The new National Gambling Bill introduces a system of voluntary and court-ordered exclusion of problem gamblers from casinos. A wide range of exclusion techniques for access control could be applied to South African casinos. However, there are no clear criteria on which to base the decision of which system is to be implemented. Various role players need to be considered to determine what can be deployable in casino applications. A framework, from a business perspective, is proposed which allows multiple role players and varied criteria to effectively evaluate a range of possible solutions. The framework is applied to the role players affected by the proposed exclusion of problem gamblers from gambling. The main role players evaluated a number of possible exclusion techniques according to a range of important criteria. The current solution of a security guard at the entrance is superior according to the casino operations department. The casino marketing division places a high emphasis on ease of use for the pUblic. Of the alternative solutions, comparison-based solutions (using an identity book) were preferred by Gambling Anonymous while card-based solutions (proximity card) was found to be preferable by the public. The casino surveillance department preferred non-contact, overt, biometric acquisition (such as iris recognition). Covert biometric acquisition (face recognition) is found to be the most acceptable to all the role players, with fingerprint recognition being the least acceptable. The application of the framework allowed multimodal exclusion techniques (face recognition linked to casino loyalty cards) to emerge as a promising way forward. / Thesis (MBA)-University of Natal, Durban, 2003.

Problem and pathological gambling has become an increasing public health concern worldwide in recent years, and individuals from China and East Asian countries may be especially vulnerable. Knowledge of how individuals make choices between outcomes that are delayed or uncertain, and of potential differences in decision making across cultures, may contribute to our understanding of factors which increase the risk of problem gambling. Our research is based on a discounting perspective in which the value of a delayed or uncertain reward decreases according to the time until or the odds against its receipt, respectively. We use experimental procedures in which individuals make a series of hypothetical choices so as to estimate an indifference point – an amount of money available immediately or with certainty – that is equal in subjective value to a delayed or uncertain reward. Our starting point is the hypothesis that reward contrast – in which the subjective value of a reward varies inversely with amount of a prior reward – plays a role in choice between delayed or probabilistic outcomes and might contribute to problem gambling. This thesis describes four experiments which investigate these ideas. Experiments 1 and 2 establish that reward contrast is a reliable phenomenon in choice. Indifference points for an intermediate reward ($475/$525) varied as predicted if its subjective value was larger when the individual had previously been making choices with a smaller amount ($50) and smaller when previously making choices with a larger amount ($5,000). Reward contrast was obtained for both delayed and probabilistic choice, using between-subjects (Experiment 1) and within-subjects (Experiment 2) designs. Experiment 3 used a computerized Card Playing Game (CPG) as an analogue gambling task and also measured delay discounting using the same task as Experiment 2. Participants began with an initial stake and could win or lose 10% of the stake with each card that they played. The critical aspect of the procedure was that the probability of winning for each card decreased as more cards were played. Participants played the CPG four times with stakes of $50, $500, $5,000 and $500 (order of $50 and $5,000 was counterbalanced). Results showed that performance on the CPG improved over successive trials, suggesting that participants learned the contingencies in the task. Although this confounded our attempt to measure reward contrast within-subjects, participants who had a $50 stake in the first deck performed better in the second deck with a $500 stake than those who had a $5,000 stake in the first deck, consistent with reward contrast. Results from the delay discounting task were correlated with CPG performance, showing that participants who had lower reward contrast and discounting rates, and greater magnitude effects won more money on the CPG task. Experiment 4 used a larger sample (N = 182) with both Chinese and Caucasian (New Zealand European) participants and recruited individuals with gambling histories, and compared performance on delay and probability discounting tasks and the CPG. Results showed that Chinese participants had higher delay discounting rates and lower probability discounting rates when data were analyzed according to the area under the discounting curve (AUC). Gamblers (those participants with scores on the South Oaks Gambling Screen [SOGS; Lesieur & Blume, 1987] > 1) were less risk averse in probability discounting and had reduced magnitude effects in delay discounting and performed more poorly on the CPG. Closer analysis of the probability discounting data showed that compared with Caucasians, Chinese were more risk averse for high probabilities of reward outcome, and less risk averse for low probabilities. Although results do not suggest that individual differences in reward contrast, as measured using our within-subjects delay discounting task, play a significant role in the maintenance of gambling behavior, the cross-cultural differences in delay and probability discounting in Experiment 4 suggest some factors that might contribute to gambling. In the General Discussion, we propose an account of the probability discounting results in terms of a tendency toward dialectical thinking and emotions in Chinese culture. Based on this result and previous research, we propose a framework for the cross-cultural analysis of risky decision making, and consider some of its broader implications for both research in decision making and issues of globalization.

No description available.

Frontal electroencephalographic (EEG) alpha (α) asymmetry may index the activation of lateralized affect and motivation systems in humans. Resting EEG activation was measured and its relationship to Iowa gambling task (IGT) performance was evaluated. No effects were found for α power asymmetry. However, beta (β) power asymmetry, an alternative measure of resting EEG activation, was associated with the number of risky decisions made in the early portion of the task. Additionally, IGT deck selection patterns suggest there are at least three distinct performance styles in healthy individuals. Interestingly, β power asymmetry contradicts performance predictions based on accepted frontal asymmetry affect and motivation models.

No description available.

Pathological Gambling (PG) is an impulse control disorder with lifetime prevalence of 1-3%. Available treatments are limited by uncertain classification and complexity of implicated neurotransmitter systems. Dopamine (DA), a key neurotransmitter implicated in addictive behavior and reward is elevated in response to gambling and psychostimulants. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the D2 blocker, haloperidol (HAL), will enhance slot machine reinforcement in PG but not in Healthy Controls (HC). If this increase reflects preferential stimulation of D1 receptors and group differences in D1 sensitivity, D1-D2 blocker (fluphenazine, FLU) should offset increase in reinforcement seen with HAL in PG subjects. In line with DA's implicated role in 'wanting' vs. 'liking' of the addictive reinforcer, the results suggest that DA release mediated partial D1 activation under FLU led to clear differentiation between groups with increased 'wanting' seen in controls but not in gamblers. DA's role in 'liking' however remains elusive.

Pathological Gambling (PG) is an impulse control disorder with lifetime prevalence of 1-3%. Available treatments are limited by uncertain classification and complexity of implicated neurotransmitter systems. Dopamine (DA), a key neurotransmitter implicated in addictive behavior and reward is elevated in response to gambling and psychostimulants. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the D2 blocker, haloperidol (HAL), will enhance slot machine reinforcement in PG but not in Healthy Controls (HC). If this increase reflects preferential stimulation of D1 receptors and group differences in D1 sensitivity, D1-D2 blocker (fluphenazine, FLU) should offset increase in reinforcement seen with HAL in PG subjects. In line with DA's implicated role in 'wanting' vs. 'liking' of the addictive reinforcer, the results suggest that DA release mediated partial D1 activation under FLU led to clear differentiation between groups with increased 'wanting' seen in controls but not in gamblers. DA's role in 'liking' however remains elusive.

On multiline slot machine games, small “wins” often amount to less than the spin wager, resulting in a monetary loss to the gambler. Nevertheless, these monetary losses are still accompanied by “winning” (and potentially reinforcing) audio-visual feedback. Dixon, Harrigan, Sandhu, Collins, and Fugelsang (2010) termed these potentially reinforcing losses as losses disguised as wins, or LDWs. Dixon et al. previously showed that novice gamblers appear to somatically miscategorize LDWs as wins rather than correctly categorizing these outcomes as losses. Two studies are presented which investigated whether novice gamblers would psychologically miscategorize LDWs as wins as well. In both studies, we investigated participants’ categorizations of LDWs using two measures. First, we asked participants to recall how many times they had won during a playing session and predicted that if participants miscategorize LDWs as wins, then they should conflate LDWs and wins in memory. In Study 1, participants played 200 spins on a real slot machine game with either relatively fewer or relatively many expected LDWs. We found that participants who experienced more LDWs during the playing session recalled winning significantly more often than participants who experienced fewer LDWs, despite how many actual wins the participant experienced, or how much they won or lost overall. In Study 2, we found that participants recalled winning significantly more often in simulator games with more rather than fewer LDWs, despite identical numbers of real wins and identical payback percentages in both games. We referred to this type of memory error as the LDW overestimation effect. The second measure we used to investigate participants’ categorizations of LDWs was more immediate and direct. We evaluated whether participants would miscategorize LDWs as wins or correctly categorize these outcomes as losses by simply asking them to verbally label slot machine spin outcomes. In both studies, we found that the majority of participants miscategorized LDWs as wins rather than correctly categorizing the outcomes as losses. Implications for problem gambling are discussed.

Thesis (MSoSc(AppliedSocialResearch))--University of South Australia, 2003.

Thesis (M.A.)--McGill University (Canada), 2004. / "Running head: Resilience and gambling behaviour in youth" Includes bibliographical references.