Slide 1
Deconstructing the Modern Slot Machine: Psychological
Ingredients and Personal Vulnerabilities
Dr Luke ClarkNew Horizons in Responsible Gambling22 February
2017
Disclosure StatementThe Centre for Gambling Research at UBC is
supported by the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (a Crown
Corporation) and the Province of BC government.
Honoraria: Svenska Spel (Sweden), Victorian Responsible Gambling
Foundation (Australia), National Center for Responsible Gaming
(US)
Consultancy: Cambridge Cognition Ltd (UK)
2
ObjectivesPsychiatry and neuroscience has focussed on personal
vulnerability factors to gambling addiction, neglecting the role of
the gambling product.Modern slot machines are among the most
harmful gambling products. These games contain many psychological
ingredients that may underlie their addictiveness.Near
MissesImmersion (as a net result)Cash vs credit-based paymentRG
initiatives should respond to, and consider regulating, specific
features.
3
Who Develops Gambling Problems?Medical Model (psychiatry &
neuroscience) places Gambling Disorder alongside the substance
addictions
Addiction is a brain disease (Leshner, 1997 Science)
Uneven playing field in who develops addictions
4
Impulsivity: the Addictive PersonalityUPPS-P ScaleEffect Size
(d)Negative Urgency1.8Positive Urgency1.5Lack of
Premeditation0.8Lack of Perseverance0.6Sensation Seeking0.2
mood-related impulsivitynarrow impulsivity****Michalczuk et al
(2011)**
5
Early Predictors
6
ControlsGamblersClark et al (2012 NeuroImage)
ConGam
GDControls11C-raclopride PET of dopamine transmission in
Gambling Disorder
.7
Individual Vulnerabilities
Neuropsychological Markers
Neurochemistry (PET)
Personality TraitsBrain Responses (fMRI)
A Public Health Approach to Gambling HarmGAMBLERGAMEGAMBLING
ENVIRONMENTImpulsivityDopamineBrain structureNear-missesSpeed of
playJackpot sizeKorn & Shaffer 1999Murch & Clark 2015Venue
sizeAge restrictionsOpening hours
9
Revenues & problems by different formsMaclaren 2015: revenue
from different forms, across all provincesBC: Most popular forms of
gambling: lottery (44%), charity raffle (16%), casino (11%),
private games (11%), sports betting (3%)Forms most associated with
PG: casino (42%), private games (39%), stocks & shares (27%),
bingo (14%), internet gambling (13%)
10
Treatment ServicesIn treatment services, the most common
preferred / problematic form of gambling are slot machines (25 of
51 in our Vancouver study; Dawn Kennedys poster)(in UK, 40-50% at
London clinic have electronic Roulette as preferred form)More rapid
progression from initial use to problematic gambling (Breen &
Zimmerman 2002)
11
Early Slot Machines
1895 Charles Fey invents the Liberty Bell
1938 Ballys Double Bell
1973 Ballys Circus
12
The Modern EGM
Ice Impress (WMS Games)
13
Game FeaturesSpeed / Continuity
Pay-out features: Jackpot Size, Max Bet, Return to Player
Mode of Payment (bill acceptors)
Sensory Feedback / Losses Disguised as Wins
Illusory Control (e.g. stopper buttons)
Near-Misses
14
Slot Machine Simulations
Pick a shapeChoice
No winFull-miss outcome
Anticipation
Win outcome
Win 5
No winNear-miss outcome
RatingWin 5
How much do you want to continue gambling?
15
Problem Gamblers show increased brain responses to
near-misses
ControlsGamblersGamblers > ControlsfMRI: near-miss >
full-miss
Sulpiride
Percent signal change
Near-missFull-miss
T6.711ControlsSescousse et al, 2016
Gamblers
16
The UBC Casino Lab
Slot-Tracker algorithm
Lost in the GameDuring play, some gamblers enter a trance-like
state (immersion, flow, dissociation)
This state may provide a means of escape from stress, low mood,
boredom
Particularly common during slot machine gambling; slot machine
design has served to smooth the play experience
Spencer Murch
Measuring Immersion
Super3XMurch et al, 2017
Shattering the Zone: RG Implications
Super3X
$17.50
GS
-$2.50
Super3X
GS
$17.50
Sensory Feedback in the Rat
Casinohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mw50JsaESYstimulus lights
onnosepoke in lit hole
5s time out (p = 0.1)P1: 1 pellet (p = 0.9)
P4: 4 pellets (p = 0.4)P2: 2 pellets (p = 0.8)P3: 3 pellets (p =
0.5)40s time out (p = 0.6)10s time out (p = 0.2)30s time out (p =
0.5)
Trial rewardedTrial punishedORCued rGT:Uncued rGT:
Profitability29599411135
Barrus & Winstanley (2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mw50JsaESY
One of the other unique aspects of the research environment at
UBC is the opportunity to collaborate with Catharine Winstanleys
lab at the Centre for Brain Health, who are the leading group
anywhere in the world on animal models of gambling behaviour. In
this rat gambling task, the animal can choose on each trial between
4 holes in the wall of the cage, by poking its nose into the hole.
The outcomes of these choices can be good or bad. The rat might win
some food pellets, between 1 and 4 pellets across the different
options. But theres a chance that the rat might suffer a time-out,
which is like a rat equivalent of being sent to the naughty step,
when the rat cant earn any more food pellets for a short time. So
P2 here is quite a good gamble; theres a high chance of etting 2
pellets, and a low chance of a short timeout. P3 on the other hand
offers 3 pellets but the probability is much lower, and the timeout
is both longer and more likely. So the return to player on these 2
options is very different: P2 is a much better bet in the long run.
Now Catharines task has been refining this procedure for coming up
to a decade now, and in their latest version, they manipulate the
bells and whistles. The uncued group play the game with the sound
turned off, but for another group of animals, whenever they win the
food pellets, they receive additional feedback in the form of
flashing lights and a chiming flourish, and the intensity of that
feedback scales with the number of pellets: P3 gives more intense
feedback than P2. So the food is the money here; you should be
making choices based on food profitability, but the rats are skewed
by the bells and whistles. This group make fewer choices to P2, and
more choices to the riskier option P3. This was also a variable
effect; some rats are much more sensitive to the cues that others,
and in Mike Barrus paper this was further linked to a specific kind
of dopamine receptor. One way that were currently taking this
forward is to see if we can use this model of sensory feedback to
emulate a loss disguised as a win in the rats.
The Plastic TrapIn a cashless society, should we be able to play
slot machines using credit cards / app-based payment?
In consumer psychology, people make more risky & excessive
purchases when paying on credit (the pain of paying hypothesis)
Current practices are a hybrid: cash in, ticket out
Chua et al, New Horizons poster
Cash vs Credit
CASH CREDITCASH CREDITChua et al, New Horizons poster
ConclusionsClinical emphasis on vulnerability to gambling
addiction should not trivialize the impact of the gambling
product.
Slot machines are psychologically complex games with many
ingredients. Are the ingredients that make a game fun the same
ingredients that make it addictive?
From an RG perspective, initiatives to encourage limit setting
are important, but by themselves may be insufficient.
The next phase of research will describe how specific game
features interact with personal vulnerability to shape gambling
harms.
24
CGR People
Dr Luke ClarkDirectorDawn KennedyResearch AssistantSpencer
MurchDr Tilman Lesch
Dr Eve Limbrick-Oldfield
Graduate StudentsMario FerrariKe ZhangGabriel BrooksPost-Doc
Fellows
Cindy ChangCandy ChuaUndergrad RAs
Keni Ng
Email [email protected] www.cgr.psych.ubc.caTwitter
@LukeClark01 @CGR_UBC
The Modern EGM27
27
Limbrick-Oldfield et al 2017: brain areas hyper-reactive to
gambling cues and correlated with cravings in problem gamblers
29
*****Carfentanil PET imaging of mu-opioid receptors and opioid
release in Gambling Disorder
Oral amphetamine (0.5 mg/kg) releases endogenous opioids,
displacing ligand from receptors (lower BP) Opioid release blunted
in PGs (no diff in baseline receptors)BASELINEPOST-AMPHMick et al
(2016 Neuropsychopharm)
30
Genes or Environment?31
Slutske et al 2000: 6744 Vietnam era twins.Rate of lifetime
Path. Gambling: 1.4%, subclinical: 6.2%Rate of lifetime Alcohol
Dependence: 35%PG genetics: 40-50% (from MZ-DZ disparity)Overlap
between PG genes and AD genes: 12-20%
31
PlayNow.com: Game category breakdown
32
