Near Misses Motivate Gamblers

In a study in the journal Neuron, researchers found that the same brain areas in gamblers that get excited by winning lit up at near wins. Which is great news for the house. Christie Nicholson reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

The lure of gambling clearly comes from the chance of winning. But how exciting is it to almost win? A study in the February 12th issue of the journal Neuron looked at gambler’s brains’ reactions to “near misses,” such as when you get two cherries out of three at a slot machine. While gamblers describe near misses as more unpleasant than full misses, almost winning significantly increased the desire to keep gambling.

Fifteen subjects underwent brain scans as they gambled. Near misses activated the brains’ ventral striatum and anterior insula areas, which were also activated during random wins. The insula has been associated with drug craving and other addictive behaviors.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Interestingly, this effect only happened when gamblers had control of the lever. The inverse occurred when a computer took control. In that case, the near misses significantly demotivated the gambler to keep playing, and it was the complete misses that kept momentum alive. So next time, when you nearly get three cherries and you’re hyped up to try again, remember this is not like working on your golf swing—your odds at the slot machine don’t get better with practice.

—Christie Nicholson 

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe