Investigating the Role of Language in Slot Machine Gambling

<p>A systematic replication of Dixon, Nastally, Jackson and Habib (2009) was carried out to further examine the role of relational framing in attaching meaning to near-win stimuli in a slot machine simulation. The original study found that the verbally reported meaning of near-win stimuli could be altered through a verbal matching-to-sample training procedure. The current study confirmed this finding. Additionally this study had participants play on a simulated slot machine to assess if such relational training also resulted in changes in (non-verbal) response latencies when participants were presented with near-win outcomes during play. A study by Daly et al. (in prep.) had found that near-wins produced response latencies (in terms of initiating a new trial or 'spin') between that of wins and losses during slot machine play; a general finding replicated here also. However, in the current study it was also expected that changes to the meanings of near-wins would influence near-win response latencies. For example, response latencies following near-wins might become more like latencies following losses as a result of prior relational framing of near-win stimuli. The results of this study found a dissociation between verbal and non-verbal responses to near-win stimuli. The verbal training affected verbal responses but did not affect non-verbal responses. Some explanations are postulated for why this happened. These include the possibility that the near-win latency was merely an artefact of the experimental paradigm. Another explanation is that the dissociation between response types occurred because the contexts in the ratings and verbal training tasks were different to the context of the slot machine task.</p>

Investigating the Role of Language in Slot Machine Gambling

<p>A systematic replication of Dixon, Nastally, Jackson and Habib (2009) was carried out to further examine the role of relational framing in attaching meaning to near-win stimuli in a slot machine simulation. The original study found that the verbally reported meaning of near-win stimuli could be altered through a verbal matching-to-sample training procedure. The current study confirmed this finding. Additionally this study had participants play on a simulated slot machine to assess if such relational training also resulted in changes in (non-verbal) response latencies when participants were presented with near-win outcomes during play. A study by Daly et al. (in prep.) had found that near-wins produced response latencies (in terms of initiating a new trial or 'spin') between that of wins and losses during slot machine play; a general finding replicated here also. However, in the current study it was also expected that changes to the meanings of near-wins would influence near-win response latencies. For example, response latencies following near-wins might become more like latencies following losses as a result of prior relational framing of near-win stimuli. The results of this study found a dissociation between verbal and non-verbal responses to near-win stimuli. The verbal training affected verbal responses but did not affect non-verbal responses. Some explanations are postulated for why this happened. These include the possibility that the near-win latency was merely an artefact of the experimental paradigm. Another explanation is that the dissociation between response types occurred because the contexts in the ratings and verbal training tasks were different to the context of the slot machine task.</p>

Effects of coherence on speaker preference and rule-following

Rule-following is affected by multiple variables. A relevant aspect of rules regards whether they “make sense”, that is, the extent to which the instruction coheres with previously reinforced patterns of relational responding. The present study aimed to evaluate the influence of relational coherence upon rule-following. After mastering a particular set of conditional relations (e.g., A1B1, A2B2), the participants were exposed to two speakers, one of which would “state” relations that cohered (e.g., A1B1, A2B2) with the participant’s previous relational training and the other that would present relations that were incoherent (e.g., A1B2, A2B1). Then, rule-following was measured in a preference test in which the participant would have to choose which of the two speakers would provide instructions in each test trial. Results show that the participants preferred the coherent speaker to provide instructions and followed the rules presented by that speaker throughout the test. Coherence is discussed as a critical aspect of rule following and preference for particular narratives.