparable 

• measure: PGSI

• 27% reported online gambling, 14% in last month 

age of onset (“how old were you when you first gambled”)

78% lifetime gambling, 2.3% lifetime gambling problems (meeting more than 1 symptom on DSM) 

• earlier start to gambling = risk factor for future GP

• start past 30 years = smaller likelihood of developing PG 

• gambling disorder as DEVELOPMENTAL

co-morbidities and temporal ordering

0.6% diagnosed w pathological gambling

• ¾ of them have co-existing drug problems

• 96% of them have any other DSM diagnosis

temporal ordering → which diagnosis came first

i. gambling first

• financial strain, debt → anxiety, depression

ii. gambling second

• to cope/escape negative emotions

• evidence for this

genes or environment (slutske et al study)

6744 twins from vietnam database (military sample of men)

• environment same, no adoption involved

1. rate of lifetime PG diagnoses = 1.4%

• any symptom = 6.2%

2. PG heritability = 40-50% (estimated from MZ-DZ disparity)

3. overlap in genetics of PG and alc dependence = 12-20% (addiction vulnerability)

environmental risk factors for gambling

1. exposure to parental gambling in childhood/adolescence

• social learning theory/modeling 

• parental gambling PROBLEMS predicted child gambling problems (not parental gambling in general)

2. childhood adversity 

• adult sample: 61% reported childhood maltreatment 

• youth pathological gamblers: 20% reported physical abuse, 18% sexual abuse 

*likely role of genes x environment interactions 

5 main actors shaping gambling policy in BC

1. provincial gov

• main proponent of expansion and main recipient of growing revenue

2. municipal gov

• supportive of expansion as source of new rev BUT some opposed expansion due to neg effects

3. private gambling operators

• lobbied for expansion

4. charities (e.g. bingo venues)

• conflicted w provincial gov over dist of revenues

5. academic researchers

problematic types of legal gambling in canada

1. casino-based table and EGMs

2. non-casino EGMs and VLTs

3. single sporting event betting (legalized federally in 2021)

allocation of net gambling revenue

community chess model → gov = major provider + expanded availability of gambling

• drives policy → more profitable than alc, tobacco and cannabis combined

• revenue disproportionately taken from those who have problems with it → morally acceptable ?

reasons for needing a public health focused gambling policy

• gov policies influence benefits and harms of gambling → availability/access, funding for prevention and treatment

• harms and costs of PG mainly PRIVATE + hard to measure rel to benefits (revenue) → creates systemic bias toward expansion

4 main economic impacts of gambling

1. increased gov revenue

2. increased public services

3. increased regulatory costs (when expanding)

4. pos and neg impacts on non-gambling biz depending on whether complimentary/competitive w gambling

4 main social impacts of gambling

1. increased PG and associated harms (e.g. bankruptcy, suicide)

2. increased crime (except illegal gambling)

3. increased socio-economic inequality

4. more negative attitudes toward gambling

policy issues in canada

• proportion of revenue from problem gamblers: approx 30% in canada

• % rev dedicated to prevention, treatment and research

• expansion of avail of casino games and EGMs (esp expansion in smaller centres)

  • rev from locals vs tourists

• promotion and expansion of sports betting

treatment program limitations

• hard to engage ppl who need the help

• presence of stigma

• expensive to promote and find those who need help

• co-morbidities w other problems

*should aim to reduce stigma in order to help more ppl

gambling traditions in canada’s first nations

lahal ‘the bone game’

• 2 teams, played at social gatherings incl funerals + accompanied by gambling songs

• element of perception → trick opponent to guess the wrong hand that the bone is in

• nowadays: ‘pot’ won might b based on entry fee → traditionally valuable items put up by hosts (resources)

  • similar to lukuchuko

westernization of indigenous gambling

11% of sample participated in traditional first nation games in past year

• only 25% considered them to be gambling 

• ‘gambling’ term connected to western, commercial forms, disconnected from traditional games 

• non-commercial games w no house-edge VS modern commercial games (neg consequences arise from house edge) 

gambling revenue from people with gambling problems

profits concentrated among pop of problem gamblers → contribute DISPROPORTIONATELY to gambling revenue 

• calc use prevalence estimates of PG rate

• questionnaire estimates of typical monthly spending on gambling (inaccurate self-report) 

‘hyper pareto’: gambling conc in a small number of whales (very profitable customers) 

• standard pareto: rev conc in top 20% of users (80%)

• netflix: subscription model (flat rate) 

• weekly lottery: top 20% = approx 60% of rev

• online gambling: top 20% = 90% of revenue, 92% bets 

  • exact record of what each gambler spent → hard to get diagnosis data on PG 

indigenous gambling and PG in canada

data from 2018 canada community health survey

• rel popularity of gambling (basic involevement) FAIRLY SIMILAR to non-indigenous canadians 

  • some elevation for EGMs, bingo, instant lotteries 

• rate of PG MUCH HIGHER among indigenous canadians (2.0%) vs 0.5% 

  • highest of any racial/ethnic grp in canada 

BC youth data for gambling

BC adolescent health survey 2018

• 21% of BC youth aged 12-18 gambled for money in past year 

• youth employment 20+ hrs per week linked to gambling for money → access to disposable income 

• involvement in sports on weekly basis associated w sports betting 

• monthly gambling → sedentary lifestyle, less social connection, excessive tech use 

• gambling problems in 3% of those who gambled → highest in NON-BINARY youth 

gambling and gender identity

non-binary gender: 2.7%

• youth identifying as non-binary showed HIGHER rates of PG 5.7% vs 1.8% → esp transgender youth assigned male at birth 

• interaction b/w biological sex and gender identity 

intersectionality definition

overlap of social identities

• ppl may identify w multiple under-represented and or marginalized grps at the same time 

geospatial analysis of SES (aus study)

in lower SES neighbourhoods:

• higher losses (higher slot machine revenue)

• more slot machine venues

• for lottery too

diversity in the gambling research field 

‘gender gap’: can be measured in academic papers from inferring first names (gender neutral names excluded) 

• senior authors more likely to be men 

• researchers who were men published 16% more papers overall 

• stronger gender bias for gambling papers than non-gambling ones → reflects systemic biases against women in academic careers 

key points of disproportionate gambling effects

• on many racialized and minoritized groups

• ppl who are socio-economically disadvantaged

  • high income grps spend MORE on gambling but lower income grps spend a GREATER PROPORTION of their income → experience more financial harm

• ppl w gambling problems account for a disproportionate slice of revenue (~20-40%)

**high levels of gambling lead inevitably to financial strain and debt → can further amplify social inequalities (vicious cycle)

• ^for commercial games w built-in house-edge

3 distinct theoretical approaches to gambling and PG

1. psychodynamic account (freudian)

2. behavioural account (conditioning, learning)

3. cognitive account

theory 1: psychodynamic account

bergler: PG as MASOCHISM → unconscious desire to lose (to punish yourself)

• driven by denial/rebellion against parental authority → rejecting values of family unit hence driven to humiliate themselves 

  • limitation: UNFALSIFIABLE (cannot be tested) 

• recognizes that PG not necessarily abt WINNING money → but rather obsessed with losing 

pathways model 

• proposes 3 subgroups of and routes into PG 

• specifies key roles for conditioning, arousal, cognitions, depression/anxiety, neurobiology and impulsivity

pathways model: pw 1 [behaviourally conditioned PG]

all gamblers go through this pathways

• ecological factors (availability and accessibility) → conditioning (excitement/arousal from experience) → HABIT FORMATION → (loss) chasing → PG symptoms 

• may not have vulnerability factors but happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time 

• can occur at any age

pathways model: pw 1 evidence

early ‘big wins’ in first experiences w gambling → predictor of PG in future 

• retrospective interviews (turner 2006)

  • social gambler (casual w no symptoms: $139 first win (0%)

  • subclinical (@ risk): $499 first win (12%)

  • pathological: $620 (26%) 

  • powerful one trial conditioning event + skews expected value calculations 

pathways model: pw 2 [the ‘emotionally vulnerable’ gambler]

piggyback onto first pathway (dispositions present)

• posits an emotional disturbance that predisposes gambling engagement and persistence

• emotional predispositions (depression, anxiety, childhood trauma, poor coping, life stresses) - negative reinforcement → gamble for first time OR bring you back to gambling → conditioning → habit formation → chasing → PG symptoms 

pathways model: pw 2 evidence

depression and ‘dark flow’

• study on casino visitors: depressed group had sig HIGHER flow ratings → immersion and potentially negative reinforcement 

pathways model: pw 3 [the ‘antisocial impulsive’ gambler]

biologically driven predispositions

• gambling commences at early age, rapidly escalates in intensity 

• IMPULSIVITY (+ executive dysfunction, genetic vulnerability, substance use, antisocial behaviour) → gamble for first time OR bring you back to gambling → conditioning → habit formation → chasing → PG symptoms 

pathways model: pw 3 evidence 

impulsivity as the ‘addictive personality’ 

• prospective design (long-drawn; across time) using Dunedin birth cohort 

• multidimensional personality questionnaire (MPQ) at 18yrs old 

  • 3 superfactors: negative emotionality (neuroticism), positive emotionality (extraversion), constraint (opp of impulsivity) 

• drug use and gambling assessment at 21yrs old 

  • alc dependence (10%), cannabis dependence (9%), nicotine dependence (18%), gambling problems (6%)

pathways model: pw 3 evidence 

personality profile for: (similar pattern across) 

• alcohol problems 

• cannabis dependence 

• problem gambling 

*low constraint (high impulsivity), high neg emotionality (proneness to stress), positive emotionality (no predictive value) 

testing the pathways model 

TYPE THEORY: puts ppl into 3 diff categories (often turns out to be dimensions/traits instead) 

reasons for long length of model

• measurement is tricky due to many components + hard to test 

• complex statistics for testing types, require large samples 

3 cluster solution 

• pw 1 (44%), pw 2 (40%), pw 3 (16%) 

• pw 3 CLEARLY DISTINCT from pw 2 → distinct vulnerabilities 

gambling in parkinson’s disease

L-dopa (standard pharmaco treatment) turns into DA/precursor for DA

• DA agonist meds can trigger EXCESSIVE gambling 

• most linked to 2 drugs: pramipexole and ropinirole → bind to DA D3 receptors 

• constellation w other impulse control/reward problems (sex-related)

  • men: hyper-sexuality

  • women: compulsive shopping buying

• drug stimulating DA → drives gambling problems

fMRI of reward in PG (case control design - 1 illness grp, 1 no illness)

task w no house-edge (win > lose)

• reduced striatum and vmPFC reward activity in PG → corr w gambling severity 

• most severe patients = weakest brain response to reward 

• supports reward deficiency hypothesis (underactive system)

DA PET binding in gambling disorder

hypothesis: reduced DA binding in grp w gambling disorder (not seen)

• NO grp diffs in extracted DA D2 in striatum but related to trait impulsivity 

• most impulsive control person scored lower than the least impulsive gambler → 2 groups completely separated 

  • PG: sig neg correlation

** DA very sensitive to age 

fMRI to natural rewards

**winning money = addiction relevant reward

task: response time to earn monetary reward or sexual reward

• men w gambling disorder: IMBALANCED response to gambling-related ($) vs natural (sexual) rewards 

  • gamblers: faster response to money than erotic rewards → reward sys BIASED toward addiction relevant rewards 

  • control: no diff

  • SAME pattern in ventral striatum response

    • controls: activated to both rewards

    • gamblers: only activated when given money cues

• reward repertoire shrinks to only target of addiction vs HC w many diff things we get reward from 

• both reward deficiency and incentive salience happening ??

BC resources for gambling problems

• telephone helpline (gambling support) → not needed to be gambler themselves

• voluntary self-exclusion program → gamblers block themselves from casino and online gambling access

  • no contact incl lack of treatment options

  • who’s responsible if somehow allowed back in (legal issues)

• ‘responsible gambling’ tools like limit-setting options → e.g. limit to gamble in a month

• psychological treatment → free counselling programs

• financial support (debt management loans), family therapy

• no residential facilities for gambling in BC → expensive

2 forms of psychological treatments

1. cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) → most dominant

• C: testing and restructuring false beliefs (distortions)

  • write what person is thinking → challenge that belief

• B: exposure (imagined at first) and desensitization

  • conditioning: take client to casino foyer → flooding for phobias

• feed into each other → cannot be independently used

2. motivational interviewing (MI) / enhancement

• enhancing motivation to CHANGE, exploring AMBIVALENCE (pros and cons of gambling)

• assessing ‘change talk’: are the pros really beneficial → move them along change continuum

• any treatment most effective when client is motivated to change their behaviour → MI used in combination w other therapies

  • many drop out prematurely

*many open questions on effectiveness

1. indiv vs group setting

2. in-person vs online delivery

3. (complete) abstinence vs controlled gambling

• anonymous programs vs not complete removal of gambling/returning to previous state

pharmacotherapy for gambling disorder (medications)

placebo vs drug trials

• measure symptom severity

• classes of drugs: opioid, serotonin, dopamine

  • opioid medications have the best results → block opioid receptors (drug 2x better than placebo)

  • serotonin (SSRIs, anti-depressant meds) → not effective 68% drugs, 66% placebo

  • dopamine (treat schizophrenia) → placebo more effective than drug

• from placebo-controlled trials: most promising meds = opioid antagonists → REDUCE URGE (to gamble) + CRAVINGS

• reasons for variability b/w placebos

  • diff duration of treatments

  • background of study (education, no response, MI)

biggest issue w treatment

even though treatment = FOC and good quality …

• few people w addictions actually seek help

  • awareness of programs + how to access

  • stigma surrounding admitting harm and consequences

• bijker et al (2022) systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of help seeking for gambling

  • moderate-risk gamblers: 3.7%

  • problem gambling (highest classification on PGSI): 20.6%

  • 1 in 25 moderate-risk gamblers and 1 in 5 ppl w PG have sought help for gambling related problems

theory 2: behavioural account (learning)

gambling and pavlovian conditioning

• cues associated w gambling should become CS → visual stimulus of casino lobby (smells, colours, sounds)

  • reward salience

• DA involved in this learning

theory 2: behavioural account - gambling cues and craving in the brain

UK: clinic patients majority men vs much less skewed in vancouver

• ambling culture differences and gender norms

• only men recruited bc thought not enough women to do stats by gender

• gambling cues TAILORED to preferred games of each participant

  • vs smoking (generic cues)

  • shop fronts of high street betting shops → powerful trigger for gamblers

• used highlight appetizing food images to test whether other reward processing altered

• took CRAVINGS rating after each block of images (during brain scan)

• analyzed brain connectivity changes (striatum as ‘seed’ region) + simple contrast analysis

results of gambling cues and cravings study

2 sets of neutral images used → some visually matched to gambling images (same colours and visual complexity), others matched to food images

• HC: at lowest levels

• gambling disorder: increased craving ratings overall → ESP after blocks of gambling images (cue reactivity) 

fMRI analysis - gambling cues

• all subjects: gambling cues - neutral cues → brain activity: frontal lobe, striatum, visual cortex 

1. interaction test: brain areas more responsive to gambling cues (vs neutral cues) in GD MORE than in HC → insula, medial PFC 

2. correlation w craving (gamblers): areas where brain activity to gambling contrast correlate w craving intensity → INSULA (bilaterally - both hemispheres)

   • more activity = more craving in gamblers (pos correlation)

neuropsychology on INSULA and craving 

study on stroke patients who used to be smokers (medical records) 

• if stroke affected INSULA → more likely to spontaneously quit (

  • no cravings/urge to smoke) 

  • forgot they used to smoke (not amnesia) 

gambling advertisement (classical conditioning) 

packed w learned cues tho now banned and heavily regulated 

• 3 factors: involvement, awareness, knowledge

• factor analysis across diff elements of gambling 

• results:

  • involvement: grp w PG show STRONGER impact of ads 

  • involvement and knowledge: younger age and men had higher scores 

theory 2: behavioural theory (operant conditioning) and role of arousal

• gambling = operant response that SOMETIMES results in a win → potential for POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT

• skinner’s schedules of reinforcement

  • fixed interval: 1 reward avail every 10s → e.g. salaries at end of month

  • variable interval: unpredictable interval → e.g. songs on radio

  • fixed ratio: 1 prize every 10 presses

  • variable ratio: unpredictable reward (unsure which bet is going to win) → e.g. slot machine/gambling

VR schedules characteristics 

• ratio schedules yield HIGHER RATES of response than IS → can ‘slack off’ after reward received 

• VR schedules: HIGHLY RESISTANT TO EXTINCTION → persistent 

  • uncertainty = key to effect 

• not easy to establish for animals → trng required to get animal to that point (built up) 

  • early ‘big wins’ may be a key conditioning event 

DA release (raclopride PET) to unpredictable rewards

long boring task (task releasing natural DA → competes w radio tracer at receptors; reduce PET signal via competition) 

• VR minus control: increase DA in L striatum 

• FR minus control: no sig DA release 

effects of uncertainty on DA cell signals

DA cell activity during appetitive pavlovian conditioning (purple squiggle and fruit juice)

• 5 stimuli w diff probabilities of reward 

• not always tied to juice BUT cue learning still exists (CS response) → DA cell activated during the “pause” (unsure if getting reward) 

• at peak uncertainty (0.5) → CS + anticipatory activity in pause b/w CS and juice 

  • surplus DA activity (double hit) 

gambling and hyper-learning (double hit)

• evidence for pavlovian cue learning in gambling

• uncertain rewards: both cue learning AND anticipation (additional activity during delay period) → potential DA double hit created

“its all about the pause” - how gamblers describe playing slot machines 

• neg reinforcement: gamble to alleviate neg emotions, relieve stress/low mood/boredom

• pos reinforcement: winning, cheering 

• physiological arousal during gambling play 

• excitement = commodity that gambler is prepared to pay for (source of UTILITY) 

psychophysiology of blackjack (measure HR change)

measure HR change from baseline

• substantial HR INCREASE → biggest change = 55bpm (intense cardio level)

  • mostly in casino setting → need for ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

  • when replicated in lab → not as intense changes in HR

monetary bet/prize as prerequisite for physiological arousal

playing for real money → big INCREASE in HR compared to just playing for credits

processing of physiological arousal

physiological changes (SIGNAL) → detection of that change (INTEROCEPTION) - insula → COGNITIVE APPRAISAL (do you like that feeling)

• lots of studies on PG measured SIGNAL but inconsistent findings 

cognitive appraisal theory of emotion

capilano bridge study

• misattribution of cognitive responses as other feelings (e.g. romantic attraction) 

capilano bridge of gambling

slot machine gamblers (PGSI >1) visiting australian crocodile sanctuary

• play at entry foyer OR after holding baby croc for awhile 

• measure: emotion rating scale 

• crocodile grp: significant difference reps some MISATTRIBUTION of arousal → affects gambling behaviour 

‘think aloud’ technique

gambler plays in natural environment for 5min + VOCALIZES all thoughts 

• thoughts coded as mathematically accurate of faulty 

• anthropomorphizing machine → giving consciousness to machine

• gamblers fallacy; hindsight bias (knew that was gg to happen)

results 

• 70-90% of gamblers’ thoughts are erroneous → tied to actual play and preferred game 

• erroneous thoughts elevated in ppl w disordered gambling 

  • CEILING EFFECT: harder to detect any effect in PG 

• those w greatest HR increases made most erroneous thoughts

• when identifying results → perceived self as more accurate even tho irl more erroneous 

  • “not me” bias → lack insight into distortions 

‘think aloud’ critique

1. requirement to verbalize = UNNATURAL 

• demand characteristics: responding in ways they think the researchers want

2. relatively few ways to express accurate thoughts abt the game

• bias in procedure

3. health ppl express SO MANY irrational beliefs during gambling

• ceiling effect: hard to show PG do it even more 

4. cognitions as a way of rationalizing unconscious operant responding? 

• lack of empirical evidence establishing CAUSAL significance 

gambling related cognitions scale (self-report questionnaire)

5 subscales

[cognitive distortions] → PG score higher than avg on these items

1. illusion of control (IC)

• specific RITUALS and BEHAVIOURS that may increase chances of winning (praying, superstitions, lucky charms)

2. predictive control (PC)

• losses when gambling bound to be followed by series of wins (patterns, predictions)

3. interpretive bias (IB)

• relating winnings to skill and ability makes person continue gambling

[beliefs about the self]

4. gambling expectancies (GE)

• gambling makes things seem better

5. inability to stop gambling (IS)

• not strong enough to stop gambling

dice-throwing behaviour (henslin)

qualitative study of st louis taxi drivers → played craps during breaks

• dice game: throw particular dice + bet on totals thrown

• believed that a hard throw produces a large number, soft one produces a low number

• other techniques involve evidencing concentration and effort (e.g. blowing on dice)

ellen langer’s illusion of control

IC + IB (illusion of control + interpretive bias)

• “an expectancy of a personal success probability inappropriately higher than the objective probability”

• skill vs chance

  • skill: you believe you can do smthg to change chance

  • chance: ppl behave as if they were in a situation requiring skill

• hypothesis: if skilful features are inserted into chance situations, ppl shd feel inappropriately confident → cause the illusion of control

  • 4 features

    • choice

    • motor involvement (smthg dextrous)

    • familiarity

    • competition

illusory control: feature 1 - irrelevant choice

lottery based on football cards (cost $1)

• either chose their card or given a card (yoked to previous participant)

• asked how much they would sell their ticket for

• choosers: $8.67, non-chooser: $1.96 (p<.005)

• endowment effect: choice = ownership → cog mechanism

illusory control: feature 2 - motor involvement

field study in vegas casino + using own money

craps: players place higher bets and bet more riskily (on single numbers) on their OWN throw

roulette: higher bets when player vs croupier (casino staff) throws ball onto wheel

attribution of random sequence 

to basketball or coin toss 

• 0.5 = chance

• 0.2 = bball

• 0.8 = coin flip

roulette predictions and confidence ratings

1. colour runs 

• the gambler’s fallacy: likelihood of choosing either colour DECREASES as a function of run length of that colour 

• negative recency 

2. winning streaks 

• the ‘hot hand’: confidence in one’s predictions INCREASES as a function of past success (in the zone) → more confident in next prediction 

• the ‘cold hand’ effect: after a streak of LOSSES → less confident in their next colour prediction 

**more than 1 sequential bias shown even within same task 

the hot hand ‘fallacy’

gilovich et al: bball player scores 3 consecutive shots → likelihood of scoring next shot 

• players, fans, coaches: yes 

• NBA shooting records and field study: no 

• “the outcomes of previous shots influenced PREDICTIONS but not performance”