Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 221–229 | Cite as

Differences in preferred level of arousal in two sub-groups of problem gamblers: A preliminary report

  • Nick Cocco
  • Louise Sharpe
  • Alex P. Blaszczynski
Brief Reports

Abstract

Twelve problem poker machine players and thirteen horse race gamblers (20 males and 5 females; age range 28–69) completed a series of questionnaires which assessed levels of anxiety, their preferred state of arousal and their motivations to gamble. As predicted, problem poker machine gamblers were found to be more anxious and reported avoiding arousal more frequently than the horse race gamblers. Alternately, problem horse race gamblers were found to prefer heightened levels of arousal and appeared to gamble to achieve these optimal levels of arousal. However, there was no difference between the groups on proneness to boredom. The present results provide evidence which is consistent with the Reversal theory and its application to the field of problem gambling.

Keywords

Optimal Level Preliminary Report Problem Gambler Prefer State Heighten Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adkins, B., Kruedelbach, N., Toohig, T.M. & Rugle, L.J. (1988). The relationship of gaming preferences to MMPI personality variables. In: W.R. Eadington (Ed.).Gambling research: Proceedings from the Seventh International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, Vol. 5 (pp. 180–192). Nevada: University of Nevada: Rino.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1987).Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (3rd Edition). Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, G. & Brown, R. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling: Sensation seeking and arousal.The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 75, 401–410.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, G. & Brown, R. (1987). Some applications of reversal theory to the explanation of gambling and gambling addictions.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apter, M.J. (1976). Some data inconsistent with the optimal arousal theory of motivation.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 1209–1210.Google Scholar
  6. Apter, M.J. (1982).The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of Psychological Reversals. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blaszczynski, A.P. & McConaghy, N. (1988). Boredom proneness in pathological gambling.Psychological Reports, 62, 35–42.Google Scholar
  8. Dickerson, M.G., Fabre, J. & Baylis, D. (1985). A comparison of TAB customers and poker machine players. In: McMillen, J. (ed)Gambling in the 80's. Proceedings of the 2nd conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies, Griffiths University, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  9. Farmer, R. & Sundberg, N.D. (1986). Boredom proneness: the development of a new scale.Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Murgatroyd, S., Rushton, C., Apter, M. & Ray, C. (1978) The development of the telic dominance scale.Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 519–528.Google Scholar
  11. Sharpe, L. & Tarrier, N. (1993) Towards a cognitive-behavioural model of problem gambling behaviour.British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 407–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Spielberger, C.D., Gorusch, R., Luschene, R., Vagg, P.R. & Jacobs, G.A. (1983).Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) Palo-Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Cocco
    • 1
  • Louise Sharpe
    • 2
  • Alex P. Blaszczynski
    • 3
  1. 1.Redfern Community Health CentreAustralia
  2. 2.Hounslow & Spelthorne NHS Trust, Clinical Psychology DepartmentWest Middlesex University HospitalIsleworthUK
  3. 3.Liverpool HospitalAustralia

Personalised recommendations