MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1002/jclp.1047

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of clinical psychology · 2001

Underlying cognitions in the selection of lottery tickets.

Hardoon K K, Baboushkin H R, Derevensky J L, Gupta R

Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

There is evidence that the faulty cognitions underlying an individual's playing behavior maintains and supports their gambling behavior. Sixty undergraduate students completed the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), a measure to assess pathological gambling, and a questionnaire ascertaining the type and frequency of their gambling activities. Sixteen Loto 6/49 tickets were presented to participants and ranked according to their perceived likelihood of being the winning ticket. The numbers on the tickets were categorized as: long sequences (e.g., 1-2-3-4-5-6), patterns and series in a pseudo-psychological order (e.g., 16-21-26-31-36-41), unbalanced (e.g., six numbers from 1-24 or 25-49), and those appearing to be random (e.g., 11-14-20-29-37-43). Verbal protocols of ticket selections were ranked into eight heuristics. Results revealed that for the entire sample the greatest percentage of tickets chosen for the first four selections were "random" tickets. Further, the most commonly cited reason for selecting and changing a lottery ticket was perceived randomness. The results are discussed with reference to the cognitions used when purchasing lottery tickets.

Для цитирования: Hardoon K K, Baboushkin H R, Derevensky J L, Gupta R. Underlying cognitions in the selection of lottery tickets.. Journal of clinical psychology. 2001. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.1047.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.