Research Question

Hello All:
It has been a busy week in AP research. We turned in our Annotated Bibliographies, so now we are shifting our focus to the literature review. Specifically this week, the blog posts will focus on our research question, so here is mine.

How do the effects of priming, time pressure, and near-misses compare in their ability to influence isolated individuals' behavior while playing blackjack?

Here is the justification for every part of my research question.
First things first (I'm the realest), I have to address any definitions I will need to provide, and there are quite a few in here. In my literature review, I will define priming, time pressure, and near-miss effects. Here are the definitions for all those terms.

Priming: Priming effects occur when people subconsciously perceive information through various stimuli and then base their actions on the information without even knowing they are doing it.
This definition is taken from a combination of Radel et al. and Bahrami et al., whose credibility I justify in my annotated bib.

Time Pressure: Time pressure effects occur when people are forced to make a decision within a short amount of time.
This definition is taken from a combination of Dhar and Nowlis and Young et al., whose credibility is also established in the annotated bib.

Near-Miss: Near miss effects occur when players think they were close to winning (e.g. they were one number off or had 2/3 of the correct symbols on a slot machine) and/or getting good at a purely chance game even though they were just as far from winning as if they had been 10 numbers off (because the odds are all the same).
This definition is taken from a combination of Luke Clark and Mark Dixon, whose credibility is also justified in my annotated bib.

Now that I have defined my terms, I will move onto discussing my scope. I narrowed my scope down to blackjack because it is the most manageable casino game for me to look at; all I need is a deck of cards and a room (and obviously participants) to look at blackjack. I feel that my scope is still manageable with all three effects because I just will need to come in three different days and do my experiments, which is not a big deal. I think that all three factors are important to look at since they all exist together and looking at two without the third is just ignoring an important piece of the puzzle. I also specifically say isolated because I am looking at them alone, rather than in groups, which is a whole separate area, since social behavior then kicks in.

The one major assumption I make is that the effects I bring up do affect gambling behavior. My literature review will prove that they do, so by the time I get to my question, it will be proven and not an assumption.

My independent variables are each of the effects and my dependent variable for all three experiments is the gambler's behavior. Building off that, I plan to put the subjects in the same situation during a blackjack game (so I will set up the deck how I want it and instruct the dealer how to deal) and change the condition of the subject depending on what I am testing that time. I will have 4 trials with a different of randomly selected participants to participate in each one. I will of course have a control group, who I vary nothing for. In my priming group, I plan to subliminally prime them a number (for example 6 if they were shown 15) and see whether their rate of hitting on 15 changes. For time pressure, I will give them five or ten seconds to decide and see how they react. For near-misses, I plan to have them play a few close games with the dealer and feel like they are getting good, and then see what they do when faced with the same situation as the other groups. My methods section will go into depth about my experimental design, but right now that is how I plan to investigate the question.

Finally, I think my research question fills a gap since currently these three effects are looked at in a vacuum and not compared to each other, so by putting the effects in conversation, I am filling the current gap in the research on them. Also, my research has real-world applications and significance, since the casino industry brings in billions of dollars each year and is growing (according to Kenneth Peak). So by looking at the ways people behave while gambling, I am helping to generalize gambling behaviors and helping to start the conversation about what influences people to gamble and how we can stop people from becoming gambling addicts and wasting their money away. Even though I am looking at individual behaviors, the gambling industry starts with each individual's behavior and betting, so my research therefore has a larger significance within the gambling industry.

Thanks for reading my post. Unfortunately there will be no memes today. (856)

Lit Outline

Hello All:
This week the task is to outline our lit review, so that is what I'm going to do. Just to review, my topic is on gambling, specifically people's behavior when influenced by time pressure, the near miss effect, and priming effects.

Outline
First I need to establish that gambling is a big issue, and I will do that by looking at the gambling industry.
Premise 1: Gambling is a widespread issue involving a lot of money and the industry is growing

• Kenneth Peak says, "Global gaming profits are expected to continue to grow at a rate of 9.2 percent per year and reach $182.8 billion in 2015"
• Joshua Kerlantzick says, "All but three states (Utah, Hawaii, and Tennessee) have some form of gambling, and about 125 million Americans take a flier on one or more of these offerings every year."
• William Eadington et al. discuss the growth of casinos on Native American land

Premise 2: The money involved in gambling is flowing out of the hands of people and into the hands of big corporations and casino owners

• Cite Kenneth Peak

Premise 3: Since gambling is so widespread and is rapidly growing, it is a worthwhile issue to look into
Premise 4: Consumer behavior is easily changed by arbitrary factors

• Cite Chapman et al. and Simonson et al. who both explain price anchoring and irrational behavior when money is involved

Premise 5: Gambling, like other consumer behaviors, is changed by a number of factors, which must be investigated

• Smith et al. discusses how gamblers' do not understand their motivation clearly and they do things that they deem bad when they see the behaviors in others

Subtopic 1: Time Pressure
Definition: Time pressure effects occur when people are forced to make a decision within a short amount of time
Premise 1: Time pressure effects are common in gambling, especially when the dealer says everyone make their final bets
Premise 2: Time pressure effects make people take more risks

• Young et al. found that when presented with a risky choice and a less risky one, not necessarily physically risky but also monetarily risky, people under time pressure made the riskier choice
• Dhar and Nowlis found similar things and their findings corroborate Young et. al's

Premise 3: Gambling is a risky activity
Premise 4: Time pressure effects are exacurbated when the decision-maker must process a lot of information.

• Suri and Monroe found that people under time pressure cannot fully process information when it is presented to them
• They also found that when a lot of information is given to a participant under time pressure, they make a more impulsive decision without using the information to help them reason because they cannot process it all in the time given.

Premise 5: Since there is a lot of information given in gambling (e.g. cards, amount of money to bet) in a short time, time pressure effects would be exacerbated in gamblers
Premise 6: Time pressure effects affect gamblers' decision making ability and make them more likely to make risky bets
Subtopic 2: Near Miss Effects
Definition: Near miss effects occur when players think they were close to winning (e.g. they were one number off or had 2/3 of the correct symbols on a slot machine) and/or getting good at a purely chance game even though they were just as far from winning as if they had been 10 numbers off (because the odds are all the same).
Premise 1: Near miss effects are exhibited widely in gambling across many different games

• Gunnarsson et al. explain the effect for black jack when they say, "The participants played 50 hands of blackjack and the results showed that when the participants’ score was closer to the dealer score they rated their hand higher."
• Mark Dixon explains the near miss effect by saying, "Furthermore, no loss, no matter how much it might "look like a win", is indicative of being close to a win. Each outcome from typical casino games such as slot machines, craps, or roulette is independent of the next."
• Dixon also explains that the effect is exhibited while playing roulette
• Luke Clark also adds, "Gamblers often interpret near- misses as evidence that they are mastering the game, and in this sense, near misses appear to foster an illusion of control"
• He observes a similar effect in slot machine play

Premise 2: The near miss effect increases betting and falsely increases confidence in gamblers

• Gunnarsson et al., Dixon, and Clark all support this statement with their research, much of which was just quoted.

Subtopic 3: Priming effects
Definition: Priming effects occur when people subconsciously perceive information and then base their actions on the information without even knowing they are doing it.
Premise 1: Priming Effects can occur with visual stimuli

• Bahrami et al. performed an experiment in which subjects were flashed an image, so they could not fully register what it was. Although subjects could not tell you what number they just saw, their thoughts subtlely reflected the number. This showed that people could pick up on signals subliminally when they are not focusing or aware of the stimuli.

Premise 2: Priming effects can occur with auditory stimuli

• Radel et al. explain that people can hear conversations without registering what they heard, but later they will make decisions based on what they subliminally heard. However, when asked why they did certain things, subjects did not know. This shows subliminal auditory priming in action

Premise 3: Priming affects decisions during gambling

• Bryan Gibson et al.'s study proves this. They flashed the winning image for slightly longer than the other images on a slot machine, and participants bet more on the slots the next turn and were more confident in their chances. But the participants did not know why they did this.

Now that I have established the effects of time pressure, near miss effects, and priming effects during gambling, I need to address the gap in the research. All three effects have been studied, but they have all been treated almost as if they were in a vacuum. Since nobody has looked into the relative strength of priming, near miss effects, and time pressure (meaning which one is most powerful), that is what I plan to do and that is the gap my research will cover.

Thanks for reading to the end. Here is a meme that has nothing to do with my research. (1075)

Epic Rap Battles of AP Research

Hello All:
Today, the task is to put two of our sources in conversation, so its time for EPIC RAP BATTLES OF AP RESEARCH. (I cannot write raps, so the speeches will be more in prose, but the general format of rap battle will stay)

Luke Clark VS. Bryan Gibson

Luke Clark: Yo my name is Luke Clark and for those of you who do not know me, I research psychology at UBC in Vancouver. I believe that people make impulsive decisions while gambling, especially when they think they are close to winning. For example, if a blackjack player draws a ten when they have 12, they might think "aw man that was close, I'm getting good at this." But they'd be wrong because the chance they drew a ten is the same as that of any other card in the deck. But still, most people do not think very clearly while gambling, which leads to extra betting and loss of money. I believe that irrational behavior results from gambling, and I can back that up with experimental facts.

Bryan Gibson: Hey my name is Bryan Gibson and most of you don't know me, but I'm a researcher at University of Utah in Salt Lake City. I believe that people bet more when they think they are close to winning. My boy Luke is right that people act irrationally when gambling. I can prove it with my experiment. I quickly flashed the winning images on a slot machine to players, who then proceeded to bet more without knowing why. They didn't know why, but I do. It is because, even though they did not consciously recognize that they were seeing the winning images for longer than other images, they picked up on them subconsciously and then acted on their "gut" or really their subconscious being primed to act that way. The players who saw the winning images bet more on the slots than those who did not, but when asked why, they could not say. So my homie Luke is right that people act irrationally when gambling and when they feel like they are going to win.

I hope you enjoyed my EPIC RAP BATTLE OF AP RESEARCH. But in all seriousness, Clark and Gibson largely agree that people behave irrationally during gambling. However, Gibson is much more specified in his focus. Clark focuses broadly on people's perception of closeness to winning and skill during gambling, finding that people will bet more and act irrationally if they think they are getting good at a game or are close to winning, even if the game is purely chance. While Gibson narrows in on slot machines and show how subliminal priming affects people's betting behavior. Gibson shows how some of the behavior Clark is seeing actually occurs. And Gibson addresses my specific topic of priming during gambling, while Clark does not. I know I said that you get to decide who is next, but I lied: I am going to decide. So next up is...

Harambe                                                               Kid

         VS. 

I think we all know who is going to win that one.

RIP Harambe. I will check back in next week, until then have a good one. (533)

It's Priming Time

Hello all:
It has been an interesting and exciting week in AP Research. The mini dab has emerged as a new trend in our class, and my topic has changed (yet again). As of last week, my topic was about how time pressure affects price anchoring effects, but after talking with Saara and Divya, I realized that I needed to focus on a specific price decision in order to make my research work. Since many of the studies I read on time pressure were about risk-related behaviors, it only seemed natural to look into gambling, because it is a widespread, risky behavior that involves making decisions about money. When I looked into gambling studies, most of them did not involve price anchoring because price anchoring is an explicit form of influencing people's decisions, which is not used in real-life gambling situations. However, I did find another , more subtle version of price anchoring that is very applicable to gambling: priming. Priming is essentially subconscious price anchoring; people pick up on cues that influence their decisions without even knowing it is happening. By modifying my topic to how time pressure affects priming during gambling, I focused my research and made it more significant to real-world situations. Now that I have changed my topic to priming, it is only fitting to have a picture of "Prime Time" Deion Sanders.

Now that my topic has finally been set, I can move on to discussing how my literature review will work. I envision myself starting by talking about the gambling industry and how many people are affected by it as well as the amount of money involved in the industry. I will also talk about how casinos use certain techniques to influence their customer's behavior and to make money. Then I envision myself transitioning into a discussion about priming. This seems to logically flow because I will have just talked about tactics casinos use to influence behavior. After introducing priming, I will talk about how casinos use time pressure to influence its customers and more broadly talk about how time pressure influences risk-based behaviors, including gambling. After that, I will explain why my research is relevant by showing why time pressure and priming are inter-related. I plan to do this by looking into a specific gambling game. Right now I think roulette is the best option for the game since there have been studies talking about roulette and roulette has a time pressure element to it (when the dealer says five seconds until s/he spins the wheel). Also roulette has many numbers involved, so it is an interesting game to look at for priming. That is my rough guess of how my literature review will look, but as I read more sources, I'm sure the most relevant organization will be come clearer to me.
A source that has been important so far in my research is "Decision Making under Time Pressure, Modeled in a Prospect Theory Framework," by Diana L. Young, Adam S. Goodie, Daniel B. Hall, and Eric Wu. This source explains how time pressure alters people's judgment and pushes people towards riskier decisions. For example, in one experiment they presented participants with two bets and in time pressure situations they took the riskier one more often. This source is fundamental in my paper since it shows why looking at time pressure and risky behaviors is relevant, but it also leaves a gap for my paper to explore. In the experiments done by Young et al. the participants had no prior predisposition to one bet, but in real life that is not the case. Another one of my sources, "Unconscious Numerical Priming Despite Interocular Suppression," explains that people are constantly exposed to numbers and signals that they are not aware of, but nonetheless influence their decisions. The intersection of these two sources leaves an interesting gap for me to research: looking into risk-base time pressure decisions when the subjects have been exposed to a predisposition (priming).
Finally, in response to Mrs. Haag's final question about the John Oliver rebuttal. I think it is a great idea and a good use of class time. I think that it will help us practice thinking critically about other people's arguments and that it will be valuable for us in research. I also think that we can totally win, so I definitely wouldn't mind doing a little extra work out of class so that we can do the exercise.

To all who read to the end, thanks for reading my extra long blog post today. As a reward (or extra punishment depending on who you are), here is a final picture of Hurricane Harambe. (777)