When actions yield predictable effects, we form bi-directional action-effect associations (e.g. Elsner & Hommel, 2001; Kunde, 2001). In turn, anticipating a desired effect allows us to select appropriate actions. Furthermore, Pfeuffer et al. (2016) discovered, that effect anticipation does not only affect effect-generating, for instance, manual responses but also eye movements. Participants anticipatorily look towards the future location of their actions‘ predictable effects (proactive effect monitoring; see also e.g., Gouret & Pfeuffer, 2021, preprint; Pfeuffer et al., 2022). These anticipatory saccades reflect the effect a person anticipates/expects and support a later comparison between expected and actual effect (e.g., Pfeuffer et al., 2016, 2022). In a prior study (Pfeuffer, 2023, https://osf.io/4wtvy), we investigated participants' win/loss expectations when betting points in a one-armed bandit game by assessing their eye movements during an anticipatory interval before feedback regarding their win/loss in a round was shown. Crucially, win and loss feedback consistently appeared at certain predictable locations. Our goal was to relate anticipatory eye movements towards the future win/loss feedback (i.e., corresponding expectations) to gambling-related behavior as well as attitudes/beliefs, and sensitivity to reward and punishment. This first study showed little evidence for relations between anticipatory eye movements and gambling-related behavior assessed via questionnaires. However, it had the crucial downside that we only offered a reward to the person who would reach the highest score. Thus, the task setting makes it very likely that participants might not believe they have an opportunity to win the corresponding reward and might thus not have given their best to win an individual reward and attended to feedback correspondingly. Thus, in this second experiment, we will replicate the one-armed bandit task with the crucial change that participants are informed that they can attain an individual reward based on their own performance in case they end the task with more points than 50% of the participants in the prior experiment. Gambling phase of the experiment (one-armed bandit game): In this first phase of the experiment, we will track participants’ anticipatory eye movements towards the future win/loss feedback to assess their win/loss expectations when betting points in a one-armed bandit game. They have the opportunity to win a reward based on the number of points they score. Importantly, note that wins and losses are randomly allocated both in the prior experiment and in this experiment. Thus, the actual point score is mainly based on luck (i.e., winning when more points are bet and losing when fewer points are bet). Exogenous attention phase of the experiment: Attention is affected by selection and reward history and corresponding biases (e.g., Awh et al., 2012). Importantly,reward is a source of such selection biases even several days after the initial association between stimulus and reward (e.g., Anderson et al., 2014; Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009). To further extend our prior experiment, we will additionally assess differences in exogenous attention allocation between stimuli that signaled win/loss in the one-armed bandit game and a neutral stimulus. This will provide us with a means of additionally assessing reactive (i.e., non-anticipatory/non-proactive) saccades based on the presentation of previously win-/loss-related stimuli. We will additionally relate these reactive saccade patterns to proactive saccade patterns, gambling-related behavior as well as attitudes/beliefs, and sensitivity to reward and punishment. This will allow us to extend our perspective and to also investigate similarities and differences in proactive and reactive shifts of attention towards the respective stimuli. In the exogenous attention phase, we will assess the latency of participants’ saccades towards the win/loss and a neutral stimulus that unpredictably appear at the prior left/right effect/feedback locations. We expect participants to associate the win effect/feedback with reward (i.e., faster saccades) and for this to affect saccade latency. That is, we expect faster saccades towards the stimulus associated with a prior win as compared to the neutral stimulus. For the stimulus associated with loss (i.e., punishment), one could either expect it to be more salient than a neutral stimulus and thus associated with faster saccade latencies or one could expect that loss stimuli become associated with avoidance and an inhibitory process which would show in slower saccade latencies as compared to the neutral condition. Thus, we formulate an undirected hypothesis with regards to loss stimuli. Questionnaire phase: In a final phase, we will use questionnaires to assess gambling-related behavior as well as attitudes/beliefs, and sensitivity to reward and punishment and relate it to eye movements in the gambling phase and exogenous attention phase.