Slide 1

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

Slide 6

Contemporary Behavioral Contributions Contingency-based Models

Slide 7

Response Cost

Slide 8

Slide 9

Behavioral Contributions Contingency-based Models Language-based Models External rules

Slide 10

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

Slide 12

Behavioral Contributions Contingency-based Models Language-based Models Delivered Rules Self-Rules

Slide 13

Recent Attention Paid to Near-Miss

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

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