Susan Krauss Whitbourne Ph.D..
Abstract: Almost everyone has gambled at some point in life, but as many as 3.5% may have a form of gambling disorder. Psychology’s understanding of gambling disorder continues to evolve. Up until recently, people who we might call compulsive gamblers were regarded as having a disorder of “impulse control.” Psychiatry’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-IV-TR (link is external), placed compulsive gambling, called “pathological gambling,” in the section of disorders that also included kleptomania, pyromania, and trichotillomania (compulsive hair-pulling). In their revamping of all psychological disorders, in light of new conceptualizations, DSM-5 places “gambling disorder” in a new category of “Non-Substance-Related-Disorders.” Rather than being more similar to people with compulsive behaviors, then, people with gambling disorder now are viewed as more similar to people who have a substance disorder.
Mark R. Dixon, Alyssa N. Wilson, Jordan Belisle, James B. Schreiber.
The Psychological Record
Abstract: The Gambling Functional Assessment (GFA) hypothesized four possible maintaining functions of gambling behavior, including social attention, escape from aversive events, access to tangible items, and sensory stimulation. In the years following the GFA’s release, research teams have argued for a revised model of the GFA to account for just two possible functions maintaining gambling behavior (positive and negative reinforcement). In the current study, we examined the extent to which a four-factor gambling functional assessment was possible, sustaining a conceptual and theoretical orientation consistent with a functional behavioral account of gambling. Three hundred and sixty-five recreational and disordered gamblers completed a demographic survey, the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), and the GFA. An exploratory factor analysis was first conducted to determine GFA functional items that loaded onto a common factor, and a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine if a four-factor model, consistent with the functional categories of the GFA, provided a good fit for the obtained data. Outcomes supported the model, suggesting that a four-factor functional account of gambling behavior can be obtained. Differing results obtained by separate research teams, however, suggest that more precise research may be needed in the development and analysis of functional instruments for use with gamblers.
Visit the Psychological Record for access conditions
Cite this article as: Dixon, M.R., Wilson, A.N., Belisle, J. et al. Psychol Rec (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0279-y
Ginley MK, Whelan JP, Keating HA, Meyers AW.
Gambling warning messages have been shown to lead to prevention and modification of risk-taking behaviors. Laboratory studies have shown messages can increase a player’s knowledge about gambling specific risks, modify their gambling-related cognitive distortions, and even change play. In the present laboratory study, participants were randomly assigned to a winning or losing slot machine gambling experience where they either viewed periodic warning messages or not. It was hypothesized that those in the message conditions would place smaller bets, spend more time considering bets, and spend less time gambling than those in the control conditions. We also hypothesized participants would play differently across the contexts of winning or losing. The results showed those who received warning messages while winning made the fewest number of spins and did not speed up their bet rate over the course of play as much as those in other conditions. Players who received warning messages while losing decreased the size of their bets over the course of play compared to those who received messages while winning. Despite receiving warning messages, losing players did not decrease their number of spins or rate of betting. Winning or losing during slot machine play appears to have significant consequences on the impact of a warning message. Whereas a message to change gambling behavior may encourage a winning gambler to stop play, the same message for a losing player may lead to a small minimization in harm by helping them to decrease bet size, though not their rate of betting. (PsycINFO Database Record