An evaluation of response allocations to concurrently available slot machine simulations

The Relationship Between Reinforcement and Gaming Machine Choice

“…Results from the two experimental studies using three payback rates (75%, 83% and 95%) found that the variations in payback rate were not related to the number of bets placed (or bet size). In contrast to Dixon et al (2006), this result does not support behaviour-analytic predictions.…”

“…Dixon et al (2006) has conducted the only study aimed at assessing whether response allocation (which slot a person plays) could be predicted by the reinforcement rate. Utilising two identical looking computer simulated slot machines, participants were concurrently exposed to two different schedules of reinforcement.…”

“…The result from Dixon et al (2006) suggested that the frequency of reinforcement may predict machine choice, but this is only one type of reinforcement.…”

“…Frequency of wins is operationalised as the average number of bets per reinforcer, as used in the Dixon et al (2006) study, and payback rate is operationalised as the monetary value of wins expressed as a percentage of the wins and outlays. For example, if a player bets $1.00 and wins 75 cents, then the payback rate is 75%.…”

“…It can be argued that both the studies by Dixon et al (2006) and Weatherly and Brandt (2004) examined machine preference but each only utilised one measure of reinforcement. Dixon et al found that participants played more games on the machine with the most frequent payout, whilst holding payback rate constant.…”