Using the game can't stop to inform the novel behavioural state of near-loss

In contrast to binary distinctions between outcomes such as wins and losses, more fine-grained distinctions include the representation of goal proximity, such as being near or far to desired or undesired outcomes. Despite semantic inconsistencies in near-win and near-loss literature, we offer a resolution where a near-loss is defined as an actual positive outcome described in reference to a negative counterfactual. Furthermore, we leverage the commercial "push-your-luck" game Can't Stop (Sackson, 1980) as a playful paradigm to study the behavioural consequences of near-misses compared to full-wins, playing against opponents who are either cautious or reckless. Each turn, players are given the option to either continue rolling dice (but risk losing their progress) or stop (thereby saving their progress). Our data showed that previous outcome and opponency interacted such that participants produced more stop behaviour against the cautious opponent relative to the reckless opponent but only when the previous outcome was a near-loss. Imitation of an opponent's behaviour is discussed both in reference to its potential automaticity and social contingencies, whereas stopping behaviour is considered a possibly erroneous perception of the interdependence between dice throws. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).