Using Icon Arrays to Communicate Gambling Information Reduces the Appeal of Scratch Card Games
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ancker, J. S., Senathirajah, Y., Kukafka, R., & Starren, J. B. (2006). Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(6), 608–618.
Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2011). Lottery gambling: A review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(1), 15–33.
Atlantic Lottery Corporation (2020). Scratch’N Win Tickets. Retrieved from https://www.alc.ca/content/alc/en/our-games/scratch-n-win.html.
Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 215–233.
Beresford, K., & Blaszczynski, A. (2020). Return-to-player percentage in gaming machines: Impact of informative materials on player understanding. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36(1), 51–67.
Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. L. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science, 46(11), 1485–1496.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry. Neuron, 61(3), 481–490.
Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., & Casey, D. M. (2013). Validity of the problem gambling severity index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(2), 311–327.
Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 819–829.
Denes-Raj, V., Epstein, S., & Cole, J. (1995). The generality of the ratio-bias phenomenon. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1083–1092.
Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 28(2), 210–216.
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2009). Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2196–2202.
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010). Who profits from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Social Science & Medicine, 70(7), 1019–1025.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Medical Decision Making, 30(6), 672–684.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Okan, Y., & Cokely, E. T. (2012). Using visual aids to improve communication of risks about health: A review. The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 1–10.
Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Scratch-card gambling: A potential addiction? Education and Health, 13(2), 17–20.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539.
Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the people’s republic of China. The American Economic Review, 82(5), 1120–1141.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 534–544.
Muda, R., Walker, A. C., Pieńkosz, D., Fugelsang, J. A., & Białek, M. (2020). Foreign language does not affect gambling-related judgments. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36(2), 633–652.
Newall, P. W., Walasek, L., & Ludvig, E. A. (2020). Equivalent gambling warning labels are perceived differently. Addiction, 115, 1762–1767.
Okan, Y., Garcia-Retamero, R., Cokely, E. T., & Maldonado, A. (2012). Individual differences in graph literacy: Overcoming denominator neglect in risk comprehension. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 390–401.
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. (2019). Player’s Guide Fact Sheet. Power 5s, Instant Lottery Game No. 2085. Retrieved from http://tamarinassets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/Power_5s_%232085_%28Actuals%29_1548266047234_5c48aa3f0232436b12b2035a.pdf.
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (2020). Instant Games. Retrieved from https://lottery.olg.ca/en-ca/instant-games.
Oudhoff, J. P., & Timmermans, D. R. (2015). The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 487–500.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.
Primi, C., Morsanyi, K., Chiesi, F., Donati, M. A., & Hamilton, J. (2016). The development and testing of a new version of the cognitive reflection test applying item response theory (IRT). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 453–469.
Reyna, V. F. (2004). How people make decisions that involve risk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 60–66.
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 89–107.
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(11), 966–972.
Short, M. M., Penney, A. M., Mazmanian, D., & Jamieson, J. (2015). Lottery ticket and instant win ticket gambling: Exploring the distinctions. Journal of Gambling Issues, 30, 5–21.
Stange, M., Brown, D. G., Harrigan, K., & Dixon, M. (2017a). Built-in bad luck: Evidence of near-miss outcomes by design in scratch cards. Journal of Gambling Issues, 36, 51–64.
Stange, M., Graydon, C., & Dixon, M. J. (2017b). Increased urge to gamble following near-miss outcomes may drive purchasing behaviour in scratch card gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(3), 867–879.
Stange, M., Walker, A. C., Fugelsang, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Dixon, M. J. (2021). Unclaimed prize information increases the appeal of scratch card games. International Gambling Studies, 21(1), 119–132.
Stange, M., Walker, A. C., Koehler, D. J., Fugelsang, J. A., & Dixon, M. J. (2018). Exploring relationships between problem gambling, scratch card gambling, and individual differences in thinking style. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(4), 1022–1029.
Stone, E. R., Gabard, A. R., Groves, A. E., & Lipkus, I. M. (2015). Effects of numerical versus foreground-only icon displays on understanding of risk magnitudes. Journal of Health Communication, 20(10), 1230–1241.
Stone, E. R., Reeder, E. C., Parillo, J., Long, C., & Walb, L. (2018). Salience versus proportional reasoning: Rethinking the mechanism behind graphical display effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(4), 473–486.
Stone, E. R., Sieck, W. R., Bull, B. E., Yates, J. F., Parks, S. C., & Rush, C. J. (2003). Foreground:Background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 19–36.
Stone, E. R., Yates, J. F., & Parker, A. M. (1997). Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 243–256.
Subramaniam, M., Tang, B., Abdin, E., Vaingankar, J. A., Picco, L., & Chong, S. A. (2016). Sociodemographic correlates and morbidity in lottery gamblers: Results from a population survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(1), 291–305.
Tait, A. R., Voepel-Lewis, T., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Fagerlin, A. (2010). The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: A comparison between text, tables, and graphics. Journal of Health Communication, 15(5), 487–501.
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the cognitive reflection test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
Walker, A. C., Stange, M., Dixon, M. J., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2019). Graphical depiction of statistical information improves gambling-related judgments. Journal of Gambling Studies, 35(3), 945–968.
Walker, A. C., Stange, M., Fugelsang, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Dixon, M. J. (2018). Unclaimed prize information biases perceptions of winning in scratch card gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34(4), 1355–1375.
Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. R. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430–445.
Weller, J. A., Dieckmann, N. F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C. K., Burns, W. J., & Peters, E. (2013). Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 198–212.
Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. C., & Parker, J. (2002). Gambling participation in the US—results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18(4), 313–337.
Western Canada Lottery Corporation (2020). Zing (Scratch ‘N Win)—Current Tickets. Retrived from https://www.wclc.com/games/zing-scratch-n-win/current-tickets.htm.
Williams, R. J., Hann, R. G., Schopflocher, D., West, B., McLaughlin, P., White, N., King, K., & Flexhaug, T. (2015). Quinte longitudinal study of gambling and problem gambling. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.