The Road to Somewhere..

Transcription

1 Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice Mark R. Dixon & Alyssa Wilson Southern Illinois University The Road to Somewhere.. Casino laboratory College students as subjects in research Computerized versions of actual casino games Bench Translational Answering basic psychological processes with a clinical/sub-clinical sample In the field research or clients entered into lab Real pathological gamblers Real gambling problems Real treatment that YOU can take with you today Bedside 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. 1

2 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 Classic Behavioral Treatments Aversive Conditioning Thought suppression Self-monitoring/reinforcement Contemporary Behavioral Contributions Contingency-based Models 2

3 Response Cost Behavioral Contributions Contingency-based Models Language-based Models External rules 3

4 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 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 Behavioral Contributions Contingency-based Models Language-based Models Delivered Rules Self-Rules 4

5 Recent Attention Paid to Near-Miss 5

6 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 6

7 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 nonpathological What we don t 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 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? 7

8 Almost winning A verbal event Almost Verbal Construction Antecedent Behavior Consequence Speaker Math Time What is 9 + 4? = 14 Listener What is 9 + 4? = 14 Almost + GCR Note: GCR might be < for almost than for correct Looking for House #34 Antecedent Behavior Consequence See House #26 Almost There Arrive Soon at House #34 8

9 Looking for House #34 Antecedent Behavior Consequence See Gas Station Almost There Arrive Soon at House #34 See Sign for Off Ramp See Sign for Sunset Blvd See House #26 Almost Desired Outcome In Close Proximity 9

10 Methods 16 participants with history of gambling Rating of 100 various slot machine displays Near miss - loss - win 1 (not at all) 5 10 (very much like a win) 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 Stimulus 1 Stimulus 2 Stimulus 3 A Stimuli WIN Almost Lose B Stimuli C Stimuli 10

11 Likert Ratings (1 = loss = win) 7/11/2012 Loss Near-Miss Win Pre-Test Post-Test Participant Number More than Slots Many more types of near misses occur while gambling: Blackjack Roulette Craps Blackjack 11

12 Near Miss: Blackjack Participants: 5 undergrads with history of playing cards for money Data Collection Self-recorded data Experimenter IOR on 30% trials Paid 50 dollars in lotto drawing based on # of chips left 50 trials (1o practice 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, dealer s 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 Average Loss Trials 12

13 All Loss Trials (all players combined) Roulette 13

14 Avg Subjective Rating Avg Subjective Rating 7/11/2012 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? numerical value of bet and win between Location of Bet and Win on Board 14

15 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 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 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 15

16 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 Which One?? A B Which One?? A B 16

17 % Choices for Win % Choices for N.M. 7/11/2012 Which One?? A B Exp Control 0 Pre Post Exp Control 0 Pre Post 17

18 % Choices for Loss 7/11/ Exp Control 0 Pre Post 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 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 18

19 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) SIMULATION Visible Symbols on Wheel SIMULATION 19

20 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 Contact with the Present Moment Acceptance Values Psychological Flexibility Defusion Committed Action Self as Context Client 1 Baseline Play and Self-Ratings 30 min ACT Post-Treatment Play and Self Ratings Client 2 Baseline Play and Self- Ratings 30 min ACT Post-Treatment Play and Self Ratings Client 3 Baseline Play and Self-Ratings 30 min ACT Post-Treatment Play and Self Ratings Time 20