Gambling reward psychology examines why uncertain outcomes, near wins, accumulated losses, and perceived personal control can make another wager feel compelling even when the mathematical prospects have not improved. The central mechanisms are learning under uncertainty, attention to salient feedback, emotionally charged evaluations of gains and losses, and judgments about whether chance can be influenced. A near miss is an actual loss that resembles a win; loss chasing is continued or intensified gambling in an attempt to recover previous losses; and the illusion of control is an exaggerated belief that choices, rituals, skill, or involvement can influence events governed largely or entirely by chance. These processes can interact, but each must be measured separately. Clark et al., 2009; Fortune and Goodie, 2012.
The scientific importance of these mechanisms rests on a striking separation between financial outcomes and subjective experience. A machine can return less money than was wagered while celebrating the result as a win; a losing symbol can appear visually one position away from a jackpot; and a sequence of unsuccessful bets can increase a person's felt urgency to continue. None of those experiences, by itself, changes the probability of a future independent random event. Gambling products, personal vulnerabilities, and situational stressors shape whether such experiences remain fleeting or contribute to persistent harmful behavior. Dixon et al., 2010; World Health Organization, 2024.
The Science of Reward and Uncertainty in Gambling
Reward learning and intermittent outcomes
Operant learning describes how consequences alter the likelihood of a behavior. Gambling combines intermittent financial reinforcement with rapid feedback, anticipation, sensory signals, and opportunities to act again. Uncertain reinforcement can sustain responding because the next outcome remains unknown. The popular description of gambling as a variable-ratio schedule captures important features of many repeated gambling products, although actual payout algorithms and schedules differ among slot machines, lotteries, table games, sports markets, and digital games. Real betting systems should therefore be examined through their specified probabilities and design, rather than assumed to use one universal schedule.
Reward is also broader than money. A person may experience excitement while waiting for an outcome, relief when uncertainty ends, social recognition after a win, distraction from distress, or temporary escape from another problem. These consequences can promote further gambling even when financial returns are negative. Anticipatory arousal, reinforcement from occasionally winning, and relief-based coping need not operate together in every gambler. Individual differences in motives and circumstances explain why the same game produces different experiences across people.
Prediction, surprise, and the limits of dopamine explanations
Contemporary learning theories emphasize the difference between predicted and obtained outcomes, sometimes described as a reward-prediction error. Cues that forecast a possible payoff can acquire motivational significance through learning, and an uncertain or unexpectedly rewarding outcome can command attention. Neural systems involving the striatum, insula, and prefrontal regions contribute to reward evaluation and action selection. Experimental imaging findings are informative about task-related processing; they do not establish that a particular brain activation diagnoses gambling disorder, nor does a single neurotransmitter offer a complete causal explanation of gambling persistence. Clark et al., 2009.
It is useful to separate pleasure from motivation. A near miss may feel unpleasant while still increasing the immediate wish to try again. In experimental tasks, ratings of liking, ratings of wanting, physiological arousal, monetary outcomes, and actual subsequent betting can diverge. Concluding that an event reinforces gambling requires evidence about behavior, not merely a higher self-reported urge or activity in a reward-related brain region. This measurement distinction is central to interpreting the near-miss literature. Pisklak et al., 2020.
Near Misses: Why an Actual Loss Can Feel Close to Winning
Definition and objective probability
A near miss is feedback on an unsuccessful gambling event that perceptually or conceptually resembles a winning event. On a slot-machine display, two matching symbols may appear alongside a third that stops just beyond the payline. In a lottery, a ticket may appear close to a drawn number. In sports wagering, a failed bet can seem tantalizingly close because a team lost by one point. The underlying outcome remains a loss. Whether visual proximity conveys any useful predictive information depends on how the event is generated; for independent randomized slot-machine spins, the proximity of a losing combination does not improve the next spin's chance of winning.
Near misses can exploit intuitions that ordinarily serve people well in skill-based tasks. A narrowly missed basketball shot or a nearly completed puzzle may signal that performance adjustments could help. On a chance-determined machine, a visually nearby jackpot can recruit the same language of progress although no learnable skill has improved. This contrast helps explain why near misses can feel motivational even when their objective statistical value is zero. Pisklak et al., 2020.
Experimental evidence for increased desire to play
In a laboratory slot-machine experiment, Clark and colleagues compared wins, near misses, and full misses while varying participants' apparent involvement in the outcome. Near misses were rated as less pleasant than full misses, yet under personally controlled conditions they increased the desire to continue. Near misses also elicited responses in brain areas recruited by monetary wins. These results support a dissociation between outcome valence and incentive motivation and suggest that apparent agency moderates the experience. The work used a simplified task and therefore cannot, on its own, establish effects of prolonged exposure to commercial gambling. Clark et al., 2009.
Billieux and colleagues studied people who gambled at least monthly in a laboratory task. Participants endorsing stronger skill-oriented gambling beliefs tended to report greater motivation after near misses. The study also found differences between subjective desire and persistence during a subsequent phase. Its contribution is to show that near-miss effects may depend on prior beliefs and the particular outcome being measured. An observed association between gambling cognitions and task responses cannot settle whether the beliefs caused the response or arose alongside broader vulnerabilities. Billieux et al., 2012.
Why studies of near-miss reinforcement disagree
A crucial counterpoint comes from Pisklak, Yong, and Spetch, who reviewed the history of the near-miss hypothesis and experimentally tested whether near-miss stimuli strengthen responding under carefully controlled conditions. Their human and pigeon experiments did not support the proposed reinforcing effect on response frequency. The findings challenge a simple claim that every near miss functions as a behavioral reinforcer. The investigators distinguish conditioned reinforcement, self-reported motivation, and persistence measured during extinction. Their results do not erase earlier findings about wanting or neural response; they narrow what those findings demonstrate. Pisklak et al., 2020.
The apparent conflict is scientifically productive. Studies vary in whether a player chooses a symbol, which near-miss positions are presented, whether outcomes are predetermined, how often participants can repeat bets, and whether the endpoint is arousal, stated urge, immediate repetition, or later gambling. Laboratory participants differ in gambling experience, and simulated stakes may carry less meaning than personal losses. A robust clinical theory must specify the task, population, mechanism, and behavioral outcome instead of treating near misses as a universally established cause of addiction. Current evidence supports motivational effects in some experimental settings, while generalized conditioned reinforcement and long-term causal influence remain less secure.
Loss Chasing: When Past Losses Become a Reason to Continue
Behavioral definition and clinical relevance
Loss chasing is the attempt to win back previously lost money by continuing gambling, returning later, increasing stakes, or switching products. It can occur as an isolated decision or develop into a repeated pattern associated with severe financial harm. In gambling disorder assessment, repeatedly returning to try to recover losses is a recognized clinical feature, although a single episode of trying to break even does not amount to a diagnosis. What matters is the persistence, impaired control, harm, and broader clinical history. A person who has already lost money may become oriented toward a reference point of breaking even rather than toward the objectively favorable or unfavorable value of the next wager. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
For example, someone who began an evening with $200 and now has $80 may experience a $40 possible gain as emotionally insufficient because it still leaves a deficit. A larger, riskier bet can feel more attractive if it offers a chance to erase the entire loss. The psychology is shaped by the evolving reference point, the desire to reverse an aversive state, and the anticipation of relief. A prior loss is already incurred; it does not improve the expected return of an independent future wager. The sunk-cost pressure of prior expenditure and the urge to restore an account balance can amplify each other while remaining analytically distinct.
Decisions to chase and decisions to stop
Campbell-Meiklejohn and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging while healthy participants decided whether to pursue the recovery of losses or stop. Chasing was associated with activity in areas implicated in incentive motivation and anticipated reward; stopping involved different patterns related to conflict and anxiety. The authors also identified neural signals linked to the next decision after unsuccessful chasing. This task illustrates competing motivational demands, including the attraction of recovery and the distress of accepting a loss. Its evidence pertains to experimental decisions in healthy adults; it is a mechanistic model, not a biomarker of gambling disorder and not proof of causal dysfunction in patients. Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2008.
Loss chasing is temporally dynamic. As losses accumulate, an individual may narrow attention to restoring money and discount the growing chance of further harm. Emotion regulation can become entangled with wagering: winning promises relief, while another loss increases shame or urgency. Sleep deprivation, alcohol intoxication, acute stress, and unrestricted access to funds may further compromise the ability to reconsider decisions, although their effects vary and cannot be assumed from one episode. Scientific assessment should ask what preceded the chase, what the person expected, how the stake changed, and what happened after stopping or continuing.
Loss chasing and the gambler's fallacy
The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken expectation that a random outcome is due to reverse after a streak, as when repeated losses are taken to imply that a win is imminent. In independent events with fixed probabilities, the next outcome retains the same probability regardless of the preceding sequence. Loss chasing is a pattern of conduct, whereas the gambler's fallacy is a belief about sequences. A person can chase without explicitly endorsing the fallacy, and can endorse the fallacy without placing another bet. Real sporting events and skill-dependent contests may contain predictive information, so statistical independence should be tested rather than assumed across all forms of wagering. Fortune and Goodie, 2012.
The Illusion of Control in Games of Chance
How choice and personal involvement change perceived skill
The illusion of control occurs when a person judges their probability of success to be higher than objective conditions justify because they feel able to influence the outcome. Langer's influential experiments showed that features normally associated with skill, such as choosing a ticket, familiarity, competition, and personal involvement, could increase confidence in chance situations. This research established a foundational cognitive phenomenon; its specific experimental effects should not be extrapolated without qualification to every modern wagering platform. Langer, 1975.
In contemporary gambling, apparent agency can arise through choosing numbers, timing a spin, selecting a virtual box, using a personal ritual, or interpreting detailed sports statistics as a guarantee of a favorable outcome. Some gambling activities genuinely involve information and skill; even there, perceived control can exceed demonstrable predictive advantage and bookmaker margins may erode returns. Clinical analysis therefore distinguishes real knowledge from overconfidence and chance-determined features from skill-sensitive features, without categorically denying the role of expertise wherever it exists.
Superstition, counterfactuals, and overconfidence
Superstitious beliefs can arise when an incidental action repeatedly occurs near a desired outcome. Counterfactual thinking asks what would have happened if one element had differed, as in 'one more symbol' or 'one point less.' Counterfactuals are a normal cognitive process but can make a visually close loss feel like evidence of progress. Overconfidence concerns the gap between subjective certainty and actual forecasting performance. These are related, measurable constructs rather than interchangeable labels. Their importance lies in how beliefs guide decisions when a person receives emotionally charged feedback. Fortune and Goodie, 2012.
The interaction between control and near misses is especially relevant. A person who personally selects a symbol may experience a near miss as a sign that the choice was almost correct. An identical outcome delivered without choice can carry less motivational weight. This mechanism provides a testable bridge between causal judgment and reward learning, but individual differences, task details, and the mixed replication literature limit any claim of universal influence. Clark et al., 2009; Pisklak et al., 2020.
Losses Disguised as Wins and the Role of Sensory Design
A loss disguised as a win occurs when a gambling product celebrates a payout that is smaller than the stake. If a player bets $2 and receives $0.60 back, the net financial result is a $1.40 loss even if lights, music, and coin sounds suggest a winning event. This phenomenon differs from a near miss: the first obscures a net loss with positive feedback, while the second presents an unsuccessful outcome as visually close to a win. Both may influence attention and interpretation, but their behavioral and neural consequences require separate studies.
Dixon and colleagues investigated novice participants using a multiline slot-machine task. Losses disguised as wins produced physiological arousal resembling actual wins and exceeding that following clear losses. The finding suggests that celebratory signals can alter how a negative net outcome is experienced. It does not show that each arousal response becomes addictive behavior, nor does the study establish long-term effects among people with gambling disorder. It does demonstrate why separating payout amounts from net gains is a crucial research and consumer-protection question. Dixon et al., 2010.
Speed of play, repeated opportunities to wager, vivid animations, intermittent rewards, and frictionless access to funds can combine to create a continuous decision environment. A platform can make losses less salient through sound, graphic displays, account-balance framing, or the conversion of cash to abstract credits. Product-specific audits should quantify net money lost, timing, stakes, and presentation rather than infer risk from a general label such as 'digital gambling.' Public-health analysis recognizes commercial product design as one contributor to harm alongside personal and social factors. World Health Organization, 2024.
How Near Misses, Chasing, and Perceived Control Interact
These mechanisms can form a mutually amplifying sequence. A person begins play because uncertain rewards are attractive; a near miss recruits the sense that success was close; the person attributes the result to a chosen method or a developing pattern; losing money then changes the reference point toward recovery; a larger wager appears to offer an emotional exit from the deficit. Each transition is probabilistic and depends on the person, product, context, and accuracy of beliefs. The sequence is an explanatory model, not a diagnostic checklist or an inevitable progression.
The mechanisms also differ in temporal scale. Near-miss interpretation can arise within seconds of one event; illusion-of-control beliefs may persist across sessions; chasing may unfold within a few minutes or across days of repeated losses. A useful assessment records event-level decisions and long-term patterns separately. It also distinguishes wagers driven by hopes of winning from those driven by distress relief, social pressure, excitement, or attempts to hide earlier losses. Treating all repeated gambling as one motivational process obscures opportunities for more precise intervention.
Individual Differences, Context, and Vulnerability
Cognition, impulsivity, and executive functions
Some people show more persistent gambling-related biases, stronger responses to reward cues, elevated impulsivity, or difficulties shifting away from a rewarding action. Cognitive distortions are well documented in the gambling literature, but no one questionnaire score, personality trait, or brain-task outcome identifies a person destined to develop a disorder. Executive functioning varies across attention, working memory, inhibitory control, and planning. Research designs must account for confounding by co-occurring mental health symptoms, substance use, prior gambling exposure, and socioeconomic circumstances before asserting causal vulnerability. Fortune and Goodie, 2012.
Stress, financial strain, and emotion regulation
Financial loss can become more threatening when a household faces unstable income, debt, or urgent expenses. Under stress, the possibility of rapid recovery may dominate attention even when the underlying bet remains unfavorable. Shame and secrecy can prolong a cycle by reducing help-seeking. These contextual pressures should be recognized without converting financial disadvantage into a clinical label. Gambling harm also extends to partners, children, and other affected people; the consequences may include damaged trust, unmet basic needs, and serious emotional distress. World Health Organization, 2024.
Age, digital access, and commercial exposure
Adolescents and young adults may encounter wagering alongside sports fandom, online gaming cultures, influencer marketing, or easily accessible mobile products. Their patterns of exposure, financial autonomy, and developmental circumstances require age-appropriate research. In adults, continuous mobile access can shorten the interval between urge and bet and allow repeated wagers outside physical gambling venues. The effect of any particular feature depends on exposure, enforcement, product design, and user circumstances; studies of advertising exposure or gambling participation alone do not demonstrate that a specific design element caused a later disorder.
Measurement: Turning Psychological Constructs Into Testable Questions
Near-miss studies can measure subjective desire to play after a specific result, physiological indicators such as skin conductance, neural task responses, duration of continued play, number of wagers, and money risked. These indicators address different hypotheses. Increased skin conductance indicates arousal, not necessarily enjoyment; elevated wanting does not prove behavioral persistence; persistent wagering in a brief laboratory task does not by itself establish chronic gambling-related harm. Researchers also need to disclose the probability structure of the task and whether participants had real or simulated financial stakes.
The Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale and related research instruments investigate domains such as illusion of control, predictive control, interpretative bias, and expectations. Their scores can inform research or clinical discussion, yet psychometric validity varies by population and use. A screening score is not equivalent to a disorder diagnosis, and an unusually intense response to one near miss is not a diagnostic symptom on its own. Instruments used in clinical care should be selected according to their validated purpose and interpreted within a detailed assessment. Billieux et al., 2012; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
For loss chasing, behavioral measures should distinguish chasing immediately after losses from resuming another day; changes in stake size from merely maintaining a planned wager; and attempts to recover a deficit from a strategy with an independently evaluated positive expectation. Ecological data may offer richer timelines than retrospective self-report, but platform records may omit gambling with other providers, cash expenditures, distress, and household consequences. Self-report can be affected by recall error and stigma. Combining multiple forms of evidence is usually more informative than treating one measure as definitive.
Clinical Interpretation: Gambling Harm and Gambling Disorder
Gambling disorder is a recognized mental disorder in the DSM-5-TR and the ICD-11; gambling-related harm can occur at lower levels of severity. Repeated loss chasing can be relevant to clinical criteria, while near misses and illusion-of-control beliefs are researched explanatory phenomena rather than stand-alone diagnoses. Frequency of play, one large loss, an occasional superstitious belief, or excitement after a near miss cannot establish a disorder. Clinical assessment considers impaired control, persistent or recurrent patterns, the nature and degree of impairment, consequences, and co-occurring conditions. World Health Organization, 2024; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
Assessment also examines whether gambling occurs during an episode of mania or hypomania, alongside substance intoxication, in association with attention or impulse-regulation problems, or amid anxiety and depression. These possibilities affect formulation and treatment and should be addressed by a qualified clinician. A diagnostic interview explores changes over time, attempts to reduce or stop, financial and interpersonal impacts, and the person's current safety. Gambling-related shame or risk of self-harm warrants direct and sensitive assessment instead of inference from a cognitive-bias score.
Why gambling-related suicide risk requires direct attention
Gambling-related financial distress, relationship strain, and co-occurring mental disorders can be associated with severe psychological crises. The World Health Organization identifies suicide among serious gambling-related harms, and NICE calls for attention to suicidality and coexisting needs in assessment and care. If someone has thoughts of suicide, an immediate clinical safety response takes priority over experiments with changing beliefs or self-directed spending rules. They should contact local emergency services or an available crisis service and seek the support of a trusted person who can help maintain immediate safety. World Health Organization, 2024; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
Treatment: Addressing Beliefs, Behavior, and Gambling Access
Cognitive behavioral therapy and cognitive restructuring
Gambling-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can address distorted probability beliefs, interpretations of near misses, betting triggers, urges, coping responses, and decision processes following losses. A clinician may help a person test whether past random outcomes alter future probabilities, distinguish a payout from a net gain, identify the point at which chasing begins, and develop alternatives to responding to distress with another wager. Cognitive restructuring is most useful as part of a broader treatment plan that includes behavioral change and relapse prevention. Reviews of cognitive distortions indicate that narrowly correcting beliefs alone has produced more limited outcomes than comprehensive approaches. Fortune and Goodie, 2012.
The 2025 NICE guideline recommends gambling-specific CBT and allows individual CBT when group treatment is unwanted, unavailable, or inappropriate. Its recommendations cover trained practitioners, relapse prevention, and assessment of co-occurring conditions. Evidence on psychological interventions supports their role in reducing gambling problems, with uncertainties about the durability of some effects, differences across study designs, and attrition. Treatment should follow clinical assessment rather than be inferred automatically from exposure to a near-miss event. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025; Cowlishaw et al., 2012.
Motivation, protective barriers, and recovery
Motivational interviewing may help people explore ambivalence and strengthen their commitment to change. Practical barriers such as self-exclusion, gambling blocks, removal of easy deposits, or voluntary account restrictions can reduce opportunities for impulsive bets, although availability and enforcement differ across locations and platforms. Support from clinicians, peer groups, or affected family members may be valuable when it is safe and desired. People experiencing gambling disorder may also need coordinated help with debt, housing, relationships, and psychiatric conditions. Behavioral mechanisms are therefore one element of recovery rather than a substitute for comprehensive care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
An evidence-informed relapse prevention plan identifies high-risk situations such as receiving marketing messages, being alone with mobile betting access, experiencing a near miss after returning to play, or feeling compelled to repair a financial loss. It also specifies concrete interruption points, support contacts, and responses to a lapse. Improvement is measured through gambling frequency, severity of harm, restored functioning, financial safety, and personal goals, not solely by whether someone reports fewer mistaken beliefs.
Research Limitations and Outstanding Questions
Several recurring limitations shape the strength of conclusions. Laboratory gambling may involve small samples, modest financial stakes, and outcomes artificially restricted to near misses or predetermined win rates. Statistical tests can be underpowered or repeated across many measures without adequate correction. Participants who gamble socially may differ systematically from people seeking treatment. Brief tasks often measure immediate desire while the clinical question concerns repeated harmful behavior over months or years. These distinctions help explain why compelling mechanistic studies do not settle long-term causal questions.
A second limitation concerns construct overlap. Gambling cognition scales may capture general confidence, beliefs about luck, and interpretations of random sequences that are partly correlated. The term reward can refer to a monetary payoff, an emotionally salient stimulus, approach motivation, arousal, or a neural computation. A claim that near misses are rewarding becomes ambiguous unless the investigator specifies which variable increased. Pisklak and colleagues explicitly illustrate the importance of not equating subjective near-miss effects with conditioned reinforcement of repeated behavior. Pisklak et al., 2020.
Stronger studies would follow people across settings, integrate behavioral records with voluntary self-reports and real-world consequences, compare different product designs, and test whether changing a specific feature reduces harmful gambling over time. Experimental manipulation of display features can establish immediate effects on attention or betting under controlled conditions; well-designed longitudinal or natural-experiment evidence is needed for longer-term outcomes. Researchers must also address commercial data access, transparency of gambling algorithms, cultural variation, and potential industry influence on research agendas. World Health Organization, 2024.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a near miss mean the next spin is more likely to win?
No. On independent randomized spins with the same underlying probabilities, a near miss has no predictive advantage over another loss. A display that looks close to winning may influence attention and motivation while providing no useful information about the next outcome.
Are near misses proven to make everyone gamble longer?
No. Some experimental studies report increased immediate desire to continue and distinctive neural or physiological responses, whereas controlled tests of conditioned reinforcement have failed to confirm a universal persistence effect. The measured outcome, task design, sense of control, and participant characteristics matter. Clark et al., 2009; Pisklak et al., 2020.
What is the difference between chasing losses and the gambler's fallacy?
Loss chasing refers to continuing or escalating gambling to recover lost money. The gambler's fallacy is an inaccurate belief about a random sequence, such as thinking that a win has become due after losses. The belief can accompany the behavior, but neither implies the other in every case.
Can a skill-based bet involve an illusion of control?
Yes. Real skill and information can influence some wagers, while a person's perceived forecasting advantage may still exceed what valid evidence supports. The illusion of control concerns the mismatch between perceived and demonstrable influence, not the categorical absence of every skill-sensitive feature.
Is loss chasing a sign of gambling disorder?
Recurrent attempts to win back losses can be clinically relevant, particularly when accompanied by impaired control, escalating harm, and persistence despite consequences. A single episode is insufficient for diagnosis. A clinician evaluates the full pattern, functioning, comorbidity, and safety.
What help is supported for harmful gambling?
Gambling-specific CBT is recommended in the NICE guideline, alongside individualized assessment, motivational support when appropriate, relapse prevention, and attention to practical barriers and co-occurring problems. People experiencing serious financial or psychological harm should seek professional assistance rather than attempting to solve it through further wagering. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2025.
Conclusion
Near misses, loss chasing, and illusion of control illuminate different stages of gambling decision-making. Near misses can transform a clear monetary loss into a psychologically salient event; chasing reorganizes decisions around recovering an earlier deficit; perceived control can make an uncertain outcome seem responsive to personal action. Their interaction can sustain risky behavior, particularly when commercial feedback and difficult circumstances magnify urgency. The strongest scientific account preserves the distinction between immediate motivation, measurable gambling persistence, long-term harm, and diagnosable disorder. That precision helps researchers identify testable mechanisms, clinicians select appropriate interventions, and communities evaluate gambling product risks.
Related Articles
Cluster Gambling, Gaming and Behavioral Addictions — the scientific foundation covering recognized gambling and gaming disorders, assessment, treatment, and population-level harms.
Neuroticism and Addiction: Substance Use, Negative Affect, and Risk — a complementary review of negative affect and addiction vulnerability across conditions.
Why Gambling Becomes Addictive: Reinforcement, Stress, and Decision-Making — Examine reinforcement learning, stress, emotional regulation, impulsivity, and decision processes associated with harmful gambling.
Gambling Disorder and the Brain: Neuroscience Findings and Limits — Review neuroimaging and neurocognitive findings on gambling disorder, including reward processing and limitations of causal claims.
Sports Betting Addiction: Symptoms, Risks, and Getting Help — Understand harmful sports betting, repeated wagering, promotions, warning signs, and options for assessment and treatment.
References
Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., Khazaal, Y., Zullino, D., and Clark, L. (2012). Trait gambling cognitions predict near-miss experiences and persistence in laboratory slot machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02083.x.
Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. K., Woolrich, M. W., Passingham, R. E., and Rogers, R. D. (2008). Knowing when to stop: The brain mechanisms of chasing losses. Biological Psychiatry, 63(3), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.014.
Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., and Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry. Neuron, 61(3), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031.
Cowlishaw, S., Merkouris, S., Dowling, N., Anderson, C., Jackson, A., and Thomas, S. (2012). Psychological therapies for pathological and problem gambling. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD008937. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008937.pub2.
Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Sandhu, R., Collins, K., and Fugelsang, J. A. (2010). Losses disguised as wins in modern multi-line video slot machines. Addiction, 105(10), 1819–1824. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03050.x.
Fortune, E. E., and Goodie, A. S. (2012). Cognitive distortions as a component and treatment focus of pathological gambling: A review. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026422.
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2025). Gambling-related harms: Identification, assessment and management (NICE guideline NG248). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng248/chapter/recommendations.
Pisklak, J. M., Yong, J. J. H., and Spetch, M. L. (2020). The near-miss effect in slot machines: A review and experimental analysis over half a century later. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36, 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09891-8.
World Health Organization. (2024). Gambling. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/gambling.