Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 339–354 | Cite as

Divergent Validity of Measures of Cognitive Distortions, Impulsivity, and Time Perspective in Pathological Gambling

  • James MacKillop
  • Emily J. Anderson
  • Bryan A. Castelda
  • Richard E. Mattson
  • Peter J. Donovick
Original Paper

Abstract

The present study assessed the divergent validity of several self-report and objective behavioral measures for assessing pathological gambling using three samples divided by South Oaks Gambling Scale score [Lesieur, & Blume (1987). American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188]: pathological gamblers, potential pathological gamblers, and non-pathological gamblers. Self-report measures included the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire [GBQ; Steenbergh, Meyers, May, & Whelan (2002). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 143–149], the Gambling Passion Scale [GPS; Rousseau, Vallerand, Ratelle, Mageau, & Provencher, (2002). Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 45–66], the Eysenck Impulsivity Questionnaire [EIQ; Eysenck, & Eysenck (1978). Psychological Reports, 43, 1247–1255], and the Stanford Time Perspective Inventory [STPI; Zimbardo, & Boyd (1999). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288]. Behavioral tasks included the delay discounting task [Madden, Petry, Badger, & Bickel (1997). Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 256–263] and the Future Time Perspectives [FTP; Wallace (1956). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 52, 240–245]. The GBQ, GPS, Impulsivity subscale of the EIQ, and DDT all exhibited robust divergent validity, however, neither measure of time perspective discriminated between groups. Applications of these findings to etiological research and clinical contexts are discussed.

Keywords

Pathological gambling Assessment Cognitions Impulsivity Time perspective Cognitive therapy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Simone Magdich, Kimberly Robeson, and Lori Wagner for their assistance on this project and gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions of the late Dr. Richard Burright.

References

  1. Alessi, S. M., & Petry, N. M. (2003). Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure. Behavioural Processes, 64, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay-discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickel, W. K., & Johnson, M. W. (2003). Delay discounting: a fundamental process of drug dependence. In: G. Loewenstein, D. Read, R. Baumeister (Eds.), Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (pp. 419–440). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multi-trait multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caron, A., & Ladouceur, R. (2003). Erroneous verbalizations and risk taking at video lotteries. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castelda, B. A., Mattson, R. E., MacKillop, J., Anderson, E. J., & Donovick, P. J. (2006). Psychometric validation of the Gambling Passion Scale. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  8. Coffey, S. F., Gudelski, G. D., Saladin, M. E., & Brady, K. T. (2003). Impulsivity and rapid discounting of delayed hypothetical rewards in cocaine-dependent individuals. Experimental, Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 18–25.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, R. L., & Bradizza, C. M. (2001) Social and cognitive learning processes. In: T. J. Peters, T. Stockwell, N. Heather (Eds.), International handbook of alcohol dependence and problems (pp. 317–337). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dube, D., Freeston, M., & Ladouceur, R. (1996). Potential and probable pathological gamblers: where do the differences lie? Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11.Google Scholar
  13. Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247–1255.Google Scholar
  14. Eysenck, S. B. G., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 613–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodgins, D. C., & Engel, A. (2002). Future time perspective in pathological gamblers. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 190, 775–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keough, K. A., Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than no-drug using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klingemann, H. (2001). The time game: Temporal perspectives of patients and staff in alcohol and drug treatment. Time & Society, 10, 303–328.Google Scholar
  20. Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J., & Dumont, J. (1994). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for adolescent pathological gamblers. Behavior Modification, 18, 230–242.Google Scholar
  21. Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Rheaume, N., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., Leblond, J., & Walker, M. (2000). Is the SOGS an accurate measure of pathological gambling among children, adolescents and adults? Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladouceur, R., & Toneatto, T. (2003). Treatment of pathological gambling: A critical review of the literature. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17, 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., Lachance, S., Doucet, C., Leblond, J., & Jacques, C. (2001). Cognitive treatment of pathological gambling. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 189, 774–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., Lachance, S., Doucet, C., & Leblond, J. (2003). Group therapy for pathological gamblers: A cognitive approach. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 41, 587–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ladouceur, R., & Walker, M. (1996). A cognitive perspective on gambling. In: P. M. Salkoskvis (Ed.), Trends in cognitive and behavioural therapies (pp. 89–120). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  28. Madden, C. J., Petry, N. M., Badger, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (1997). Impulsive and self-control choices in opioid-dependent patients and non-drug using control participants: drug and monetary rewards. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 256–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madden, G. J., & Begotka, A. M., Raiff, B. R., & Kastern, L. L. (2003). Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manganiello, J. A. (1978). Opiate addiction: A study identifying three systematically related psychological correlates. International Journal of the Addictions, 13, 839–847.Google Scholar
  31. Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: M. L. Commons J. E. Mazur J. A. Nevin H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (Vol. 5, pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell, S. H. (1999) Measures of impulsivity in cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nower, L., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2004). The relationship of impulsivity, sensation seeking, coping, and substance use in youth gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Petry, N. M. (2001a). Delay discounting of money and alcohol in actively using alcoholics, currently abstinent alcoholics, and controls. Psychopharmacology, 154, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petry, N. M. (2001b). Pathological gamblers, with and without substance use disorders, discount delayed rewards at high rates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petry, N. M. (2003). Moving beyond a dichotomous classification for gambling disorders. Addiction, 98, 1673–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petry, N. M. (2005). Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  39. Petry, N. M., Bickel, W. K., & Arnett, M. (1998). Shortened time horizons and insensitivity to future consequences in heroin addicts. Addiction, 93, 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ratelle, C. F., Vallerand, R. J., Mageau, G. A., Rousseau, F. L., & Provencher, P. (2004). When passion leads to problematic outcomes: A look at gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1009–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richards, J. B., Mitchell, S. H., de Wit, H., & Seiden, L. S. (1997). Determination of discount functions in rats with an adjusting amount procedure. Journal for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rousseau, F., Vallerand, R. J., Ratelle, C. F., Mageau, G., & Provencher, P. J. (2002). Passion and gambling: On the validation of the Gambling Passion Scale (GPS). Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sher, K. J., Trull, T. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Vieth, A. (1999). Personality and alcoholism: Issues, methods, and etiological processes. In: K. Leonard, H. T. Blane (Eds.), Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism (2nd ed., pp. 54–105). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. Smart, R. G. (1968). Future time perspectives in alcoholics and social drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 81–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., Gibbon, M., & First, M. B. (1992). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III–R (SCID): I. History, rationale, and description. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 624–629.Google Scholar
  47. Steenbergh, T. A., Meyers, A. W., May, R. K., & Whelan, J. P. (2002). Development and validation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sylvain, C., Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J. M. (1997). Cognitive and behavioral treatment of pathological gambling: A controlled study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  51. Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2003). A hierarchy of gambling disorders in the community. Addiction, 98, 1661–1672. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 1593–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, A. (1997). Cognitive distortions in heavy gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Leonard, M., Gagne, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’ame: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85, 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vuchinich, R. E., & Simpson, C. A. (1998). Hyperbolic temporal discounting in social drinkers and problem drinkers. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 6, 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wallace, M. (1956). Future time perspective in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 52, 240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zimbardo, P. C., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zimbardo, P. G., Keough, K. A., & Boyd, J. N. (1997). Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personality & Individual Differences, 23, 1007–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • James MacKillop
    • 1
    • 2
  • Emily J. Anderson
    • 1
  • Bryan A. Castelda
    • 1
  • Richard E. Mattson
    • 1
  • Peter J. Donovick
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyState University of New York at BinghamtonBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Alcohol and Addiction StudiesBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations