The Role of Perceived Control and Overconfidence in Pathological Gambling
- 649 Downloads
Two studies sought to determine whether perceived control has different effects on confidence assessment and betting decisions among pathological and problem gamblers than among non-problem gamblers. In Study 1, 200 college students who were frequent gamblers (80 female and 120 male, median age 20) completed the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and then engaged in a task in which they answered questions, assessed confidence in each answer, and considered bets on their answers that were fair if they were well-calibrated, but unfavorable if they were overconfident. Probable pathological and problem gamblers earned significantly fewer points than non-problem gamblers. This was due to greater overconfidence among pathological and problem gamblers, which led to systematically less favorable bets. In Study 2, using 384 participants (105 female and 279 male, median age 20), control was independently manipulated and bets were constructed to make point value independent of overconfidence. Problem and pathological gamblers showed both greater overconfidence and greater bet acceptance. They were less affected by control in their betting decisions than non-problem gamblers, but more affected in the slope of their betting function. It is concluded that pathological and problem gamblers process information about confidence and control differently from non-problem gamblers.
Keywordsillusion of control overconfidence decision-making pathological gambling
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Dickerson, M., Adcock, S. 1987Mood, arousal and cognitions in persistent gambling: Preliminary investigation of a theoretical modelJournal of Gambling Behavior3315Google Scholar
- Dickerson, M., Walker, M., England, S. L., Hinchy, J. 1990Demographic, personality, cognitive and behavioral correlates of off-course betting involvementJournal of Gambling Studies6165182Google Scholar
- Griffiths, M. D. 1990The cognitive psychology of gamblingJournal of Gambling Studies63142Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. 1982The psychology of preferencesScientific American248160173Google Scholar
- Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A. 1988Effects of limited and unlimited stakes on gambling behaviorJournal of Gambling Behavior4119126Google Scholar
- Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Dumont, M., Rochette, P. 1988Gambling: Relationship between the frequency of wins and irrational thinkingJournal of Psychology122409414Google Scholar
- Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Letarte, H., Giroux, I., Jacques, C. 1998Cognitive treatment of pathological gamblersBehaviour Research & Therapy3611111119Google Scholar
- Ladouceur, R., Walker, M., Becona, E. 1998Aproximacion cognitiva para la comprension y tratamiento del juego patologico. [A cognitive approach to the understanding and treatment of pathological gambling]Psicologia Contemporanea55671Google Scholar
- Langer, E. J. 1975The illusion of controlJournal of Personality and Social Psychology32311328Google Scholar
- Lesieur, H. R., Blume, S. B. 1987The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblersAmerican Journal of Psychiatry14411841188Google Scholar
- Winters, K. C., Specker, S., Stinchfield, R. S. 2002Measuring pathological gambling with the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity (DIGS)Marotta, J. J.Cornelius, J. A.Eadington, W. R. eds. The downside: Problem and pathological gambling University of NevadaReno, Nevada143148Google Scholar