Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice Mark R. Dixon
& Alyssa Wilson Southern Illinois University
Slide 2
The Road to Somewhere.. Casino laboratory College students as
subjects in research Computerized versions of actual casino games
Bench Answering basic psychological processes with a
clinical/sub-clinical sample In the field research or clients
entered into lab Translational Real pathological gamblers Real
gambling problems Real treatment that YOU can take with you today
Bedside
Slide 3
Problem gambling is not the problem. Problem gambling is the
outcome of deeper rooted clinical problem. Treatment should be
designed to treat what the cause of the gambling is, not just the
gambling itself. Life is not just fine except for problems with
gambling.
Slide 4
Popular Treatment Approaches Gamblers Anonymous Disease model
Client is a victim You never beat the disease No active treatment.
Social support group. Self-Exclusion Programs Self or court orders
gambler to be banned from gaming establishments No way to ban
online or illegal local gambling Medication Certain dopamine
blockers can be effective at suppressing gambling for some people
Remove the medication, the problem returns Psycho-educational Teach
people about game odds Teach about risk to self or others from
repeated gambling
Slide 5
Classic Behavioral Treatments Aversive Conditioning Thought
suppression Self-monitoring/reinforcement
Dixon (2000) The Psychological Record Subjects: 5 Recreational
roulette players Baseline: Wagered on numbers they picked or the
experimenter picked. Intervention: Provided rules to the subjects
Roulette is easy to win; the more you play the more you win; the
best way to win is to pick your own numbers Roulette is a losing
game; the more you play the more you lose; the experimenter can not
predict good/bad numbers Outcome: relative rise and decline in
wagers while contingencies remained the same Conclusion: Rules
matter contingencies do not
Slide 11
Dixon, Hayes, & Aban (2000) The Psychological Record
Subjects: 45 Recreational roulette players Baseline: Wagered on
numbers they picked or the experimenter picked. Intervention:
Provided one set of rules to the subjects Roulette is easy to win;
the more you play the more you win; the best way to win is to pick
your own numbers OR--- Roulette is a losing game; the more you play
the more you lose; the experimenter can not predict good/bad
numbers Outcome: relative rise and decline in wagers while
contingencies remained the same Conclusion: Rules matter
contingencies do not
Procedure Participants 18 recreational slot machine players
Setting - small room, computer, video camera, observation mirror.
Three computerized slot machines available concurrently. Method 100
trials w/ 20% chance of a win on every trial 100 trials w/ 0%
chance of a win on every trial Various densities of near-misses on
each slot machine Reinforcement densities were constant on each
slot machine
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
What we know: Subjects will rate near-miss displays as: Closer
to wins More pleasurable / less aversive to look at Subjects will
prefer near-misses in concurrent operant preparations Density
effect of NM Extinction conditions alter preference Neurological
traces of the near-miss Near-misses produce different levels of
dopamine in brain Pathological gamblers react neurologically
different than non- pathological
Slide 20
What we dont know: What behavioral process produces a near-miss
effect? Will the near-miss effect be demonstrated with other casino
games? Can the near-miss effect be assessed independently of the
by-chance reinforcers that occur during gambling
Slide 21
What Actually is the Near-Miss Effect? Product of Stimulus
Generalization Current display looks structurally similar to a
reinforced display, and thus it serves reinforcing function A
Discriminative Stimulus Signals the availability of an upcoming
reinforcer Product of Verbal Construction Or, an interaction of all
the above?
Slide 22
Almost winning A verbal event Almost
Slide 23
9 + 4 = 14 Antecedent Almost + GCR What is 9 + 4 ? Speaker
Listener Math Time Behavior Consequence What is 9 + 4 ? Verbal
Construction Note: GCR might be < for almost than for
correct
Slide 24
Looking for House #34 See House #26 Almost There Arrive Soon at
House #34 AntecedentBehavior Consequence
Slide 25
Looking for House #34 See Gas Station Almost There Arrive Soon
at House #34 AntecedentBehavior Consequence See Sign for Off Ramp
See Sign for Sunset Blvd See House #26
Slide 26
Almost Desired Outcome In Close Proximity
Slide 27
Slide 28
Methods 16 participants with history of gambling Rating of 100
various slot machine displays Near miss- loss - win HOW CLOSE IS
THIS DISPLAY TO A WIN? 1 (not at all) 5 10 (very much like a
win)
Slide 29
Methods Phase 1: Rate slot machine images Phase 2: Develop 3
three member stimulus classes Attempt to derive almost to non-near
miss display Phase 3: Repeat exposure to Phase 1 task
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
More than Slots Many more types of near misses occur while
gambling: Blackjack Roulette Craps
Slide 33
Blackjack
Slide 34
Near Miss: Blackjack Participants: 5 undergrads with history of
playing cards for money Paid 50 dollars in lotto drawing based on #
of chips left 50 trials (1o practice trials) Data Collection
Self-recorded data Experimenter IOR on 30% trials End of trial
circle number 1-9 on how close their hand was to a win 1 = no
chance ; moderate chance; good chance (as anchors) Record their
score, dealers score and if they won or not on that given hand
Slide 35
Results 2 factor Near-Miss Effect Non-bust loss Mathematical
difference between dealer and player Minimal Difference between
player and dealer cards Non-Bust (under 21) Near Miss Minimal
Difference between player and dealer cards Bust (over 21) No Near
Miss
Slide 36
Average Loss Trials
Slide 37
All Loss Trials (all players combined)
Slide 38
Roulette
Slide 39
Slide 40
Near Miss: Roulette Participants: 28 College Undergraduates
(run concurrently) Extra credit value based on winnings First 5
students to hit a number = 10 x points Next 5 = 5 x points
Remainder of students = 1 x point Played 60 trials of roulette 1
single bet on a single number (1:38 odds of winning) Rating of
outcome How close to a win was this outcome for you? Scale 1 to
10
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Alternative Methods Self-reports of: How close to win How much
do you like Preference for near-misses during gambling Interaction
between display and superstitious reinforcement Can we show a
preference for near-misses absent of the reinforcement
interaction?
Slide 44
Paired-Choice Near- Miss Participants 34 College Undergraduates
Awarded course extra credit Randomly assigned to 2 groups of 17
Instructed to choose between two slot images. Which one would you
rather see if you were playing a slot machine? Procedures Exposure
to 120 trials of 3 trial types Win vs Loss Win vs Near Miss Near
Miss vs Loss Experimental Group 5 min intervention Control Group 5
min break in hallway
Slide 45
Intervention Details Prior research suggests that rules are
effective ways of altering gambling behavior Dixon (2000); Dixon,
Aban, & Hayes (2000) Dixon & Delaney (2006) Prior research
also suggests that the deliteralization of language can alter the
current functions of a specific verbal stimulus Aka: defusion in
therapy contexts
Slide 46
Experimental Intervention: (one slide) Almost winning is not
winning at all Almost winning is a trick played on you by the slot
machine Almost winning makes you feel good, but it is false feeling
Losing is losing is losing is losing is losing is losing Repeat for
2 minutes
Slide 47
Which One?? A B
Slide 48
A B
Slide 49
A B
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Variations of Effect The Near-Miss effect varies Not based
exclusively on physical characteristics of the stimulus Core
behavioral process rests on altering of psychological function of
the stimulus (stimuli) Altering psychological function will alter
the type of stimulus that is considered a near-miss
Slide 54
Variations of Assessment The Near-Miss Effect can be assessed
with novel methods and produce similar effects Verbally based
interventions for gamblers who are under control of near-misses
appear promising
Slide 55
Nastally and Dixon (2011): The Psychological Record N=3
Pathological gamblers MBL across participants Baseline Computerized
slot machine play 50, 70, 90 trials at baseline Report out loud how
close each outcome was to a win 1 (very far from a win) to 10 (very
close to a win)
Slide 56
SIMULATION
Slide 57
Visible Symbols on Wheel
Slide 58
Treatment Intervention ACT intervention targeted each of the 6
components Intervention delivered via PowerPoint presentation each
5 min in length Slides consisted of words/pictures in form of
directions + experiential exercises Each component was delivered at
equal length of time Return to computerized slot machine play
Slide 59
Psychological Flexibility
Slide 60
Baseline Play and Self-Ratings 30 min ACT Post-Treatment Play
and Self Ratings Time Client 1 Client 2 Client 3