Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 285–297 | Cite as

Frequent Card Playing and Pathological Gambling: The Utility of the Georgia Gambling Task and Iowa Gambling Task for Predicting Pathology

  • Chad E. Lakey
  • Adam S. Goodie
  • W. Keith Campbell
Original paper

Abstract

The current investigation examined performance on two laboratory-based gambling tasks, the Georgia Gambling Task (GGT; Goodie, 2003. The effects of control on betting: Paradoxical betting on items of high confidence with low value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 598–610) and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT; Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson, 1994. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7–15), as well as self-reported markers of gambling pathology using the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity (DIGS; Winters, Specker, & Stinchfield, 2002. The downside: Problem and pathological gambling (pp. 143–148). Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Reno) among a sample of undergraduate students who are frequent card players. Two hundred twenty-one participants (55 female and 166 male; mean age 19.21 years) who self-classified as playing cards at least once per month completed these measures. Performance on GGT and IGT systematically related to gambling-related pathology in several ways. Overconfidence and bet acceptance on the GGT, and myopic focus on reward on the IGT, predicted gambling related pathology. GGT and IGT performance correlated with each other, but both contributed independently to predicting gambling pathology. Card playing frequency predicted gambling pathology but not GGT or IGT performance. Discussion focuses on the role of biases of judgment and risky decision making in pathological gambling.

Keywords

Overconfidence Risk taking Georgia Gambling Task Iowa Gambling Task Pathological gambling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health research grant MH067827 to ASG.

References

  1. Bechara, A. (2001). Risky business: Emotion, decision-making, and addiction. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechara, A., & Damasio, H. (2002). Decision-making and addiction (part I): Impaired activation of somatic states in substance dependent individuals when pondering decisions with negative future consequences. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1675–1689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision making, and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293–1295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechara, A., Dolan, S., & Hindes, A. (2002). Decision making and addiction (part II): Myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward? Neuropsychologia, 40, 1690–1705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 2189–2202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (1996). Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 6, 215–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camchong, J., Goodie, A. S., McDowell, J. E., Gilmore, C. S., & Clementz, B. A. (in press). A cognitive neuroscience approach to the role of overconfidence in pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodie, A. S. (2003). The effects of control on betting: Paradoxical betting on items of high confidence with low value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 598–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodie, A. S. (2005). The role of percieved control and overconfidence in pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 481–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Letarte, H., Giroux, I., & Jacques, C. (1998). Cognitive treatement of pathological gamblers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 1111–1119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladouceur, R., Dubé, D., & Bujold, A. (1994). Prevalence of pathological gambling and related problems among college students in the Quebec metropolitan area. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 289–293.Google Scholar
  16. Ladouceur, R., Ferland, V., & Vitaro, F. (2004). Prevention of problem gambling: Modifying misconceptions and increasing knowledge among Canadian youths. Journal of Primary Prevention, 25, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lesieur, H. R., Cross, J., Frank, M., Welch, M., White, C. M., Rubenstein, G., Mosely, K., & Mark, M. (1991). Gambling and pathological gambling among university students. Addictive Behaviors, 16, 517–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T. W., Cronce, J. M., & Larimer, M. E. (2002). Exploring college students gambling motivation. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 361–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petry, N. M. (2005). Gamblers anonymous and cognitive-behavioral therapies for pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2004). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): Development, confirmatory factor validation and psychometric properties. Addiction, 99, 757–769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sahffer, H. J. (1996). Understanding the means and objects of addiction: Technology, the Internet and gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Volberg, R. A. (2000). The future of gambling in the United Kingdom: Increasing access creates more problem gamblers. British Medical Journal, 320, 1556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Winters, K. C., Bengston, P., Door, D., & Stinchfield, R. (1998). Prevalence and risk factors of problem gambling among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 12, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winters, K. C., Specker, S., & Stinchfield, R. S. (2002). Measuring pathological gambling with the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling severity (DIGS). In J. J. Marotta, J. A. Cornelius, & W. R. Eadington (Eds.), The downside: Problem and pathological gambling (pp. 143–148). Reno, NV: University of Nevada. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad E. Lakey
    • 1
  • Adam S. Goodie
    • 1
  • W. Keith Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations