바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

The Korean Journal of Health Psychology

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN1229-070X
  • E-ISSN2713-9581
  • KCI

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.23 No.1

Citation Share

The Effects of Approach-Avoidance Motivation Sensitivity and Regulatory Framing on Chasing Behaviors in Gambling Simulation Game

The Korean Journal of Health Psychology / The Korean Journal of Health Psychology, (P)1229-070X; (E)2713-9581
2018, v.23 no.1, pp.231-245
https://doi.org/10.17315/kjhp.2018.23.1.012


& (2018). The Effects of Approach-Avoidance Motivation Sensitivity and Regulatory Framing on Chasing Behaviors in Gambling Simulation Game. The Korean Journal of Health Psychology, 23(1), 231-245, https://doi.org/10.17315/kjhp.2018.23.1.012

Abstract

This study, based on Gray's (1991) Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, Higgins' s Regulatory Focus Theory (1998) and Regulatory Fit Theory(2000), aimed to verify the interaction effects of personal approach-avoidance motivation sensitivity and situational regulatory framing on chasing behaviors after experiencing loss in casino simulation game. 63 male college students who measured individual differences in approach-avoidance motivation sensitivity were randomly assigned to a promotion or prevention frame induction condition and used simulated slot machine game to measure their chasing behaviors. The results showed that the higher the approach motivation sensitivity, the higher the betting amount, the betting frequency, and the loss amount, after experiencing the loss in the gambling game. However, in the condition that the prevention frame was presented, the difference of the chasing behavior according to the sensitivity difference of approach or avoidance motivation was not significant. he significance of this study was discussed in relation to the application of previous studies and gambling field.

keywords
chasing behavior, regulatory framing, approach-avoidance motivation sensitivity, regulatory fit, 추격 도박행동, 조절프레임, 접근 및 회피 동기의 민감성, 조절부합도

Reference

1.

김교헌 (2006). 도박행동의 자기조절모형: 상식모형의 확장. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 11(2), 243-274.

2.

김교헌, 김원식 (2001). 한국판 행동활성화 및 행동억제체계 (BAS/접근동기) 척도. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 6(2), 19-37.

3.

목현수, 박기쁨, 강성군, 황순택 (2014). Big-win과 Big-loss의 경험 유/무가 문제성 도박 심각성에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 19(1), 271-282.

4.

박재옥, 이인혜 (2006). 비임상 집단에서 충동성과 불안이 도박 행동에 미치는 효과: Corr의 결합하위체계 가설을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 11(4), 853-870.

5.

신현지 (2015). 도박게임에서 돈을 잃은 경험과 충동성이 손실만회행동에 미치는 효과. 충남대학교 대학원 석사학위 청구논문.

6.

최우림 (2006). 스트레스 및 대처가 도박 행위에 미치는 영향: 도박 위험성과 손실만회 행동을 중심으로. 강원대학교 대학원 석사학위 청구논문.

7.

Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 15-19.

8.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

9.

Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1-10.

10.

Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). Chasing in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality and individual differences, 27(6), 1097-1111.

11.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319.

12.

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388.

13.

Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological science, 13(1), 1-6.

14.

Gray, J. A. (1991). Neural systems, emotion and personality. Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion, and Affect, 4, 273-396.

15.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280.

16.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.

17.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217.

18.

Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191.

19.

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological review, 113(3), 439.

20.

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274.

21.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

22.

Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2006). Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: the interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self regulatory mechanisms on test performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 393-405.

23.

Kim, D. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Effects of the BAS and BIS on decision-making in a gambling task. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 1131-1135.

24.

Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Jones, H. A., Richards, J. B., Strong, D. R., Kahler, C. W., & Read, J. P. (2003). The balloon analogue risk task (BART) differentiates smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 11(1), 26.

25.

Lesieur, H. R. (1979). The compulsive gambler’s spiral of options and involvement. Psychiatry, 42(1), 79-87.

26.

O’Connor, R. M., Stewart, S. H., & Watt, M. C. (2009). Distinguishing BAS risk for university students’ drinking, smoking, and gambling behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 514-519.

27.

Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503-518.

28.

Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical psychology review, 22(7), 1009-1061.

29.

Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and social psychology review, 5(4), 296-320.

30.

Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & cognition, 21(4), 546-556.

31.

Scholer, A. A., Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(2), 215.

32.

Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of management review, 17(1), 9-38.

The Korean Journal of Health Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy