Results: Griffiths reported the results in three parts relating to each of the three main hypotheses.
Analysis of the behavioural data:It was found that on the whole were was no difference in objective measures of skill between regular and non regular fruit machine gamblers. This supports the first hypothesis that there would be no difference between regular and non regular fruit machine gamblers on objective measures of skill. In relation to the fourth hypothesis the thinking aloud participants did take longer to complete the task than non-thinking aloud participants, although this was not significantly longer.Analysis of the verbalisations: Using the ‘thinking aloud method’ it was found that regular gamblers did make more irrational verbalisations than non regular gamblers. 14 percent of the regular gamblers verbalisations were irrational comments compared to 2.5 percent of the non regular gamblers.The results also showed that regular gamblers made significantly more percentage verbalisations in just two of the categories – these were personifying the machine (e.g. ‘the machine likes me’) and referring to the ‘number system’ (e.g. ‘I got a 2 there’).Non regular gamblers made significantly more verbalisations in questions relating to confusion and non-understanding, in statements relating to confusion and non understanding and miscellaneous utterances.Analysis of skill variables: Based on the findings of the post-experimental semi-structured interview it was found that regular gamblers were more skill orientated than non-regular gamblers.In response to the question “How skilful do you think you are compared with the average person?” regular gamblers claimed that they were at least of average skill, but more usually ‘above average skill’ or ‘totally skilled’. Non regular gamblers an the whole viewed themselves as ‘below average skill” or “totally unskilled".