全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

The Relationship between Endorsing Gambling as an Escape and the Display of Gambling Problems

DOI: 10.1155/2013/156365

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Previous research has reported a strong relationship between endorsing gambling as an escape and problem/pathological gambling as measured by the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). The present study recruited 249 university students to complete the Gambling Functional Assessment-Revised (GFA-R), which measures the function of the respondent’s gambling, as well as the SOGS and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), which was designed to identify gambling problems in the general population. Endorsing gambling as an escape on the GFA-R was again predictive of SOGS scores. The function of one’s gambling was also predictive of the respondents’ PGSI scores, but whether gambling for positive reinforcement or as an escape was the significant predictor differed between male and female respondents. Scores on the GFA-R subscales also accounted for a significant amount of variance in PGSI scores above and beyond that accounted for by SOGS scores. The present results support the idea that both practitioners and researchers should be interested in the function of an individual’s gambling as well as the presence or the absence of pathology. They also suggest that differences in the function of gambling might also exist between the sexes. 1. Introduction Problem and pathological gambling are recognized as being major societal problems, with millions of individuals suffering from them (e.g., see [1]). Because of this fact, a great deal of effort has been exerted trying to identify who might have such problems. Numerous examples of diagnostic screens can be found in the literature, including the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS, [2]), the NORC DSM-IV screen for problem gamblers [3], and the Canadian Problem Gambling Index [4, 5]. The rationale behind these attempts is that if one can determine who might be experiencing problems with gambling, one is in a better position to treat, and potentially prevent, such problems. Far less effort has been focused on an equally important issue—why people might gamble. In other words, what contingencies might be maintaining a gambler’s behavior? Having such information would seem important because it seems reasonable to believe that different individuals might gamble for different reasons. It may also be the case that certain contingencies are more closely associated with gambling problems than are others. Further, it is quite possible that the reason why someone begins to gamble is different than the reason why the same person continues to gamble. Instruments designed to assess the contingencies reinforcing gambling behavior

References

[1]  N. M. Petry, Pathological Gambling: Etiology, Comorbidity, and Treatment, American Psychological Association, Washington , DC, USA, 2005.
[2]  H. R. Lesieur and S. B. Blume, “The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of Pathological gamblers,” American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 144, no. 9, pp. 1184–1188, 1987.
[3]  D. R. Gerstein, R. A. Volberg, M. T. Toce, H. Harwood, A. Palmer, and R. Johsnon, Gambling Impact and Behavior Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, University of Chicago, National Opinion Center, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1999.
[4]  J. Ferris and H. Wynne, The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report, Canadian Center on Substance Abuse, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2001.
[5]  J. Ferris, H. Wynne, and E. Single, Measuring Problem Gambling in Canada: Draft Final Report, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1999.
[6]  M. R. Dixon and T. E. Johnson, “The gambling functional assessment (GFA): an assessment device for identification of the maintaining variables of pathological gambling,” Analysis of Gambling Behavior, vol. 1, pp. 44–49, 2007.
[7]  V. M. Durand and D. B. Crimmins, “Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 99–117, 1988.
[8]  J. C. Miller, E. Meier, J. Muehlenkamp, and J. N. Weatherly, “Testing the construct validity of dixon and Johnson's (2007) gambling functional assessment,” Behavior Modification, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 156–174, 2009.
[9]  J. N. Weatherly, J. C. Miller, and H. K. Terrell, “Testing the construct validity of the gambling functional assessment—Revised (GFA-R),” Behavior Modification, vol. 35, pp. 553–569, 2011.
[10]  J. N. Weatherly, J. C. Miller, K. S. Montes, and C. Rost, “Assessing the reliability of the gambling functional assessment,” Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 28, pp. 217–223, 2012.
[11]  J. C. Miller, M. R. Dixon, A. Parker, A. M. Kulland, and J. N. Weatherly, “Concurrent validity of the gambling function assessment (GFA): correlations with the South Oaks Screen (SOGS) and indicators of diagnostic efficiency,” Analysis of Gambling Behavior, vol. 4, pp. 61–75, 2010.
[12]  J. N. Weatherly and A. Derenne, “Investigating the relationship between the contingencies that maintain gambling and probability discounting of gains and losses,” European Journal of Behavior Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 39–46, 2012.
[13]  J. N. Weatherly and K. B. Miller, “Exploring the factors related to endorsing gambling as an escape,” International Gambling Studies. In press.
[14]  American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, SA, 4th edition, 2003.
[15]  A. Blaszczynski and L. Nower, “A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling,” Addiction, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 487–499, 2002.
[16]  B. Gambino, “The correction for bias in prevalence estimation with screening tests,” Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 343–351, 1997.
[17]  R. Stinchfield, “Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS),” Addictive Behaviors, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2002.
[18]  J. M. Boldero and R. C. Bell, “An evaluation of the factor structure of the problem gambling severity index,” International Gambling Studies, vol. 12, pp. 89–110, 2012.
[19]  T. Holtgraves, “Evaluating the problem gambling severity index,” Journal of Gambling Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 105–120, 2009.
[20]  R. Stinchfield, “Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of a measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling,” American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 160, no. 1, pp. 180–182, 2003.
[21]  J. McMillen and M. Wenzel, “Measuring problem gambling: assessement of three prevalence screens,” International Gambling Studies, vol. 6, pp. 147–174, 2006.
[22]  D. C. Howell, Statistical Methods for Psychology, Cengage Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif, USA, 7th edition, 2010.
[23]  C. P. Cross, L. T. Copping, and A. Campbell, “Sex differences in impulsivity: a meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 137, no. 1, pp. 97–130, 2011.
[24]  K. H. Gordon, J. M. Holm-Donoma, W. Troop-Gordan, and E. Sand, “Rumination and body dissatisfaction interact to predict concurrent binge eating,” Body Image, vol. 9, pp. 352–357, 2012.
[25]  T. F. Heatherton and R. F. Baumeister, “Binge eating as escape from self-awareness,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 86–108, 1991.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133