Connecting with a Slot Machine: Social Exclusion and Anthropomorphization Increase Gambling

Abstract

Two studies tested whether social exclusion can increase gambling behavior. In Study 1, participants were asked to relive a socially painful instance, a physically painful instance or a control condition and were then presented with a real online gambling device (i.e., a slot machine). The results revealed that participants who relived a socially painful instance played longer on the gambling device. In Study 2, we induced actual feelings of social disconnection and manipulated slot machine anthropomorphization. The results revealed a significant interaction between inclusionary status and anthropomorphism in predicting gambling. More specifically, excluded participants gambled longer when presented with an anthropomorphized slot machine. However, the gambling behavior of excluded and included participants was no different when participants were reminded that slot machines are inanimate objects. Finally, positive and negative game experience mediated the influence of both inclusionary status and anthropomorphism on gambling. Overall, this research identifies another potential vulnerability produced by experiences of social exclusion, namely, gambling behavior. Implications for pathological gambling and future research directions are outlined.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Gambling Studies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-018-9784-9
1 3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Connecting withaSlot Machine: Social Exclusion
andAnthropomorphization Increase Gambling
LucaPancani1· PaoloRiva1· SimonaSacchi1
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
Two studies tested whether social exclusion can increase gambling behavior. In Study 1,
participants were asked to relive a socially painful instance, a physically painful instance
or a control condition and were then presented with a real online gambling device (i.e., a
slot machine). The results revealed that participants who relived a socially painful instance
played longer on the gambling device. In Study 2, we induced actual feelings of social
disconnection and manipulated slot machine anthropomorphization. The results revealed
a significant interaction between inclusionary status and anthropomorphism in predicting
gambling. More specifically, excluded participants gambled longer when presented with
an anthropomorphized slot machine. However, the gambling behavior of excluded and
included participants was no different when participants were reminded that slot machines
are inanimate objects. Finally, positive and negative game experience mediated the influ-
ence of both inclusionary status and anthropomorphism on gambling. Overall, this research
identifies another potential vulnerability produced by experiences of social exclusion,
namely, gambling behavior. Implications for pathological gambling and future research
directions are outlined.
Keywords Social exclusion· Anthropomorphism· Social surrogacy· Slot machines·
Emotions· Gambling
Introduction
Gambling is a common leisure activity for many people. Amusement, excitement, and
monetary profits are some of the motivations that people report when asked why they play
(Lee etal. 2007). However, gambling can easily turn from a harmless hobby into a seri-
ous problem that is out of individuals’ control, as excessive gambling can lead to harmful
consequences for gamblers and their relatives (Downs and Woolrych 2010; Griffiths 2004;
Milosevic and Ledgerwood 2010).
* Luca Pancani
luca.pancani@unimib.it
1 Department ofPsychology, University ofMilano-Bicocca, Piazza Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126Milan,
Italy

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
The negative impact of gambling is well depicted by numbers. The Economist (2017)
recently published alarming estimates about the amount of gamblers’ current losses world-
wide. Global gambling losses constantly increased during the last decade and reached
almost 400 billion dollars in 2016. The biggest loss in 2016 was observed in United States,
with 116.9 billion dollars, followed by China ($62,4 bn), Japan ($24.1 bn), and Italy ($19.0
bn). However, Australia holds the 2016 record in terms of losses per inhabitants, with an
average of $990 lost per adult resident, half of which is due to gaming machines. Italy is
the European country with the highest financial losses. In 2016, the Italian income from
gambling grew by 7% compared to 2015, reaching 95 billion euros, 4.4% of the national
GDP (Menduni 2017). This impressive amount of money was derived from different types
of games (e.g., scratch cards, sports betting, and bingo), but slot machines are definitely
the most popular game in Italy (Fubini and Greco 2015), representing almost the 56% of
the revenues from the gambling market (Biagioli 2015). The most recent data from the
European Gaming and Amusement federation (Euromat) indicate that Italy has the highest
density of slot machines among European countries, with one slot machine for every 143
inhabitants (Fubini and Greco 2015).
Why are slot machines so popular? Among different forms of gambling, slot machines
have been acknowledged as the most addictive (Griffiths 2004; Turner and Horbay 2004).
Their strong addictive power derives from a number of structural features that could facili-
tate risk-taking and betting frequency. These features were listed by Parke and Griffiths
(2007), who categorized them into six classes: payment (i.e., various manners in which
the player purchases credits needed to play), playability (i.e., features that makes the game
interactive, engaging, and fun), speed and frequency (e.g., bet frequency, event duration,
and payout intervals), educational characteristics (i.e., information about player’s behav-
ior and slot machine mechanisms to ensure more responsible play), ambient (e.g., lights,
colors, and sounds), and reward characteristics (e.g., multiplier potentials, payout ratios,
and jackpot size).
In addition to structural features of slot machines, several psychosocial variables were
found to be key elements in problematic gambling behavior, such as depression (Clarke
2006; Shead etal. 2010), impulsivity (Clarke 2006; Maccallum etal. 2007), presence of
other addictions (Welte etal. 2006), and low socio-economic status (Welte etal. 2004).
Recently, another variable was added to this list, concerning the degree of inclusionary
status of an individual. Social disconnection, or feelings of loneliness, is one of the fea-
tures supporting the diagnosis of gambling disorder in the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric
Association 2013), and prior studies found that it is positively associated with problem
gambling (Castrén etal. 2013; McQuade and Gill 2012). Nevertheless, the link between
social connections (or the lack of thereof) and gambling is questionable because it relies on
cross-sectional surveys that did not enable testing any causal relationship; hence, the link
requires further investigation.
A Path Towards Gambling Behavior: The Need toBelong, Social
Exclusion, andAnthropomorphism
Experiencing a lack of social connection has been described as one of the biggest prob-
lems in our society (de Jong Gierveld etal. 2016) because of its negative impact on sev-
eral aspects of human life, included a reduced life expectancy (Holt-Lunstad etal. 2015).
Baumeister and Leary (1995) theorized the need to belong as a fundamental human need,

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
arguing that people “have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quan-
tity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). Following this
conceptualization, social exclusion has been broadly defined as the experience of being
kept apart from others physically (e.g., social isolation) or emotionally (e.g., being ignored
or told one is not wanted; Riva and Eck 2016). Plenty of research has shown that several
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral domains are negatively affected by social exclusion
(for an overview, see: Riva and Eck 2016; Williams 2009). Social exclusion can increase
aggressiveness and decrease prosocial behavior (Twenge et al. 2001, 2007), impair self-
regulation (Baumeister etal. 2005; Stenseng et al. 2015), and negatively affect reasoning
(Baumeister etal. 2002).
In this work, we explore another possible negative outcome of social exclusion, namely
gambling. Prior studies showed that ostracized individuals are more prone to risk-taking
than non-ostracized ones (Peake etal. 2013; Svetieva etal. 2016). Moreover, Buelow and
Wirth (2017) have recently shown that individuals who were socially excluded took more
risky decisions in games that involved financial outcomes, that is games that were close
to gambling. Our prediction would be also in line with the notion that social exclusion
causes self-defeating behavior. In a series of four studies, Twenge etal. (2002) found that
excluded participants were more likely to make high-risk choices with poor prospects for
positive outcomes, consume unhealthy food, and procrastinating longer with pleasing dis-
tractions rather thanpracticing for an upcoming test. However, why might social exclusion
increase gambling behavior? Several mechanisms can be proposed to account for the pos-
sible link between social exclusion and gambling behavior. The first mechanism is related
to the well-known emotional reaction caused by experiences of social exclusion. Excluded
individuals are usually motivated to terminate their unpleasant emotional state (e.g., anger,
sadness, and anxiety; Buckley etal. 2004) through emotion regulation processes (Riva
2016). Accordingly, one common way to deal with the negative emotional reaction caused
by exclusion is by turning attention away from the exclusionary situation. Distraction is
effective at reducing the distress caused by exclusion (Wesselmann et al. 2013) and has
similar effects compared to other regulatory strategies (e.g., self-affirmation; Hales etal.
2016). Gambling, a behavioral avoidance strategy in the context of responses to experi-
ences of social exclusion (Riva 2016), might represent an effective distraction source for
the excluded individual, who can divert his/her attention from the lack of satisfactory
social connections that is causing painful feelings.
Another plausible explanation refers to the specific need that is threatened by exclusion,
that is, the need to belong. Past research suggests that excluded people are motivated to
reconnect with others. Nevertheless, when this is not possible, humans can create social
connections through parasocial relationships with nonhuman agents. Research demon-
strates that parasocial relationships in favored television programs can buffer from the
negative feelings of social rejection (Derrick etal. 2009). This phenomenon can be inter-
preted through the social surrogacy hypothesis (Derrick etal. 2009): when belongingness
is threatened, people unconsciously tend to rely more on common technologies (i.e., watch
more television) to fulfill their need and restore a sense of social connection. Such rela-
tionships with nonhuman agents can occur irrespectively from the targets’ properties, but
they are facilitated when the targeted objects recall characteristics that are typical of human
beings. The tendency to ascribe humanlike characteristics (e.g., intentions, emotions, and
motivations) to nonhuman agents is called anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism, a phe-
nomenon deeply rooted in human cognition (Mithen and Boyer 1996), can influence the
interaction with nonhuman agents, such as animals, gods, and machines. As suggested by
prior research, people spontaneously anthropomorphize slot machines, with consequences

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
for gambling behavior (Riva etal. 2015). Specifically, individuals exposed to a non-anthro-
pomorphic description of slot machines gambled less than individuals who were primed
with an anthropomorphized description.
The Present Research
The psychological literature suggests links between the lack of social connection and
gambling (Castrén etal. 2013; McQuade and Gill 2012; Svensson and Romild 2014) and
between anthropomorphism and gambling (Riva etal. 2015). However, no studies have
experimentally investigated whether social exclusion can increase gambling in individuals
who do not generally gamble, thus it is unclear whether the lack of social connection could
actually induce people to gamble. Moreover, it is unknown whether and how social exclu-
sion and the tendency to anthropomorphize, which often co-occur in the real world, inter-
act with each other to predict gambling behavior. Thus, the present research aimed at filling
in these gaps by experimentally testing the relationships among social exclusion, anthropo-
morphism, and gambling behavior on slot machines in a sample of non-regular gamblers.
More specifically, we hypothesized that people who are reminded of (Study 1) or actu-
ally experience (Study 2) social exclusion would gamble longer on slot machines. We also
predicted that the effect of social exclusion on gambling would be weaker when people
are reminded that slot machines are just inanimate objects rather than anthropomorphic
entities, thus decreasing their role of social surrogate (Study 2). Finally, we expected that
the gambling experience itself should be key in determining the game duration (Riva etal.
2015) (Study 2). Specifically, we expected that emotions felt during the game could medi-
ate the effects of both social exclusion and anthropomorphism on gambling behavior.
Indeed, individuals who are socially excluded should be more motivated to distract them-
selves or reconnect through parasocial relationships. This increased motivation to achieve
a goal might result in an increased emotional experience during gambling following social
exclusion. Similarly, previous research demonstrated that being primed with an anthropo-
morphic (vs. a non-anthropomorphic) description of a slot machine increases self-reported
emotions during game playing (Riva etal. 2015). In summary, it is the feeling of stronger
emotions following exclusion and anthropomorphism that might account for why people
play slot machines longer.
Two experimental studies were devised to test these hypotheses. The experiments were
conducted in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and
informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Study 1
Study 1 was designed to test whether the experience of social exclusion affects slot machine
gambling in a sample of non-regular gamblers. We predicted that gambling behavior would
be affected more by the negative experience caused by social exclusion (i.e., pain ascrib-
able to social disconnection) than by other negative experiences caused by other reasons
(e.g., pain from physical injuries). In this perspective, we expected that participants who
are induced to recall social exclusion would spin the reels more times compared to partici-
pants that are induced to experience another negative event (i.e., physical pain) or a neutral
event.

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
Method
Participants
Seventy-two Italian adult participants (41 females; Mage = 22.51, SDage = 3.97) were
recruited through snowball sampling among the general population and volunteered for the
present study. No regular slot machine gamblers participated in the study. Among the 72
participants, 47 had never played with a slot machine, 18 played less than once per year,
and 7 played less than once per month.
Materials andProcedure
The Study 1 procedure included three steps: (1) a recall task, (2) a gambling task, and (3)
a questionnaire. Similar to the procedure of Chen etal. (2008), in the recall task, partici-
pants were randomly assigned to recall either a past socially painful experience (i.e., social
pain condition) or a past physically painful experience (i.e., physical pain condition) that
occurred within the last 5years of their lives. We included the no pain control condition
of reliving a typical Wednesday afternoon (for a similar procedure, see Riva etal. 2011).
Participants were asked to recall the experience by writing in detail what had occurred and
how they felt.
At the end of the recall task, a cover story was used to introduce the gambling task, tell-
ing participants that the two tasks were completely unrelated to each other. Specifically,
participants were told that they would be involved in market research about the graphical
features and usability of online slot machines. After having read a description of the his-
tory and dissemination of slot machines, participants were presented with a series of seven
images of slot machine interfaces, including the one that they were going to play. Then,
they were asked to interact with a slot machine website (http://www.penny -slot-machi nes.
co.uk; see Fig.1) for as long as they wanted. The interaction occurred through two buttons
of the keyboard: the “Enter” button to spin the reels and the “Esc” button to quit the game.
The number of times that the “Enter” button was pushed was recorded with ad hoc soft-
ware and used to assess gambling behavior.
Once participants decided to quit the game, they were asked sociodemographic informa-
tion (i.e., sex and age), whether they have ever played slot machines and how frequently,
and three questions used as manipulation checks of the recall task. Two questions meas-
ured social exclusion experience (“How much did you feel rejected?” and “How much
did you feel ignored?”), and the other one pertained to pain (“How painful was the expe-
rience you recalled?”). Participants answered on a 10-point scale (from 1 = Not at all to
7 = Extremely). At the end of the experiment, participants were debriefed, and the actual
purpose of the study was explained.
Results andDiscussion
Manipulation Check
A univariate ANOVA was conducted to investigate whether the conditions of the recall
task were different in terms of social exclusion and pain. Specifically, based on previous
research and given their high correlation (r = .94), the two questions measuring social

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
exclusion (feeling rejected and ignored) were averaged in an overall index. Then, we com-
pared the composite score of social exclusion and the manipulation check of pain among
the three conditions (i.e., the social pain, physical pain, and no pain conditions), using the
Bonferroni post hoc test for pairwise comparisons. As expected, all the variables were sig-
nificantly different among conditions (social exclusion, F(2,69) = 46.07, p < .001, ηp
2 = .57;
pain, F(2,69) = 27.03, p < .001, ηp
2 = .44). The Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that par-
ticipants in the social pain condition felt significantly more excluded (M = 6.83, SD = 2.83,
95% CI [5.98, 7.67]) than participants in the physical pain (M = 2.04, SD = 1.80, 95% CI
[1.23, 2.85]) and no pain (M = 1.73, SD = 1.19, 95% CI [0.90, 2.56]) conditions, whereas
the latter two conditions did not differ from one another. Concerning pain, the results
confirmed that participants in the control condition felt significantly less pain (M = 1.58,
SD = 1.28, 95% CI [0.53, 2.64]) than participants in the social pain (M = 6.35, SD = 2.92,
95% CI [5.27, 7.43]) and physical pain (M = 6.36, SD = 3.16, 95% CI [5.32, 7.40]) condi-
tions, whereas the latter two conditions did not differ from one another.
To summarize, the results revealed that the manipulation was effective, thus indicating
that social exclusion was induced only in the social pain condition and that the negative
experience of pain was similar in the social and physical pain conditions.
Gambling Behavior
The number of times that the “Enter” button was pushed during the gambling task was
used as the dependent variable in a univariate ANOVA and compared among the three
Fig. 1 The slot machine interface used in Study 1 and Study 2

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
conditions. The analysis yielded a significant result, F(2,69) = 4.40, p = .016, ηp
2 = .11. In
particular, a Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the number of buttons hit to spin the
reels was significantly greater in the social pain condition (M = 17.13, SD = 9.39) than
in the physical pain (M = 10.92, SD = 7.32, p = .045) and control conditions (M = 10.46,
SD = 9.04, p = .029), whereas the two latter conditions did not differ from one another
(p = 1.00). As hypothesized, recalling a social exclusion event was associated with longer
gambling compared with recalling physical pain or non-painful events. These results seem
to be consistent with the social surrogacy hypothesis (Derrick et al. 2009), according to
which slot machines can be perceived as social surrogates and thus people reminded of
their own social exclusion would play longer than non-excluded ones to restore an accepta-
ble level of social connection. These results are also in line with the possibility that playing
slot machines represents an effective strategy to divert attention away from the exclusion-
ary event that caused negative feelings.
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to test the explanatory model of gambling with slot machines dis-
played in Fig.2 in another sample of non-regular gamblers, taking into account social
exclusion, anthropomorphism, and the emotions felt during the game. In keeping with the
results of Study 1, we expected that social exclusion would increase gambling behavior,
but we further hypothesized that this relationship could vary as a function of the anthro-
pomorphism of the device. Specifically, we expected that excluded individuals would be
more prone to gamble when the slot machine is perceived as anthropomorphic but that
this link would be reduced when the slot machine is presented in a non-anthropomorphic
way. In other words, we hypothesized that the effect of social exclusion on gambling found
in Study 1 might be reduced, or even nullified, when participants are induced to perceive
the slot machine as merely an inanimate object. This hypothesis relies on the natural ten-
dency of human beings to anthropomorphize objects (Mithen and Boyer 1996): if this
tendency is experimentally reduced, individuals might not perceive the slot machine as a
social surrogate to restore social connection. Therefore, social exclusion and anthropomor-
phism were expected to exhibit an interaction effect on gambling. We also tested whether
the game experience could play a key role in determining gambling behavior. Indeed, we
Fig. 2 The explanatory model of
ostracism, anthropomorphism,
and gambling. The double line
represents the interaction effect

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
hypothesized that emotions felt towards the game could mediate the effect of both social
exclusion and anthropomorphism in predicting gambling behavior. Individuals who expe-
rienced some level of social exclusion might be more emotionally involved in the game
because they tend to fulfill their unsatisfied need to belong playing with the slot machine.
Similarly, individuals who were induced to perceive the slot machine as anthropomorphic
would be more emotionally involved because they should view the gambling device as
more human (and less an object; Riva etal. 2015). The emotional involvement is intended
in terms of arousal, not in terms of valence. A greater emotional involvement would then
account for the increase in the number of reels spins, irrespective of whether the emotions
felt are positive or negative.
Method
Participants andDesign
One hundred and nine Italian university students (51 female; Mage = 25.52, SDage = 5.70)
were recruited to participate in this study. Similar to Study 1, no regular slot machine gam-
blers participated in the study. Among the 109 participants, 97 had never played a slot
machine, 10 played less than once per year, and two played less than once per month. The
experiment used a 2 (inclusionary status: social inclusion vs. social exclusion) × 2 (slot
machine anthropomorphization: high vs. low) between-subject design. Again, similar to
Study 1, the key dependent variable was the number of spins that the participants made
while interacting with an authentic on-line slot machine.
Materials andProcedure
Participants were told that the study included two parts, allegedly unrelated to each other.
In the first part, participants were told the researchers were studying the effects of mental
visualization. Participants played a virtual online ball-tossing game—Cyberball (Williams
and Blair 2006), which manipulated social exclusion versus inclusion. Participants were
told they were playing with two other players and that the three of them would take turns
throwing a ball to each other. In actuality, a preset computer program controlled every-
thing. By random assignment, participants were either included, receiving the ball a third
of the time (10 tosses), or excluded, receiving the ball twice from each computer-controlled
player and then never again.
In the second part, participants were presented with a marketing research study. The
procedure was identical to Study 1. The only difference consisted in the presentation of a
brief, one-slide text between the initial introduction to slot machines (i.e., description and
presentation of images) and the actual interaction with the slot machine. The text was used
to induce the perception of high versus low anthropomorphization of the slot machine. In
the anthropomorphism condition, half of the participants read the following text:
Remember that when you play with a slot machine, you don’t need to implement any
particular strategy. Indeed, the slot machine can decide whether you will win or lose
a series of bets any time she wants. Sometimes, she may choose to make fun of you,
leaving you empty-handed for several bets; other times, she might want to reward
you with a win. In any case, the slot machine will always choose what will happen.
You just have to start playing and see what happens.

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
In the non-anthropomorphism condition, the other half of participants read the follow-
ing text:
Remember that when you play with a slot machine, you don’t need to implement
any particular strategy. Indeed, the slot machine is controlled by a mathematical
algorithm that is programmed to deliver a certain overall number of wins and losses.
Based on this algorithm, you can win or lose a series of bets. In any case, the out-
come of each turn of the reels is always run by a computer algorithm. You just have
to start playing and see what happens.
These texts were taken from Riva etal. (2015) and originally defined on the basis of
the mind-attribution scale (Kozak etal. 2006). Participants were randomly assigned to one
of the two experimental conditions, and, after reading the text, they were asked to interact
with an actual, online slot machine (http://www.penny -slot-machi nes.co.uk; see Fig.1) for
as long as they wanted. The interaction occurred with the same two keys used in Study 1:
“Enter” to spin the reels and “Esc” to quit the game. The number of times that the “Enter”
button was pushed was recorded and used as a measure of gambling behavior.
After the participants quit the game, they were presented with two scales previously
used in Riva etal. (2015). A 15-item scale (α = .95) that measures participants’ tendency
to ascribe slot machines with human mental states (e.g., intention, consciousness, free will,
and the capacity to experience emotions) on a response scale from 1 (totally disagree) to
5 (totally agree). An example item was “The slot machine acts according to its own inten-
tions”. The responses were averaged to create an overall index of slot machine anthropo-
morphism. Then, a 6-item scale was used to assess the gaming experience, namely, the
emotions felt during the interaction with the slot machine. Three items measured positive,
high-arousal emotions (e.g., “The gaming experience was fun”), and three items meas-
ured negative, high-arousal emotions (e.g., “The gaming experience made me angry”).
Responses were recorded on a scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree),
and the items were averaged to create overall indices of positive (α = .91) and negative
(α = .81) emotions. After collecting demographic data (i.e., age, sex, and nationality), par-
ticipants were debriefed, and the purpose of the study was explained in detail.
Results andDiscussion
Manipulation Check
The success of the social exclusion manipulation was checked using a 2 (inclusionary sta-
tus: social inclusion vs. social exclusion) × 2 (slot machine anthropomorphization: high vs.
low) between-subjects ANOVA, in which the reported percentage of tosses received during
Cyberball was used as the dependent variable. The ANOVA revealed that participants in
the exclusion condition reported receiving fewer tosses (M = 3.13%, SD = 2.43) than did
included participants (M = 37.56%, SD = 10.89), F(1,105) = 509.71, p < .001, ηp
2 = .83. Cru-
cially, the analysis yielded neither a main effect of slot machine anthropomorphization,
F(1,105) = 0.64, p = .43,
𝜂2
p
= .01 (low anthropomorphism, M = 20.95%, SD = 19.27; high
anthropomorphism, M = 20.04%, SD = 18.91) nor an interaction effect, F(1,105) = 0.61,
p = .44,
𝜂2
p
= .01), thus suggesting that anthropomorphization did not affect participants’
awareness of their inclusionary status during the Cyberball game.
Concerning the second manipulation check, the ANOVA computed using the overall
index of gambling machine anthropomorphism found that participants anthropomorphized

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
the slot machine more in the anthropomorphism condition (M = 2.73, SD = 0.71) than in
the non-anthropomorphism condition (M = 1.58, SD = 0.44), F(1,105) = 111.88, p < .001,
𝜂2
p
= .52. The analysis also revealed a main effect of inclusionary status, indicating that
excluded participants reported higher ratings of slot machine anthropomorphization
(M = 2.25, SD = 0.90) than did included participants (M = 2.04, SD = 0.73), F(1,105) = 4.34,
p = .04,
𝜂2
p
= .04. Furthermore, these main effects were qualified by a significant interac-
tion, F(1,105) = 5.60, p = .020,
𝜂2
p
= .05. More specifically, socially excluded participants
exposed to an anthropomorphized slot machine reported higher ratings of slot machine
anthropomorphization than included participants did, F(1,105) = 9.63, p = .002,
𝜂2
p
= .08.
Among individuals exposed to a non-anthropomorphic slot machine, no differences
between the social inclusion and social exclusion conditions emerged, F(1,105) = .04,
p = .84,
𝜂2
p
< .001.
Gambling Behavior
A further 2 (inclusionary status: social inclusion vs. social exclusion) × 2 (slot machine
anthropomorphization: high vs. low) between-subjects ANOVA was computed on gam-
bling behavior, using the number of times the “Enter” button was pushed as dependent var-
iable. Both the inclusionary status condition, F(1,105) = 11.94, p = .001, ηp
2 = .10, and the
anthropomorphization condition, F(1,105) = 40.22, p < .001, ηp
2 = .28, exhibited significant,
positive effect on the number of spins of the reels. This result indicates that participants
who were excluded (M = 23.67, SD = 11.87) gambled more than those included (M = 18.05,
SD = 8.85), and the same was observed for participants exposed to an anthropomorphic
description of the slot machine (M = 26.28, SD = 10.96) rather than a non-anthropomorphic
one (M = 15.68, SD = 7.69).
Moreover, the interaction between the two independent variables was significant,
F(1,105) = 6.16, p = .015, ηp
2 = .06. Figure 3 represents the average number of spins of the
reels for each condition. Differences between social inclusion and exclusion were detected
within the high-anthropomorphism condition, where excluded participants spun the reels
significantly more (M = 31.38, SD = 10.59) than included ones (M = 21.37, SD = 9.03).
However, within the low-anthropomorphism condition, the gambling behavior of excluded
(M = 16.50, SD = 7.90) and included (M = 14.86, SD = 7.53) participants was comparable.
Thus, when participants were presented with a slot machine described as an inanimate
object, the effect of social exclusion on gambling disappeared. This result seems to support
our hypothesis: experimentally reducing the natural tendency to ascribe human-like char-
acteristics to objects seemed to be sufficient to avoid the perception of the slot machine as a
social surrogate and to lean on it to restore the lost social connection.
Path analysis was then conducted to test the explanatory model illustrated in Fig. 2,
using the software Mplus, version 7 (Muthén and Muthén 2012). The Chi square statistic
(χ2), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA) were used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the model. According to the lit-
erature (Brown 2015; Kline 2015), the model fit is considered excellent if the Chi square
is associated with a non-significant probability value, the CFI is greater than .95, and the
RMSEA is less than .05. The statistical significance of the indirect paths was assessed
using a bootstrapping method, that is, by computing 95% confidence intervals based on
10,000 replications of the original sample. The interaction effect was investigated through
a simple slope analysis.

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
The results of the path analysis are reported in Fig.4. The fit of the model was excel-
lent [χ2(3) = 2.45, p = .48; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA < .01] and explains more than half of
the number of times that the “Enter” button was pushed (R2 = .57). Both positive and
negative game experiences positively predicted the number of pushes, whereas no main
effect of the experimental conditions was detected. However, inclusionary status and
anthropomorphism yielded a significant interaction effect. The simple slope analysis
presented in Fig.5 indicated that the number of “Enter” pushes was affected by inclu-
sionary status only for participants who were in the high-anthropomorphism condi-
tion (b = 4.64, p = .03, 95% CI [0.49, 8.85]); a flat, non-significant slope was observed
for participants in the low-anthropomorphism condition (b = − 0.77, p = .70, 95% CI
[− 4.25, 3.48]). This result is consistent with the previous ANOVA, and it means that
the effect of social exclusion on gambling disappears if the tendency to anthropomor-
phize slot machine is experimentally reduced.
Inclusionary status significantly and positively predicted both positive and nega-
tive game experience. The same result held for anthropomorphism. As hypothesized,
being excluded or being exposed to an anthropomorphic description of the slot machine
increased the emotions felt during the game, irrespectively of their valence.
Concerning the mediational role of the game experience, all the indirect effects
yielded significant results, as confirmed by their bootstrapped confidence intervals. In
particular, inclusionary status influenced gambling behavior through positive (b = 2.51,
p = .005, 95% CI [1.01, 4.58]) and negative game experience (b = 1.35, p = .04, 95% CI
[0.34, 3.07]), and the same occurred for anthropomorphism effect, which was mediated
Fig. 3 Effect of inclusionary status (inclusion vs. exclusion) and slot machine anthropomorphization (low
vs. high) on gambling behavior (number of spins of the reels). The capped vertical bars represent standard
errors (SE)

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
by positive (b = 4.82, p < .001, 95% CI [2.86, 7.50]) and negative game experience
(b = 2.16, p = .02, 95% CI [0.67, 4.33]). Thus, besides their significant interaction, both
inclusionary status and anthropomorphism increased gambling through positive and
negative game experience.
A further model of mediated moderation was run to test the possibility that game
experience mediated the relationships between the interaction term (inclusionary
Fig. 4 The results of the path analysis: unstandardized coefficients are displayed. Dotted lines represent
non-significant regression paths (p > .05). Note. Inclusionary status was coded as 0 (inclusion) or 1 (exclu-
sion); Anthropomorphism was coded as 0 (low anthropomorphism) or 1 (high anthropomorphism)
Fig. 5 The simple slope analysis
of the interaction between
inclusionary status and anthropo-
morphism on the mean-centered
number of times that the “Enter”
button was pushed

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
status × anthropomorphism) and gambling behavior. Although fit indices were as good
as those of the previous model [χ2(1) = 0.23, p = .64; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA < .01] and the
explained variance of gambling behavior was slightly higher (R2 = .58), the Chi square
difference test yielded a non-significant result [Δχ2(2) = 2.23, p = .33], indicating that the
inclusion of the two new parameters (i.e., the regression of positive and negative game
experience on the interaction term) did not significantly improved the model fit. Consist-
ently, the interaction between inclusionary status and anthropomorphism did not signifi-
cantly predicted positive (b = 0.38, p = .24, 95% CI [− 0.23, 1.02]) and negative game expe-
rience (b = 0.19, p = .38, 95% CI [− 0.23, 0.58]), thus the model represented in Fig.4 was
confirmed as the optimal one to explain our data.
General Discussion
The present research aimed to uncover the relationships among social exclusion, anthro-
pomorphism, and gambling in two independent samples of non-regular gamblers. Study 1
showed that simply recalling a socially painful event increased gambling behavior. Indeed,
participants in the social exclusion condition spun the slot machine reels significantly more
times than did participants in the physical pain or in the no pain conditions. To explore this
phenomenon in more detail, in Study 2, we manipulated the inclusionary status of the par-
ticipants (i.e., social inclusion vs. social exclusion) and their perception of the slot machine
(high anthropomorphization vs. low anthropomorphization). The results confirmed the
roles of both social exclusion and anthropomorphism as predictors of gambling behavior.
However, inclusionary status and anthropomorphism exhibited a significant interaction
effect on gambling, suggesting that although the exclusion-gambling link was present when
participants could perceive the slot machine as human-like, the link disappeared when the
slot machine was presented and perceived as an inanimate object. Finally, positive and
negative game experience mediated the influence of both inclusionary status and anthropo-
morphism on gambling.
These findings are consistent with studies considering the relationships between gam-
bling and feelings of social disconnection (Buelow and Wirth 2017; Castrén etal. 2013;
McQuade and Gill 2012) and between gambling and anthropomorphism (Riva etal. 2015).
Social exclusion was identified as a cause of a series of self-defeating behaviors (Twenge
etal. 2002) and the role of loneliness was initially described by Castrén etal. (2013), who
found that problem gamblers reported feeling lonelier than non-problem gamblers. How-
ever, the authors highlighted the limitation of their methodology in investigating causal
effects. Although their findings indicated that loneliness and social isolation were associ-
ated with problem and pathological gambling, Castrén etal. (2013) were not able to state
whether loneliness was a consequence or a predictor of gambling or even if the relationship
was bidirectional. Similarly, in the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of mental disorders (DSM-5; APA 2013), gambling is defined as a behavioral addiction
and loneliness is among the personality characteristics typically associated with gam-
bling disorder, but the direction of the association is not specified. Using an experimental
approach, Buelow and Wirth (2017) showed that ostracized individuals were more prone
to take risky decisions in games that involved monetary outcomes. However, the present
research provided evidence that social exclusion increases gambling with slot machines
using an experimental methodology. The manipulation of inclusionary status allowed us
to keep this variable under control and to make the causal inference that social exclusion

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
(vs. inclusion) actually increases gambling. Moreover, this effect was found in two samples
of non-regular gamblers, suggesting that a lack of social connections might represent a
risk factor in developing problem gambling, and that it should be taken into account when
developing health-promoting strategies to curb this phenomenon. Although our research
did not consider a sample of regular gamblers, the role of social exclusion might be even
stronger in pathological gamblers. Indeed, according to the DSM-5 (APA 2013), jeopard-
izing and losing relationships with family members and friends are typical consequences
of gambling disorder. Thus, social disconnection and gambling behavior are likely to rein-
force each other in a dysfunctional loop and future studies should investigate such a vicious
circle in pathological gamblers.
As in Riva etal. (2015), a highly anthropomorphic description of a slot machine was
a sufficient condition that induced individuals to gamble more than participants provided
with a weakly anthropomorphic description. This finding suggests that anthropomorphism
might also be considered a risk factor. Indeed, in a previous study, Kim and McGill (2011)
found that minimally modifying the appearance of a slot machine to make it recall a human
face was sufficient to increase willingness to play. This result is in line with research
regarding consumer behavior, in which the power of brand anthropomorphism in increas-
ing customers’ preferences and purchase intentions is well-known (Aggarwal and McGill
2007, 2012; Laksmidewi etal. 2017).
However, attention should be given to the interactive effect found between inclusionary
status and anthropomorphism. Our results indicate that the effect of social exclusion sig-
nificantly and positively influenced gambling only when slot machine had been anthropo-
morphized. In other words, participants gambled more when they were excluded, and they
perceived the slot machine as human-like. This effect might be traced back to the three-fac-
tor theory of anthropomorphism proposed by Epley etal. (2007). The authors argued that
anthropomorphism depends on three psychological determinants, one of which is “social-
ity motivation”. Sociality motivation is related to the need to belong, an intensely strong
desire for social connection that could be directed even to nonhuman targets. Specifically,
the pain induced by social exclusion (MacDonald and Leary 2005) might drive people to
actively search for methods to alleviate it. Research suggested that lonely individuals are
more likely to anthropomorphize nonhuman agents (Epley etal. 2008a, b). These results
are in line with the interaction effect found between the two manipulations in Study 2, in
which excluded participants compared to included ones perceived the slot machine as more
anthropomorphic. Interpreting our results in this fashion, we can argue that the anthro-
pomorphization of the slot machine might have facilitated the natural tendency to restore
social connection in excluded individuals, who thus played more. Moreover, according to
Derrick etal. (2009), some common technologies (e.g., TV programs) can serve as social
surrogates, providing parasocial relationships that can satisfy the need to belong. As
hypothesized, the slot machine could have been perceived as a social surrogate, especially
by participants who were both socially excluded and induced to perceive the slot machine
as a human-like object.
However, in our study, the effect of social exclusion on gambling behavior was not
observed when participants were induced to perceive the slot machine as inanimate. This
result is particularly important from a health-promoting perspective because it provides
fundamental advice about how to reduce the negative consequences of the combined effect
of inclusionary status and anthropomorphism on gambling behavior. Although anthropo-
morphization is a pervasive tendency that can occur even when an object has only mini-
mal characteristics that recall human beings (Kim and McGill 2011; Mithen and Boyer
1996), our research indicated that it is possible to reduce this tendency and that doing so

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
suppressed the enhancing effect of social exclusion on gambling. This result could be taken
into account by preventive strategies to stem the risk of developing problem gambling.
Specifically, people should be made more aware about the real nature of slot machines,
presenting them as merely automatic devices controlled by mathematical algorithms that
could reduce the chance of perceiving human-like characteristics.
Once emotions felt during the game were introduced in the model to explain gambling
behavior, the main effects of inclusionary status and anthropomorphism disappeared, but
the interaction between the two manipulations was still significant and comparable to the
one observed in the previous analyses. This result means that irrespectively of whether the
game experience was pleasurable, inclusionary status and anthropomorphism had a com-
bined role in determining the number of spins of the reels. However, the most remarkable
finding related to the game experience was its mediation effect, which was observed for
both inclusionary status and anthropomorphism. The indirect effects consisted of the influ-
ence of positive and negative game experience on gambling behavior and the influence of
the two manipulations on game experience. The former effects were consistent with Study
3 conducted by Riva etal. (2015), in which both positive and negative emotions felt during
the game increased gambling. At first glance, it can be argued that only a positive game
experience should increase playing, whereas a negative experience should divert partici-
pants from the game. Indeed, although our results revealed that positive emotions had a
stronger influence on gambling behavior than negative ones, both the effects were signifi-
cant and positive, a result that might seem counterintuitive. However, stronger emotions
mean higher engagement, irrespectively of valence. Our findings go in that direction, sug-
gesting that in predicting gambling behavior, emotional arousal is a key factor, whereas
valence is negligible. In other words, regardless of whether the game experience is positive
or negative, the important aspect is how emotionally engaged (i.e., aroused) are the indi-
viduals who are playing. Concerning the influence of the two manipulations on positive
and negative game experience, they can be seen in the light of the social surrogacy hypoth-
esis (Derrick etal. 2009). Indeed, participants who were socially excluded might have con-
sidered the slot machine as a social surrogate, trying to restore their need for social con-
nection. Similarly, participants in the high anthropomorphism condition were induced to
perceive the slot machine in a human-like fashion, thus, again, as a social actor. Hence, for
both the effects, participants might have been more emotionally engaged (irrespectively of
the valence of these emotions) with the slot machine, feeling stronger emotions during the
game that, in turn, made them gamble more.
Limitations
Two main limitations of the present research are worth discussing. The first and most impor-
tant limitation is that with the current design, we were not able to identify which specific
process ruled the connections between gambling behavior and its predictors. Considering
the whole path model in its complexity, the social surrogacy hypothesis (Derrick etal. 2009)
seems to explain the results well because it accounts for both the interaction between inclu-
sionary status and anthropomorphism (i.e., excluded individuals are more likely to be sensitive
to anthropomorphization of the slot machine, and its perception as a social actor increases)
and the mediation effects of game experience (i.e., social exclusion and anthropomorphism
increased the emotional engagement and, in turn, the likelihood to perceive slot machine as
a social actor). However, we cannot exclude that the results about inclusionary status were

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
caused by behavioral avoidance. Basically, the adverse consequences of social exclusion might
have led participants to focus on gambling, feeling more engaged in the task and thus gam-
bling more (Riva 2016). Nevertheless, such a process could not account for the results regard-
ing anthropomorphism.
The second limitation concerns game experience measurement. Contrary to Study 4
conducted by Riva etal. (2015), we considered only emotional valence, without measuring
valence and arousal separately. Although the scale included only high-arousal emotions, and
we consequently inferred arousal from the level of the overall indices of positive and negative
emotions, the lack of distinction between the two dimensions of emotions did not allow us to
deeply investigate the mediating role of more specific emotions.
Conclusion
The present research represents the first attempt to investigate the role of inclusionary status,
anthropomorphism, and emotions on gambling in the general population, using an experimen-
tal methodology. The findings indicated that inclusionary status significantly interacted with
anthropomorphism in determining gambling behavior, with excluded individuals gambling
more than included ones when induced to perceive the slot machine as a human-like entity.
Furthermore, both positive and negative emotional engagement with the game mediated the
effect of inclusionary status and anthropomorphism on gambling behavior. Our results suggest
that inclusionary status and anthropomorphism might be considered antecedents of gambling
and risk factors for the development of pathological gambling. Future studies should take into
account the present limitations, trying to further specify how inclusionary status and anthro-
pomorphism interact in predicting gambling and investigating whether this interaction is even
stronger for pathological gamblers. Our results can give important advice from an applied
standpoint, in particular, for the prevention and detection of problem gambling. On the one
hand, counselors and therapists could pay attention to patients’ social life and proneness to
anthropomorphism as risk factors for the development and worsening of gambling disorder.
On the other hand, health-promoting interventions regarding gambling should uncover the
mechanisms that link anthropomorphism, social exclusion, and game experience to patients,
suggesting effective strategies to avoid their negative effect on gambling.
Acknowledgments We thank Carlo Toneatto for creating the ad hoc software that we used to assess gam-
bling behavior.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conict of interest Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with
the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki dec-
laration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
References
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for eval-
uating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468–479. https ://doi.
org/10.1086/51854 4.

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic
behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2),
307–323. https ://doi.org/10.1086/66261 4.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th
ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs
self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589–604. https ://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https ://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive pro-
cesses: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 83(4), 817–827. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.817.
Biagioli, E. (2015). A cosa è dovuto lo sviluppo delle VLT Come funzionano e cosa causano? Rome:
Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali. https ://tesi.luiss .it/16740 /1/16363 1.pdf.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects
of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1),
14–28. https ://doi.org/10.1016/S0022 -1031(03)00064 -7.
Buelow, M. T., & Wirth, J. H. (2017). Decisions in the face of known risks: Ostracism increases
risky decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 210–217. https ://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.006.
Castrén, S., Basnet, S., Salonen, A. H., Pankakoski, M., Ronkainen, J.-E., Alho, H., etal. (2013). Fac-
tors associated with disordered gambling in Finland. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and
Policy, 8, 24. https ://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-8-24.
Chen, Z., Williams, K. D., Fitness, J., & Newton, N. C. (2008). When hurt will not heal exploring the
capacity to relive social and physical. Pain, 19(8), 789–795.
Clarke, D. (2006). Impulsivity as a mediator in the relationship between depression and prob-
lem gambling. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 5–15. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2005.05.008.
de Jong Gierveld, J., Van Tilburg, T. G., & Dykstra, P. A. (2016). Loneliness and social isolation the
concepts of loneliness and social isolation. In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social surrogacy: How favored television programs
provide the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 352–362.
https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.003.
Downs, C., & Woolrych, R. (2010). Gambling and debt: The hidden impacts on family and work life.
Community, Work & Family, 13(3), 311–328. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13668 803.2010.48809 6.
Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008a). Creating social connection through
inferential reproduction. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114–120. https ://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1467-9280.2008.02056 .x.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008b). When we need a human: Motivational
determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143–155. https ://doi.org/10.1521/
soco.2008.26.2.143.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropo-
morphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864.
Fubini, F., & Greco, A. (2015). Gioco d’azzardo. In Italia c’è una slot machine ogni 143 abitanti. La
Repubblica.
Griffiths, M. D. (2004). Betting your life on it. British Medical Journal, 329(7474), 1055–1056. https ://
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7474.1055.
Hales, A. H., Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Prayer, self-affirmation, and distraction
improve recovery from short-term ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 8–20.
https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.002.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social
isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-
ence, 10(2), 227–237. https ://doi.org/10.1177/17456 91614 56835 2.
Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthro-
pomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94–107. https ://doi.
org/10.1086/65814 8.

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford
Publications.
Kozak, M. N., Marsh, A. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2006). What do I think you’re doing? Action identifica-
tionand mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 543–555. https ://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.543.
Laksmidewi, D., Susianto, H., & Afiff, A. Z. (2017). Anthropomorphism in advertising: The effect of
anthropomorphic product demonstration on consumer purchase intention. Asian Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 22(1), 1–25. https ://doi.org/10.21315 /aamj2 017.22.1.1.
Lee, H., Chae, P. K., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2007). The five-factor gambling motivation model: The five-
factor gambling motivation model. Psychiatry Research, 150, 21–32. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psych res.2006.04.005.
Maccallum, F., Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2007). Functional and dysfunctional
impulsivity in pathological gambling. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1829–1838.
https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.002.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship
between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202–223. https ://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202.
McQuade, A., & Gill, P. (2012). The role of loneliness and self-control in predicting problem gambling
behaviour. Gambling Research, 24(1), 18–30.
Menduni, M. (2017). Il gioco d’azzardo strega gli italiani. Business record da 95 miliardi. La Stampa.
Milosevic, A., & Ledgerwood, D. M. (2010). The subtyping of pathological gambling: A comprehensive
review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 988–998. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.013.
Mithen, S., & Boyer, P. (1996). Anthropomorphism and the evolution of cognition. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(4), 717–721. Retrieved from http://www.jstor .org/stabl e/30343
05?seq=1#page_scan_tab_conte nts
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling. In D. Smit, D.
Hodgins, & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 211–
243). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Peake, S. J., Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., Moore, W. E., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2013). Risk-taking and
social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-mak-
ing. NeuroImage. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro image .2013.05.061.
Riva, P. (2016). Emotion regulation following social exclusion: Psychological and behavioral strate-
gies. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and
reducing its impact (pp. 199–226). New York, NY: Springer.
Riva, P., & Eck, J. (2016). Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing
its impact. New York, NY: Springer.
Riva, P., Sacchi, S., & Brambilla, M. (2015). Humanizing machines: Anthropomorphization of slot
machines increases gambling. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 21(4), 313–325. https
://doi.org/10.1037/xap00 00057 .
Riva, P., Wirth, J. H., & Williams, K. D. (2011). The consequences of pain: The social and physical pain
overlap on psychological responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 681–687. https ://
doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.837.
Shead, N. W., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2010). Risk and protective factors associated with
youth problem gambling. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. https ://doi.
org/10.1515/IJAMH .2010.22.1.3.
Stenseng, F., Belsky, J., Skalicka, V., & Wichstrøm, L. (2015). Social exclusion predicts impaired self-
regulation: A 2-year longitudinal panel study including the transition from preschool to school.
Journal of Personality, 83(2), 212–220. https ://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12096 .
Svensson, J., & Romild, U. (2014). Problem gambling features and gendered gambling domains amongst
regular gamblers in a Swedish population-based study. Sex Roles, 70(5–6), 240–254. https ://doi.
org/10.1007/s1119 9-014-0354-z.
Svetieva, E., Zadro, L., Denson, T. F., Dale, E., O’Moore, K., & Zheng, W. Y. (2016). Anger medi-
ates the effect of ostracism on risk-taking. Journal of Risk Research, 19(5), 614–631. https ://doi.
org/10.1080/13669 877.2014.10033 20.
The Economist. (2017, February 9). The world’s biggest gamblers. The Economist. Retrieved from https
://www.econo mist.com/blogs /graph icdet ail/2017/02/daily -chart -4.
Turner, N., & Horbay, R. (2004). How do slot machines and other electronic gambling machines actually
work? Journal of Gambling Issues, 11, 1–41.

Journal of Gambling Studies
1 3
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion
decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. https ://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them:
effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81(6), 1058–1069. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social exclusion causes self-defeat-
ing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 606–615. https ://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.606.
Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. C., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors for patho-
logical gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 323–335. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbe h.2003.08.007.
Welte, J. W., Wieczorek, W. F., Barnes, G. M., & Tidwell, M.-C. O. (2006). Multiple Risk Factors for
Frequent and Problem Gambling: Individual, Social, and Ecological. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology Copyright the Authors Journal Compilation R, 36(6), 1548–1568. https ://doi.org/10.111
1/j.0021-9029.2006.00071 .x.
Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., Swim, E., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Rumination hinders recovery from ostra-
cism. International Journal of Developmental Science, 7(1), 33–39. https ://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-
13121 15.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in exper-
imental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275–314). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Williams, K. D., & Blair, J. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and
acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174–180. https ://doi.org/10.3758/BF031 92765 .