Psychology: Iowa Gambling Task
May 21st, 2011 at 12:19:26 AM
permalink
I had read about this psychological task not too long ago, and found it kind of interesting. If this has been discussed in this forum somewhere, then please tell me that it's already been discussed. I did a search but didn't seem to turn up anything.
The Wikipedia page doesn't have as much information, but it's got the basics there.
Participants are presented with 4 independent decks of cards. Each of the decks are independently shuffled. The 4 decks are placed face down in front of the participant. The person can choose the top card from any deck. All cards present a "win" of some amount of money. However, some cards will also represent a "loss" of some amount of money, in other words a win and a loss. The goal of the experiment is to win the most amount of money possible.
The decks are also different. Some of the decks are "good" decks in that they indicate more wins than loses. Conversely, some decks are "bad" decks in that they indicate more losses than wins. The participant is not made aware of which decks are good and which are bad.
The experiments have shown that after about 40 or 50 selections, healthy participants are able to determine which decks are "good" decks, and will then continue picking from those decks instead of "bad" decks. People with certain types of dysfunction are unable to figure out which decks are good, and will thus continue choosing randomly.
Perhaps more interestingly, is that healthy participants would exhibit stress reactions when thinking about "bad" decks, but WELL BEFORE they knew which were bad decks. In other words, their subconscious had determined which were bad decks long before they're cognitive abilities PROVED to them which ones were bad decks.
While this experiment is used to help diagnose people with certain kinds of disorders, I found the whole thing kind of fascinating, and wondered about its applications towards gambling, and perhaps problem gamblers of a certain type.
The Wikipedia page doesn't have as much information, but it's got the basics there.
Participants are presented with 4 independent decks of cards. Each of the decks are independently shuffled. The 4 decks are placed face down in front of the participant. The person can choose the top card from any deck. All cards present a "win" of some amount of money. However, some cards will also represent a "loss" of some amount of money, in other words a win and a loss. The goal of the experiment is to win the most amount of money possible.
The decks are also different. Some of the decks are "good" decks in that they indicate more wins than loses. Conversely, some decks are "bad" decks in that they indicate more losses than wins. The participant is not made aware of which decks are good and which are bad.
The experiments have shown that after about 40 or 50 selections, healthy participants are able to determine which decks are "good" decks, and will then continue picking from those decks instead of "bad" decks. People with certain types of dysfunction are unable to figure out which decks are good, and will thus continue choosing randomly.
Perhaps more interestingly, is that healthy participants would exhibit stress reactions when thinking about "bad" decks, but WELL BEFORE they knew which were bad decks. In other words, their subconscious had determined which were bad decks long before they're cognitive abilities PROVED to them which ones were bad decks.
While this experiment is used to help diagnose people with certain kinds of disorders, I found the whole thing kind of fascinating, and wondered about its applications towards gambling, and perhaps problem gamblers of a certain type.
May 21st, 2011 at 4:48:57 AM
permalink
Quote: konceptumWhile this experiment is used to help diagnose people with certain kinds of disorders, I found the whole thing kind of fascinating, and wondered about its applications towards gambling, and perhaps problem gamblers of a certain type.
I am assuming that while they didn't know *which* decks were bad they knew there *were* good and bad decks. My answer is based on that.
My gut is it would help identify but not cure "problem" gamblers. I read once that "problem gamblers" don't have a gambling problem as much as they have a "losing" problem. And in addition to bad bets they pick bad mates which lead to bad marriges and relationships; as well as bad habbits like smoking, drinking, or dope. Unable to stop on a string of losses they are more prone to do a sort of "martingale" on their life. This leads to the stereotypical problem gambler trying to support his ex-wife on alimony, his curren t wife, his mistress, his bookie, and his loan shark. Yet the "hot tip" leads him to the track or book. Oh, and the "he" could be a "she."
To see this in action, read Chris Moneymaker's story. The guy would gamble on anything. Had a streak going on sports and blew high-five-figures chasing losses. Gets to the WSOP and is unable to help himself from making big (and losing) sprots bets. Wins the WSOP and blows 5% of his winnings the very first night at a strip club in Vegas! He blew so much they had to get more WAM from the Horseshoe Cage, this despite leaving with something like $30K for "a fun night." All this from a married guy with kids, not some "ballcap and sunglasses kid" at the table. Remember, WSOP paid far less then than later.
My guess is this kind of personality would pick random or keep hoping the deck got better.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
May 21st, 2011 at 7:25:43 AM
permalink
In my university days I took a similar experiment.
We would be presented with a screen where a large sequence one of 4 possible symbols (we supposely had never seen before) would appear.
On each symbol presented we could choose to push a single button, and we would win or lose a small amount of money. We were only told that we could keep the money won, and what the average result would be. During the experiment it was quite clear to us, that each symbol would have a different probability of win or losses.
But there was a hefty design flaw, that they used inverted chinese symbols for the test. One of them was 気 (inverted), the symbol for luck, which also payed best.
I told the supervisor that their symbols were flawed (they were surely not researching in chinese reading capabilities), but they didn't care.
I would not put much weight in those kinds of experiments.
We would be presented with a screen where a large sequence one of 4 possible symbols (we supposely had never seen before) would appear.
On each symbol presented we could choose to push a single button, and we would win or lose a small amount of money. We were only told that we could keep the money won, and what the average result would be. During the experiment it was quite clear to us, that each symbol would have a different probability of win or losses.
But there was a hefty design flaw, that they used inverted chinese symbols for the test. One of them was 気 (inverted), the symbol for luck, which also payed best.
I told the supervisor that their symbols were flawed (they were surely not researching in chinese reading capabilities), but they didn't care.
I would not put much weight in those kinds of experiments.
