griffiths psychology as ocr
TRANSCRIPT
Griffiths (1994)
The role of
cognitive bias
and skill
in fruit
machine
gambling
Professor Mark Griffiths
Aim
• To compare the behaviour and
cognitions of regular and non-
regular gamblers to see if there
were differences between the two
groups
Four main Hypotheses
1. RGs will be no different from NRGs in terms of
skill levels (ability to affect outcome positively)
2. RGs will produce more irrational (contrary to
reason) verbalisations than NRGs
3. RGs will report themselves (subjective) as
being more skill orientated than NRGs
4. (Ps in the ‘thinking aloud condition would take
longer to do the task)
Method
• Quasi field experiment
Advantages
Disadvantages
Method
• Quasi field experiment
Advantages Higher ecological validity
(sometimes low demand
characteristics- not in this case)
Disadvantages Little control of variables – hard to
establish cause and effect links
Can be difficult to replicate
Sometimes ethical issues
Participants/Sample• 60 people (mean age 23.4 years)
• 30 RGs (29 M 1F) – gambled at least once per week
• Gender imbalance is due to fruit machine gamblers being mainly M in this country.
• 30 NRGs (15M 15F) – gambled once a month or less (but had used fruit machines at least once in their lives)
• Self – selected volunteers – via posters around local college campuses
• A number of the RGs were recruited via a RG known to Griffiths - snowball sampling
Independent Variable
• IV = regular gamblers (Gs)
or non –regular gamblers (NRGs)
(Naturally occurring)
I won
because
I was
quick
07/04/2014
Dependent variables
(1)The „objective‟ DVs – hypothesis 1 –testing differences in skills levels
• measured by observation of 7 aspects of behaviour – quantitative data:Total number of plays in session
Total minutes of play in session
Total plays per minute in session
End stake – total winnings
Total number of wins in session
Win rate (time) – time between wins
Win rate (plays) – number of plays between wins
Dependent variables
• The „subjective‟ DVs- Qualitative data
(2) Cognitive activity – i.e. what Ps were
thinking – hypothesis 2: differences in
irrational verbalisations
• measured by „thinking aloud‟ technique
(3) Perception of SKILL – hypothesis 3
• measured by post - experiment semi
structured interviews
Controls
All participants played same machine
„Fruitskill‟ (except those who didn’t!) –
controlling situational variables
Randomly assigned to thinking aloud /
non-thinking aloud – controlling participant
variables
PROCEDURE
Procedure – the task• All Ss were tested individually
• Each participant was given £3 to gamble
on a fruit machine (equal to 30 free plays)
in a local arcade
• The game selected was FRUITSKILL
(though some players moved on to other
games- see next slide) *
• They were asked to try to stay on their
machine for at least 60 gambles (i.e. aim
to break even & win back £3)
Procedure – the task
* 3 RGs objected, either because they were
not familiar with FRUITSKILL or because
they preferred a different machine
* further RGs began on the FRUITSKILL
machine, then changed machines, each
changing at least 3 times
Procedure – the task
• At 60 gambles they were allowed to keep
the £3 or carry on gambling
• RGs & NRGs were randomly allocated to
the “thinking aloud” (TA) “non-thinking
aloud” (NTA) conditions
‘Thinking Aloud‟ Method
• Considered the best method for accessing
cognitive processes – it requires Ps to verbalise
every thought that passes through their mind.
• The Ps were given lapel microphones and
given certain instructions:
•Say everything that goes through your
mind
•Do not censor your thoughts – even if it
seems irrelevant to you
•Keep talking continuously
•Speak in complete sentences if
possible – but don‟t worry if you can‟t
•Do not try to justify your thoughts
Self-reports in post-experimental
semi-structured interviews
The three main questions that were asked to measure perceptions of skills were:
1) Is there any skill involved in playing the fruit machine?
2) How skilful do you think you are compared to the average person?
3) What skill (if any) is involved in playing the fruit machines?
RESULTS
„This
machine
hates me!‟
Hypothesis one looked at differences
between RGs and NRGs.
• The study found only two significant
differences:
– Regular gamblers had a higher playing rate of
8 gambles per minute. NRGs had a playing
rate of 6 gambles per minute.
– RGs who thought aloud had a lower win rate
(in plays) and therefore made fewer gambles
between each win than the other groups.
Hypothesis 1 contd.
• The study also found 2 interesting, but not
significant, findings:
• 1. Regular gamblers were seen to spend
more time on the fruit machine by having
more gambles using the same initial stake.
• 2. There were no significant differences in
the amount of total winnings between
those who thought aloud and those who
didn’t.
Hypothesis 1: testing the
difference in skill levels
• On the whole there were no significant differences between regular gamblers & non regular gamblers
• Hypothesis 1 is supported.
• (there is also some support for hypothesis 4 that ‘thinking aloud’ means you take longer to gamble)
Hypothesis 2. - RGs will produce more
irrational verbalisations than NRGs
• The verbalisations gathered from the ‘thinking aloud’ method were analysed by content analysis
• The author produced a coding system. Helooked through the transcripts and intuitively identifyied 30 utterance categories
• The author then categorised the statementsmade by each participant using this coding system
• They were then counted – turning qualitative data into quantitative data
Reliability of the coding system
• Reliability was checked by using two other raters
• Inter-rater reliability was low because:
• 1) One rater knew very little about fruit machine gambling & therefore couldn’t understand the terminology
• 2) The second rater had not been present during the recording of the utterances & therefore had no context & could not make as much sense of the utterances as the author
07/04/2014
Examples of coding system
categories
Content Analysis
categories
NRG RG
Machine personification 1.14 7.54
Explaining losses 0.41 3.12
Talking to the machine 0.90 2.64
Swear at machine 0.08 0.o6
Reference to skill 1.47 5.34
Verbalising confusion 4.81 1.72
1. Examples of rational verbalisations
• Reference to winning
e.g. ‘I won forty pence I think’
• Confusion/non-understanding
e.g. ‘What’s going on here?’
2. Examples of irrational verbalisations
• Personification of the fruit machine
e.g. ‘The machine likes me’
• Explaining away losses
e.g. ‘I lost because I wasn’t concentrating’
07/04/2014
More examples of
IRRATIONAL
VERBALISATIONS
This ‘fruity’ is not in a good
mood
It wants its money back
Putting only a quid in ‘bluffs
the machine’
The machine … hates me
This machine won’t pay out
happily
Results of verbalisations
• Regular gamblers made a significantly higher percentage of verbalisations in the following irrational category:
• Personification of the fruit machine - “The machine likes me”
• Regular gamblers made significantly higher percentage of verbalisations in the following rational category:
• Reference to the number system - “I got a 2 there”
Results of verbalisations
• Non regular gamblers made significantly
higher percentage verbalisations in the
following Rational categories:
• Questions/statements relating to confusion
– What’s going on here?/I don’t
understand this.
• Miscellaneous utterances – I think I’ll get a
bag of crisps after playing this.
Hypothesis 2: Overall Results
• Similarities: Overall both groupsused more rational than irrational verbalisations
• Differences - Regular gamblersproduced significantly more irrational verbalisations (14%) than non regular gamblers (2.5%)
• Supporting hypothesis 2
Heuristics
RGs used a variety of heuristics, showing cognitive bias in their verbalisations :
For example:
• Flexible attributions e.g. ‘ two nudges, gotta be…oh you son of a bitch, you changed them’ (talking to the machine)
• Illusory correlations: the belief that skills like using the nudge button well has a high impact on winning when in reality it does not.
Results from semi-structured interviews.
Hypothesis 3 – Perception of Skill
Interview Question NRGs RGs
1) Is there any skill
involved in playing
the fruit machine?
2) How skilful do you
think you are
compared to the
average person?
3) What skill (if any)
is involved in playing
the fruit machines?
Results from semi-structured interviews.
Hypothesis 3 – Perception of Skill
Interview Question NRGs RGs
1) Is there any skill
involved in playing
the fruit machine?
mostly chance equal chance and
skill
2) How skilful do you
think you are
compared to the
average person?
Below average Above average
OR
Totally skilled
3) What skill (if any)
is involved in playing
the fruit machines?
Feature skills
Knowing when
machine will pay
out
07/04/2014
Additional findings
• Of the 14 RGs who managed to ‘break
even’ (60 gambles) – 10 (71%) stayed on
machine until they lost all the money
• Of the 7 NRGs who broke even – 2 (29%)
stayed on until lost all the money
Griffiths explanation of his results:
Griffiths says that gamblers know they
will lose money but by using familiar
machines and having some level of skill
they are able to maximise their playing
time.
Gamblers play with money not for it -
staying on the machine is the objective
Conclusions - Questions
Answer the following questions (give
reasons for your answers):
• Do regular gamblers behave
differently?
• Do regular gamblers think differently?
• Do regular gamblers think they are
more skill orientated?
Broad Conclusions - answers
• RGs Behave differently = No as there
were no overall differences on the seven
objective measures
• RGs Think differently = Yes, as regular
gamblers produced more irrational
verbalisations than non regular gamblers
• Differences in perceived skill orientation =
Yes, as regular gamblers were more skill
orientated in their self-report ratings
Conclusion P= RGs have different cognitive
thought processes than NRGs
E= RGs think there is more skill involved than there actually is (as the skills identified had a minor influence on outcome). Also RGs made more irrational verbalisations.
C= However, only fruit machine gambling is studied so the findings may not apply to other forms of gambling.
Applications/Implications
• The results of this study may be used to
rehabilitate ‘problem gamblers’.
• It shows that gamblers may have certain
cognitive biases (ways of thinking).
• Thus, it suggests that they may be helped
by cognitive- behaviour therapies to
change their thinking e.g. listening to ‘think
aloud’ recordings to highlight their irrational
verbalisations
Ethics
• Carried out according to BPS guidelines
• The participants gave fully informed
consent and had the right to withdraw
• Protection of Ps – they were given money
to gamble – could be seen as encouraging
gambling.
Ecological ValidityThe setting:
• A field experiment – so ecological validity is high
- took place in a naturalistic setting (arcade) on a typical
fruit machine
Money:
• However - Using someone else’s money may reduce the
excitement & risk taking involved in gambling.
• Nevertheless the researchers believed that allowing
participants to keep their winnings may compensate for
this
* Also: thinking aloud condition - low EV – not how
gamblers usually behave
Quantitative and Qualitative
data• Hypothesis 1 – behavioural measures of
skill – quant data
• Hypothesis 2 – irrational verbalisations –
qual data turned into quant by coding
system
• Hypothesis 3 – perceptions of skill – qual
data gained through semi-structured
interviews
Evaluation
• State strengths & weaknesses of the study using the following evaluation issues:
• Sample
• Methodology
• Ecological validity
• Validity
• Reliability
• Type of data collected
Evaluation - Strengths
• A variety of data collection methods were
used – observation, interview, ‘talking
aloud’ – allows triangulation and increases
validity.
• Large amounts of data: quantitative –
allowing objective statistical comparisons -
and qualitative data - giving richness and
insight.
Evaluation - Weaknesses
• Inter-rater reliability was low – this suggest the
descriptions of categories was only understood
by Griffiths – this might be a source of
subjectivity and bias.
• Sample: Volunteer sample of students – not
representative of wider society. Snowball sample
also means sample not representative – p’s
likely to be similar.Gender imbalance in RGs -
but this reflects the problem in the UK
• Field study – extraneous variables hard to
control – reducing validity and reliability
Evaluation - Weaknesses
• ‘Thinking aloud’ produces descriptions of
thinking NOT explanations of why they are
thinking it. Also – open to
falsification/demand characteristics. Some
people find it difficult and in fact the RGs in
this study were silent for some of the time–
reducing validity.
• Overt observation – open to
falsification/demand characteristics –
reducing validity
Alternatives1. Self report questionnaire – ask the participants what they were
thinking while they were playing –using open questions.
Advantages:
Ps could play normally without being disturbed by ‘thinking aloud’ .
They could explain their thoughts in phrases non-regular gamblers would understand
Disadvantages:
would rely on memory
Would allow them time to censor their thoughts – social desirability
Effect on results:
• If Ps didn’t remember what they’d thought, validity would be decreased. Validity would also go down if they censored their thoughts. But on the other hand playing normally (without talking aloud )would increase the validity of the research.
• Being able to explain their thoughts might increase inter-raterreliability when the content was analysed
Alternatives2. Use more forms of gambling e.g. horse racing, dice, cards.
Advantages:
Increase validity of the data - getting wider information about the
way gamblers think. Make comparisons between thought
processes shown in different types of gambling.
Disadvantages:
• Time consuming.
Effect on the results
• Might find gamblers use similar cognitive processes across different
types of gambling. Or, might find that some kinds (eg poker)
genuinely require more skill, and that people use different heuristics
where those are concerned.