Strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers differ on decision-making under risk and ambiguity

Felicity Kate Lorains, Nicki Andrea Dowling, Peter Gregory Enticott, John Lockyer Bradshaw, Jennifer S Trueblood, Julie C Stout

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To analyse problem gamblers decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity, investigate underlying psychological factors associated with their choice behaviour and examine whether decision-making differed in strategic (e.g. sports betting) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machine) problem gamblers. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Out-patient treatment centres and university testing facilities in Victoria, Australia. Participants: Thirty-nine problem gamblers and 41 age, gender and estimated IQ-matched controls. Measurements: Decision-making tasks included the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and a loss aversion task. The Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) model was used to provide an explanation of cognitive, motivational and response style factors involved in IGT performance. Findings: Overall, problem gamblers performed more poorly than controls on both the IGT (P=0.04) and the loss aversion task (P=0.01), and their IGT decisions were associated with heightened attention to gains (P=0.003) and less consistency (P=0.002). Strategic problem gamblers did not differ from matched controls on either decision-making task, but non-strategic problem gamblers performed worse on both the IGT (P=0.006) and the loss aversion task (P=0.02). Furthermore, we found differences in the PVL model parameters underlying strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers choices on the IGT. Conclusions: Problem gamblers demonstrated poor decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity. Strategic (e.g. sports betting, poker) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machines) problem gamblers differed in decision-making and the underlying psychological processes associated with their decisions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1128 - 1137
Number of pages10
JournalAddiction
Volume109
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Cite this

Lorains, Felicity Kate ; Dowling, Nicki Andrea ; Enticott, Peter Gregory ; Bradshaw, John Lockyer ; Trueblood, Jennifer S ; Stout, Julie C. / Strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers differ on decision-making under risk and ambiguity. In: Addiction. 2014 ; Vol. 109, No. 7. pp. 1128 - 1137.
@article{38f5689342fb4266a75e98a52541424e,
title = "Strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers differ on decision-making under risk and ambiguity",
abstract = "To analyse problem gamblers decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity, investigate underlying psychological factors associated with their choice behaviour and examine whether decision-making differed in strategic (e.g. sports betting) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machine) problem gamblers. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Out-patient treatment centres and university testing facilities in Victoria, Australia. Participants: Thirty-nine problem gamblers and 41 age, gender and estimated IQ-matched controls. Measurements: Decision-making tasks included the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and a loss aversion task. The Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) model was used to provide an explanation of cognitive, motivational and response style factors involved in IGT performance. Findings: Overall, problem gamblers performed more poorly than controls on both the IGT (P=0.04) and the loss aversion task (P=0.01), and their IGT decisions were associated with heightened attention to gains (P=0.003) and less consistency (P=0.002). Strategic problem gamblers did not differ from matched controls on either decision-making task, but non-strategic problem gamblers performed worse on both the IGT (P=0.006) and the loss aversion task (P=0.02). Furthermore, we found differences in the PVL model parameters underlying strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers choices on the IGT. Conclusions: Problem gamblers demonstrated poor decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity. Strategic (e.g. sports betting, poker) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machines) problem gamblers differed in decision-making and the underlying psychological processes associated with their decisions.",
author = "Lorains, {Felicity Kate} and Dowling, {Nicki Andrea} and Enticott, {Peter Gregory} and Bradshaw, {John Lockyer} and Trueblood, {Jennifer S} and Stout, {Julie C}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1111/add.12494",
language = "English",
volume = "109",
pages = "1128 -- 1137",
journal = "Addiction",
issn = "0965-2140",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

Strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers differ on decision-making under risk and ambiguity. / Lorains, Felicity Kate; Dowling, Nicki Andrea; Enticott, Peter Gregory; Bradshaw, John Lockyer; Trueblood, Jennifer S; Stout, Julie C.

In: Addiction, Vol. 109, No. 7, 2014, p. 1128 - 1137.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers differ on decision-making under risk and ambiguity

AU - Lorains, Felicity Kate

AU - Dowling, Nicki Andrea

AU - Enticott, Peter Gregory

AU - Bradshaw, John Lockyer

AU - Trueblood, Jennifer S

AU - Stout, Julie C

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - To analyse problem gamblers decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity, investigate underlying psychological factors associated with their choice behaviour and examine whether decision-making differed in strategic (e.g. sports betting) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machine) problem gamblers. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Out-patient treatment centres and university testing facilities in Victoria, Australia. Participants: Thirty-nine problem gamblers and 41 age, gender and estimated IQ-matched controls. Measurements: Decision-making tasks included the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and a loss aversion task. The Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) model was used to provide an explanation of cognitive, motivational and response style factors involved in IGT performance. Findings: Overall, problem gamblers performed more poorly than controls on both the IGT (P=0.04) and the loss aversion task (P=0.01), and their IGT decisions were associated with heightened attention to gains (P=0.003) and less consistency (P=0.002). Strategic problem gamblers did not differ from matched controls on either decision-making task, but non-strategic problem gamblers performed worse on both the IGT (P=0.006) and the loss aversion task (P=0.02). Furthermore, we found differences in the PVL model parameters underlying strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers choices on the IGT. Conclusions: Problem gamblers demonstrated poor decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity. Strategic (e.g. sports betting, poker) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machines) problem gamblers differed in decision-making and the underlying psychological processes associated with their decisions.

AB - To analyse problem gamblers decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity, investigate underlying psychological factors associated with their choice behaviour and examine whether decision-making differed in strategic (e.g. sports betting) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machine) problem gamblers. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Out-patient treatment centres and university testing facilities in Victoria, Australia. Participants: Thirty-nine problem gamblers and 41 age, gender and estimated IQ-matched controls. Measurements: Decision-making tasks included the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and a loss aversion task. The Prospect Valence Learning (PVL) model was used to provide an explanation of cognitive, motivational and response style factors involved in IGT performance. Findings: Overall, problem gamblers performed more poorly than controls on both the IGT (P=0.04) and the loss aversion task (P=0.01), and their IGT decisions were associated with heightened attention to gains (P=0.003) and less consistency (P=0.002). Strategic problem gamblers did not differ from matched controls on either decision-making task, but non-strategic problem gamblers performed worse on both the IGT (P=0.006) and the loss aversion task (P=0.02). Furthermore, we found differences in the PVL model parameters underlying strategic and non-strategic problem gamblers choices on the IGT. Conclusions: Problem gamblers demonstrated poor decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity. Strategic (e.g. sports betting, poker) and non-strategic (e.g. electronic gaming machines) problem gamblers differed in decision-making and the underlying psychological processes associated with their decisions.

UR - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12494/pdf

U2 - 10.1111/add.12494

DO - 10.1111/add.12494

M3 - Article

VL - 109

SP - 1128

EP - 1137

JO - Addiction

JF - Addiction

SN - 0965-2140

IS - 7

ER -