Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 67–92 | Cite as

Risk Factors for Problematic Gambling: A Critical Literature Review

  • Agneta Johansson
  • Jon E. Grant
  • Suck Won Kim
  • Brian L. Odlaug
  • K. Gunnar Götestam
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

This article is a critical review of risk factors for pathological gambling categorized by demographics, physiological and biological factors, cognitive distortions, comorbidity and concurrent symptoms, and personality symptoms and characteristics. There is also a varia section (availability, parents playing, sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, age of onset, and playing duration). The review found very few well established risk factors for pathological gambling (i.e. more than two studies to support the conclusions). Well established risk factors included demographic variables (age, gender), cognitive distortions (erroneous perceptions, illusion of control), sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, comorbid disorders (OCD, drug abuse), and delinquency/illegal acts. An understanding of risk factors for pathological gambling should enhance prevention and treatment approaches.

Keywords

Pathological gambling Risk factors Experimental studies Significance 

Introduction

Over the last several years, there has been an increase in gambling research. Substantial breakthroughs have emerged in understanding the clinical aspects of pathological gambling as well as in the area of treatment. Research regarding risk factors, however, is sparse.

Due to the lack of rigid empirical research, preventive actions become delayed. The aim of the present study is to organize the empirical facts regarding risk factors for the development and maintenance of pathological gambling and thereby enable adequate preventive actions.

Review Approach

Although empirically based critical reviews are almost non-existent, there are some publications with some form of an overview. We have found seven such studies (Shaffer and Hall 1996; Spunt et al. 1998; Wardman et al. 2001; Raylu and Oei 2002; Walthers 2002; Goudriaan et al. 2004; Welfe et al. 2004), which will be described below. We have not included treatment studies in the present article as their relevance for this review is doubtful.

The following were inclusion criteria for inclusion for publications (partly based on the research synthesis by Shaffer et al. 1999): (1) it included original research on PG; (2) it was published in international scientific journals; (3) it specified the size of the sample; (4) it specified the instrument used to identify disordered gambling and comparison variables; (5) it specified the design used; (6) it included and it specified adequate statistical analyses; (7) the documentation was adequate; and (8) the results were conclusive.

In relation to standards of proof, we have partly followed the discussion of effective treatments of Nathan and Gorman (1998) by classifying the risk factors into three levels:
  1. (1)

    well-established risk factors for PG: several (≥3) well-performed empirically validated studies;

     
  2. (2)

    probable risk factors for PG: one or two well-performed empirically validated studies;

     
  3. (3)

    possible risk factors for PG (not included in table, only in text): some indications of a risk factor, but not documented as a risk factor. In our review of the literature, we have used the two first levels in the tables (well-established risk factors, and probable risk factors). In addition we have mentioned some promising studies without rigorous documentation not enabling clear conclusions.

     
In the following text, “gambling machines” is used in place of the terms “fruit machines,” “slot machines,” and “electromagnetic machines.” As the concept “probable pathological gambling” (Lesieur and Blume 1987) in most texts is equivalent to pathological gambling (PG), we have used the later descriptive term. In the present review, we use the term “problematic gambling” to denote the combination of pathological gambling and problem gambling (also called “at-risk” gambling). When a study makes many comparisons, one must strive to present only clearly pertinent facts, whilst restricting other extraneous detail.

Earlier Critical Reviews

Shaffer and Hall (1996) completed a meta-analysis on nine non-duplicative adolescent gambling studies in North America (n = 7700) until 1993. The different studies (published and unpublished) had used the following assessment instruments: DSM-III (APA 1987), SOGS (Lesieur and Blume 1987), SOGS-RA (Winters et al. 1993a), MAGS (Shaffer et al. 1994), and GA (Gamblers Anonymous twenty questions criteria). The meta-analysis showed PG prevalence rates from 3.5% to 8.5% (with a 95% confidence interval 4.4% to 7.4%). Shaffer and Hall (1996) advised the use of a multi-level classification scheme to reconcile divergent classification methods and to facilitate interstudy comparisons.

Spunt et al. (1998) reviewed the link between PG and substance misuse, scrutinized instruments to measure PG and drug misuse, and outlined treatment strategies. Although the review is not a systematic categorizing review, it critically analyzes a number of studies and examines the relationship between PG and substance misuse.

In another review, Wardman et al. (2001) reported nine empirical studies, for prevalence rates of problem gambling and PG and examined factors statistically associated with problem gambling behaviour in an Aboriginal population. There were four adolescence studies (three (n = 1423) reported the prevalence of problem gambling (from 10.1% to 21%)), while the fourth (n = 122700) presented data on general gambling activity. There were also five adult Aboriginal studies (n = 3827). The authors also examined factors important for adult PG and found that pathological gamblers compared to non-problem gamblers had greater gambling involvement, made greater financial expenditures, and were younger.

Another comprehensive review of factors implicated in the development and maintenance of PG was performed by Raylu and Oei (2002). The authors examined three categories of risk factors: familial (including learning/genetics), sociological, and individual (including personality, biological/biochemistry (hemispheric dysregulation, neurotransmitters; arousal), cognitions, and psychological states).

Walters (2002) did a meta-analysis of genetic research on gambling and problem gambling, and was able to trace 17 family studies but only two twin studies. There was a small but significant overall effect with both family and twins on the gene-gambling relationship. The familial effect was strongest for the relationship between sons and problem gambling fathers. They also included moderating variables (sex, nationality, family, severity) in their analysis.

Two other earlier reviews should also be noted. Goudriaan and colleagues (2004) reviewed the bio-behavioral studies of PG. The review notes the limitations of our current knowledge and offers suggestions for future research regarding the neuropsychology and pathophysiology of PG. In another study examining the risk factors for PG, Welte and colleagues (2004) used a telephone survey (n = 2168) and found that certain forms of gambling (e.g. casino gambling; pull-tabs), number of types of gambling in a year, current alcohol use disorder, low socio-economic status, and being a racial/ethnic minority all significantly predicted gambling pathology.

Specific Non-empirical and Theoretical Publications

Brown (1986) developed a theoretical model, based on both his own and others’ research on arousal and sensation seeking behaviour, and presented an eclectic model, including psychophysiological arousal, cognitive variables, affective factors, behavioural reinforcement schedules, and social and institutional determinants and relationships, as well as subcultural conditions (cross-sectional factors). These factors have different levels of impact at different stages of the development of gambling behaviour and PG. Brown also outlines a longitudinal view, including different phases in the development of gambling, with induction, adoption, promotion, and addiction.

Related to the psychophysiological arousal aspect of Brown’s model, Griffiths (1991) discusses the psychobiology of the “near-miss”, in relation to biological substrates, arousal theories, and endorphins. His research on arousal in gambling includes excitement (both subjectively and objectively), heart rate, and psychology of the “near-miss”.

Sharpe (2002) formulated a biopsychosocial perspective with a cognitive-behavioural model of problem gambling. The article highlights ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), impulsivity, availability of gambling, and biological markers implicating neurotransmitter systems (dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin) as vulnerability factors. Physiological aspects (arousal, heart rate), and cognitive factors and cognitive bias are mentioned.

Gupta and Derevensky (2000) present a useful list of risk factors, with references. They discuss how to proceed from research to treatment. Dickson et al. (2002) present a conceptual framework with a 16–page table, containing a very good review with risk and protective factors as well as corresponding prevention findings for adolescent substance use and abuse. With alcohol data as a background, the authors attempt to build a general theoretical model for the prevention of adolescent risk behaviors, applicable for potential prevention of gambling problems in youth.

The pathways model of problem and pathological gambling presented by Blaszczynski and Nower (2002) could be a series of useful tools in the analysis and treatment of pathological gambling but does not fit in the present empirical review of risk factors for PG.

Review of Risk Factors

Attempts to study risk factors not meeting our inclusion criteria merit mentioning in the text, without inclusion in the table, to give a better overview and understanding of the field. For condensed results, please see Table 1. For more information on results, please refer to the text.
Table 1

Risk factors for pathological gambling (dependent variable: PG) [rev 2004-04-05 final]

Domain

Sample

Instrument

Risk factor

Increased risk

Statistics

p value

Study

1. Demographics

1.1 Age

 

3426 HS stud

SOGS

School level

Younger

F = 7.73

<.0001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

 

2526 calls

SOGS

Age

Younger

X2 = 17.81

.01

Bondolfi et al. (2000)

 

562 calls

Questionnaire

Age

Younger

X2 = 25.29

≤.0001

Potenza et al. (2001)

 

8845 normals

SOGS-R

Age

Younger

OR = 2.51

.000

Volberg et al. (2001)

1.2 Gender

 

220 MMTP

SOGS

Gender

Male

rxy = .12

.04

Feigelman et al. (1995)

 

3426 stud

SOGS

Gender

Male

X2 = 39.52

<.001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

 

2526 calls

SOGS

Gender

Male

X2 = 8.94

.01

Bondolfi et al. (2000)

 

8845 normals

SOGS-R

Gender

Male

OR = 3.71

.000

Volberg et al. (2001)

1.4 Marital status

 

2526 calls

SOGS

Marital status

Married

X2 = 7.52

.02

Bondolfi et al. (2000)

 

8845 normals

SOGS-R

Marital stat

Non-cohabitng

X2 = 121.67

.000

Volberg et al. (2001)

1.5 Income/Finance

 

2526 calls

SOGS

Income

Higher

X2 = 10.88

.01

Bondolfi et al. (2000)

 

562 calls

Questionnaire

Income

Higher

X2 = 5.79

<.02

Potenza et al. (2001)

 

562 calls

Questionnaire

Problems

More

X2 = 4.21

=.04

Potenza et al. (2001)

1.6 Employment

 

220 MMTP

SOGS

Empl status

Non-empl

rxy =.15

.02

Feigelman et al. (1995)

 

313

DSM-III-R

Unemployed

Increase

t = 11.09

<.001

Hall et al. (2000)

1.7 Social welfare status

 

8845 normals

SOGS-R

Soc welf stat

On welfare

z = 2.41

.05

Volberg et al. (2001)

1.8 Residence

 

8845 normals

SOGS-R

Residence

Big city

z = 4.00

.01

Volberg et al. (2001)

1.9 Academic achievement

 

3426 HS stud

SOGS

Acad level

Lower

F = 19.44

<.001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

 

702 (15-18)

SOGS-RA

Low grades

More

X2 = 21.7

<.001

Winters et al. (1993)

1.10 Immigrants and ethnic groups

 

562 calls

Questionnaire

African/am

Increase

X2 = 3.87

<.05

Potenza et al. (2001)

 

8845 normals

SOGS-R

Birth country

Born abroad

OR = 2.08

.01

Volberg et al. (2001)

 

2168 calls

DIS

African/am

Increase

IRR 1.96-4.71

.01

Wetle et al. (2004)

   

Hisp/Asian

    

2. Physiological and biological factors

2.1 Heart rate and arousal

 

12 gambl/ 12c

Polygraph

HR

Increase

rxy = .741

<.0005

Andersson and Brown (1984)

 

22 hi/22low freq

Polygraph

HR

Increase

F = 6.523

<.05

Leary and Dickerson (1985)

2.2 Transmittor activity

 

24 PG/20c

CSF probes

MHPG

Red plasma lev

t = 2.9

<.007

Roy et al. (1988)

 

24 PG/20c

Urinary probes

NA

Incr urinary outp

F = 11.6

<.0003

Roy et al. (1988)

 

27 PG/27 match

Blood probes

Platelet MAO

Decreased

Wilcoxon pairs

<.01

Blanco et al. (1996)

2.3 Genetic studies

 

10 PG/7c

CSF probes

DA

Decrease

22.1/34.3

<.01

Bergh et al. (1997)

 

10 PG/7c

CSF probes

DOPAC

Increase

117.0/77.1

<.01

Bergh et al. (1997)

 

10 PG/7c

CSF probes

HVA

Increase

477.1/297.6

<.01

Bergh et al. (1997)

 

10 PG/7c

CSF probes

DOPAC/DA

Increase

5.7/2.4

<.01

Bergh et al. (1997)

 

10 PG/7c

CSF probes

HVA/DA

Increase

23.0/8.9

<.01

Bergh et al. (1997)

 

10 PG/7c

CSF probes

NA

Increase

128.8/85.7

<.01

Bergh et al. (1997)

 

10 PG 7c

CSF probes

MHPG

Increase

23.0/8.9

<.01

Bergh et al. (1997)

 

22PG/23 c

Genotyping

D2A1 allele

Present

OR = 5.03

<.000

Comings et al. (1996)

 

69 PG

SOGS/DSM-IV

DRD2 polym

Increased

X2 = 13.9

.003

Ibanez et al. (2001)

3. Cognitive distortions

3.1 Erroneous perceptions or biased evaluations

 

29 students

Experiments

Biased memory

More biased

t = 2.33

<.05

Gilovich (1983)

 

64 students

Experiments

Selective memory

More selective

t = 2.33

<.05

Gilovich (1983)

 

100 Ss exp/100c

Interview

Regular players

Probab of win

X2 = 6.94

<.01

Savoie and Ladouceur (1995)

 

100 Ss exp/100c

Interview

Regular players

Inc win chance

X2 = 13.66

<.01

Savoie and Ladouceur (1995)

 

44 reg players/ exp/c 22/22

Questionnaire

Reg players less confident to win

 

F = 7.38

<.025

Savoie and Ladouceur (1995)

 

44 reg players/ exp/c 22/22

Questionnaire

Control group reduced playing

 

t = 3.2

<.025

Savoie and Ladouceur (1995)

3.2 Illusion of control

       
 

36 students

Exp:bias(con/shy)

Bias

Illusion of contr

t = 5.46

<.005

Langer (1975)

 

47M/6F Ss

Exp:choice

Bias

Illusion of contr

t = 4.33

<.005

Langer (1975)

 

13 Ss

Exp.stim famil

Bias

Illusion of contr

t = 5.46

<.005

Langer (1975)

 

13F/2M Ss

Exp:involvement

Bias

Illision of contr

F = 7.33

<.01

Langer (1975)

 

49F/73M Ss

Exp:field setting

Bias

Illusion of contr

F = 7.58

<.01

Langer (1975)

 

31M/10F Ss

Exp:ctr field st

Bias

Illusion of contr

X2 = 4.19

<.05

Langer (1975)

 

90 students

Exp:sequence

Skill feeling

Winning bias

F = 4.20

<.05

Langer and Roth (1975)

 

80 stud, 36 Ss

Exp:loose bet

Bias

Illusion of contr

F = 10.72

<.001

Gilovich and Douglas (1986)

 

160 students

Exp:rand outc

Bias

Illusion of contr

t = 2.56

<.02

Gilovich and Douglas (1986)

4.Varia

4.1 Availability of plays

 

1002/1257

SOGS

Availability

75%

X2 = 19.39

<.001

Ladouceur et al. (1999b)

4.2 Sensory characteristics

 

29 PG/31 n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Main effect

F = 11.29

<.001

Loba et al. (2001)

 

29 PG/31 n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Game interaction

F = 5.50

<.01

Loba et al. (2001)

 

29 PG//31n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Excitement

F = 9.85

<.001

Loba et al. (2001)

 

29 PG/31 n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Enjoyment

F = 7.69

<.005

Loba et al. (2001)

 

29PG//31 n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Tens-reduction

F = 6.95

<.005

Loba et al. (2001)

 

29 PG/31 n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Easy to stop

F = 4.62

<.05

Loba et al. (2001)

 

29 Pg/31 n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Desire to play

F = 4.86

<.01

Loba et al. (2001)

 

29 PG/31n-PG

SOGS

Sensory features

Notice difference

F = 19.68

<.001

Loba et al. (2001)

 

n-PG SOGS

 

Sensory features

Bothered

F = 11.29

<.001

Loba et al. (2001)

4.3 Schedules of reinforcement

 

Operant model

RF schedule

Intermittent RF

(see text)

Skinner (1953)

3.4 Age of onset

 

2526 calls

SOGS

Onset playing

Before 21 years

X2 = 10.17

.01

Bondolfi et al. (2000)

 

45 normals

SOGS-R

Gambl age

Early

F = 52.57

.000

Volberg et al. (2001)

4.5 Rapid onset

 

44 consec PGs

SOGS/DSM-IV

Latency (years)

Shorter latency

Breen and Zimmerman (2002)

 

44 consec PGs

SOGS/DSM-IV

Latency (years)

Main effect

F = 8.42

<.01

Breen and Zimmerman (2002)

 

44 consec PGs

SOGS/DSM-IV

Latency (years)

Longer latency

t = 2.90

<.01

Breen and Zimmerman (2002)

5. Comorbidity and concurrent symptoms

5.1 Depression

 

60 (30 GA members/30c)

SOGS

GA

Increase

F = 17.43

<.001

Getty et al. (2000)

 

60 (30 GA members /30c)

SOGS

Female

Increase

=8.16

=.006

Getty et al. (2000)

 

69 pat

BDI

Comorbid dis

Increase

t = −3.4

=.0001

Ibanez et al. (2001)WTwTwTT

 

Twin study

DIS

Comorbid depr

Increase

OR = 4.12

Potenza et al. (2005)

 

3426 stud

SOGS

Suic. attempts

Increase

X2 = 60.26

<.001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

 

562 calls

Questionnaire

Suic. attempts

Increase

X2 = 4.19

<.05

Potenza et al. (2001)

5.3 Anxiety

 

69 pat

STAI trait

Concurrsy

Increase

t = 2.0

=.05

Ibanez et al. (2001)

  

STAI state

  

t = 3.0

=.004

 

5.4 OCD

 

89(41M/48F)

SOGS/YBOCS

Obessions

Increase

t = 3.45

<.001

Frost et al. (2001)

 

89(41M/48F)

SOGS/YBOCS/

Compulsions

Increase

t = 2.77

<.01

Frost et al. (2001)

 

89 (36PG)

SOGS

Hoarding

More

t = 2.71

<.01

Frost et al. (2001)

 

89 (36PG)

SOGS

Urge to play

More

t = 36.16

<.001

Frost et al. (2001)

 

89 (36PG)

SOGS

Avoidance

More

t = 4.30

<.001

Frost et al. (2001)

 

89 (36PG)

SOGS

Impulsivity/IES

More

t = 3.66

<.005

Frost et al. (2001)

5.5 Alcohol

 

220 MMTP

SOGS

Alcoholism

More

rxy = .14

.02

Feigelman et al. (1995)

 

220 MMTP

SOGS

Use of alc last month

More

rxy = .14

.02

Feigelman et al. (1995)

 

3426 stud

SOGS

Alcohol

Increase

F = 24.71

<.0001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

 

Twin study

DIS

Alcohol

Increase

Slutske et al. (2000)

5.6 Other drugs

Heroin

220 MMTP

SOGS

Daily use

More

rxy = .14

.02

Feigelman et al. (1995)

Drugs

702 (15-18)

SOGS-RA

Drugs

Increase

X2 = 46.2

<.001

Winters et al. (1993)

Drugs

3426 stud

SOGS

Drugs

Increase

F = 29.09

<.0001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

Drugs

562 calls

Questionnaire

Drugs

Increase

X2 = 5.66

<.02

Potenza et al. (2001)

Drug problem

220 MMTP

SOGS

Drug problem last year

More

rxy = .12

.04

Feigelman et al. (1995)

Cigarettes

3426 stud

SOGS

Cigarettes

Increase

F = 20.42

<.0001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

5.7 Personality disorders

 

7,869M(twinp)

DSM-III-R/DIS

ASPD

Increase

OR = 6.4

 

Slutske et al. (2001)

 

7,869M(twinp)

DSM III-R/DIS

CD

Increase

OR = 3.6

 

Slutske et al. (2001)

 

7,869M(twinp)

DSM-III-R/DIS

AAB

Increase

OR = 6.1

 

Slutske et al. (2001)

 

69 pat

DSM-III-R

Concurrsy

Increase

t = −3.0

=.004

Ibanez et al. (2001)

 

69 pat

DSM-III-R

Comorbid dis

Increase

rxy = .40

<.001

Ibanez et al. (2001)

6. Personality symptoms and characteristics

6.1 Coping styles

 

30GAexp/30c

SOGS

Main eff gr var

Coping styles

F = 8.35

<.001

Getty et al. (2000)

 

30GAexp/30c

SOGS

Suppressive

High

F = 13.81

<.001

Getty et al. (2000)

 

30GAexp/30c

SOGS

Reactive

High

F = 16.22

<.001

Getty et al. (2000)

 

30GAexp/30c

SOGS

Reflect cop style

Low

F = 7.81

<.007

Getty et al. (2009)

6.2 Impulsivity

 

754 adol boys

SOGS/EIS/TRIS

Impulsivity

Increase EIS

X2 = 30.58

<.01

Vitaro et al. (1997)

 

754 adol boys

SOGS/EIS/TRIS

Impulsivity

Increase TRIS

X2 = 27.95

<.01

Vitaro et al. (1997)

6.4 Sensation seeking

 

27 PG/ 27 match

SSS

Thrill

Increase

WMP = −76

<.03

Blanco et al. (1996)

 

27 PG/ 27 match

SSS

Disinhib

Increase

WMP = −88

<.01

Blanco et al. (1996)

6.5 Delinquency, criminality and illegal activity

 

702 (15–18)

SOGS-RA

Delinquency

Increase

X2 = 47.3

<.001

Winters et al. (1993a, b)

 

220 MMTP

SOGS

Delinquency

More

rxy = .25

.001

Feigelman et al. (1995)

 

220 MMTP

SOGS

Criminality

More

rxy = .16

.01

Feigelman et al. (1995)

 

3426 stud

SOGS/SRDS

Delinquency

Increase

F = 176.18

<0001

Ladouceur et al. (1999a)

 

562 calls

Questionnaire

Delinquency

Increase

X2 = 9.53

<.002

Potenza et al. (2001)

 

313

DSM-III-R

Incarceration

Increase

t = 16.53

<.001

Hall et al. (2000) see ref

 

313

DSM-III-R

Illegal activity

Increase

t = 7.83

.02

Hall et al. (2000)

Note: Some references to weak/inconclusive studies are not included in table, only in text

PG = Pathological Gambling

SOGS = South Oaks Gambling Screen

DIS = Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Pathological Gambling

DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

SSS = Sensation Seeking Scale

rxy = correlation, t-test, OR = odds ratio, FA = Anova, FR = Regression

To give a summary of results and provide an impression about how scarce empirical studies are, Table 2 is compiled as a summary, detailing the amount of such studies that have been performed on each risk factor. Conclusions about the well-established and probable or potential risk factors are also indicated within the Table.
Table 2

Risk factors for PG—summary of results

Domain

Risk factor

No. studies

Levela

 

1. Demographics

1.1 Age

Low age

4

1

 

1.2 Gender

Male

4

1

 

1.3 Education

Low education

1

 

3

1.4 Marital status

Married/unmarried

2

  

1.5 Income

Low income

2

  

1.6 Employment

Unemployed

2

 

2

1.7 Social welfare status

On social welfare

1

 

2

1.8 Residence

Large city

1

 

2

1.9 Acad achievement

Low achievement

2

 

2

1.10 Immigrant, ethnic grp

Immigrant, foreign

3

 

2

2. Physiological/biological fact

2.1 Heart rate and arousal

Increased during play

2

 

2

2.2 Transmittor activity

Increased

3

 

2

2.3 Genetic studies

DA rec increased

4

 

2

3. Cognitive distortions

3.1 Erroneous perceptions

Bias

4

 

2

3.2 Illusion of control

Illusion

9

1

 

4. Varia

4.1 Availability of plays

High

3

1

 

4.2 Sensory characteristics

Yes

7

1

 

4.3 Schedules of reinforcement

Type

1

 

4.4 Age of onset

Early

2

 

2

4.6 Rapid onset

Short latency

1

 

2

5. Comorbidity & concurrent symptoms

5.1 Depression

Yes

3

 

2

5.3 Anxiety

Yes

1

 

2

5.4 OCD

Yes

6

1

 

5.5 Alcohol

Yes

3

1

 

5.6 Other drugs

Yes

5

1

 

5.7 Personality disorders

Yes

2

 

2

6. Personality symptoms and characteristics

6.1 Coping styles

Low

1

 

2

6.2 Impulsivity

High

1

 

2

6.3 Hyperactivity (ADHD)

0

0

  

6.4 Sensation seeking

High

2

 

2

6.5 Delinquency & illegal acts

Yes

5

1

 

a(1) well-established risk factor for PG (>2 studies); (2) probable risk factor for PG (1–2 studies); (3) not a risk factor. There are also some weaker studies mentioned in the text but not in Table 1

Demographics

Demographic variables have often been mentioned as possible risk factors for PG but they have seldom been empirically tested.

Age

Ladouceur et al. (1999a) studied 3426 high school students in a correlational design using the SOGS (South Oaks Gambling Screen) (Lesieur and Blume 1987) and its relation to grades in school. A univariate ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) on SOGS scores and grade level showed a statistically significant main effect (F = 7.73, p < .001). Furthermore, a Sheffé test showed higher SOGS scores for younger students (8 grade compared to 10–11th grade; p < .05).

Bondolfi et al. (2000) used the SOGS to analyze different risk factors in a correlational designed telephone interview prevalence study (n = 2526) on gambling in Italy. The results showed that being younger than 29 years of age was a significant risk factor (X 2 = 17.1, p = .01).

Volberg et al. (2001) performed a large prevalence study using the SOGS-R and DSM-IV (APA 2000) in a Swedish sample (n = 8845). Life-time problem and pathological gamblers were compared to non-problem gamblers on different variables. Age (younger than 25) was shown to be a significant risk factor (OR = 2.51, p = .000).

These studies suggest that younger age (i.e. younger than 29 years old appears to be a significant risk factor for PG.

Gender

In a study conducted by Winters et al. (1993b), subjects aged 15–18 years (n = 702) were interviewed using the SOGS-RA (Winters et al. 1993a) on a targeted telephone list (not a random digit-dial procedure). A comparison of answers on item #1 of SOGS-RA, showed that boys had higher gambling activity than girls (t = 6.46, p < .001). The researchers compared higher degrees of problem gambling (pathological gambling and at risk gambling) to different variables. There was no comparison made between gender and problematic gambling and therefore the reference is not included in the table on gender.

In a study by Ladouceur et al. (1999a) of 3426 high school students, a univariate ANOVA on SOGS scores and male gender showed a statistically significant main effect (X 2 = 39.52, p < .001).

Feigelman et al. (1995) investigated pathological gambling in 220 methadone patients in two methadone maintenance treatment programs (MMTP), finding a high rate of gambling problems in this treatment population. Pathological and problem gambling was assessed using SOGS and, based on earlier results, other important factors were assessed. A significant relationship between problem gambling and male gender was found (r xy = 0.12, p = .04).

Male gender was also shown to be a risk factor (X 2 = 8.94, p = .01) in a telephone interview prevalence study of gambling conducted by Bondolfi et al. (2000) in Italy. This was also the case in the Volberg et al. (2001) study where male gender was again shown to be a risk factor for gambling problems (OR = 3.71, p = .000).

In four of the five gender studies where gender has been evaluated in relation to problem gambling, clear support for the notion that male gender is a significant risk factor for PG has been demonstrated. There are indications (for instance in Wardman et al. 2001) that females are at higher risk than men in aboriginals but this finding has not been replicated.

Education

In the Volberg et al. (2001) study, education level did not significantly predict risk for gambling problems. Further study on how education levels impact PG is needed.

Marital Status

In the study by Bondolfi et al. (2000), marital status (married) was shown to be a risk factor (X 2 = 7.52, p = .02). Conversely, the Volberg et al. (2001) study showed that being single was a risk factor for gambling problems (X 2 = 121.67, p = .000).

Only two studies have been directed towards marital status empirically, and with contradicting results, conclusions are not possible at this time.

Income

In the study by Bondolfi et al. (2000), higher income was shown to be a risk factor (X = 10.88, p = .01) for gambling problems. The helpline study by Potenza et al. (2001) reported financial problems as a significant risk factor (X = 4.21, p < .04).

Only two studies have examined income and financial problems empirically, and they have produced contradictory results.

Employment

In the study by Feigelman et al. (1995), there was a significant relationship between unemployment status within the last year and problem gambling (r xy = −0.15, p = .02).

Hall et al. (2000) studied pathological gambling among 313 cocaine-dependent outpatients. They used the DIS (Diagnostic Interview Schedule) to reach a DSM-III-R diagnosis of PG, and the ASI (Addiction Severety Index) to obtain sociodemographic and other information. Of the 313 patients, 25 (8.0%) fulfilled full DSM-III-R criteria for PG. There was a significant relationship between unemployment status and PG (t = 11.09, p < .001).

Only two studies have been directed towards employment empirically and thus, we consider employment status as a probable risk factor for PG.

Social Welfare Status

In the Volberg et al. (2001) study, being on social welfare was shown to be a significant risk factor for gambling problems (z = 2.41, p = .05).

Only one study has been directed towards social welfare status empirically and thus, we consider social welfare status as a probable risk factor for PG.

Residence

In the Volberg et al. (2001) study, living in a large city was shown to be a risk factor for gambling problems (z = 4.00, p < .01).

Only one study has been directed towards residence empirically, thus, we consider residence as a probable risk factor for PG.

Academic Achievement

In the study by Ladouceur et al. (1999a), an ANOVA performed on a five question scale for academic achievement and SOGS scores showed a significant main effect (F = 19.44, p < .001).

In the study by Winters et al. (1993b), average-to-below average school grades were related to problematic gambling (X 2 = 21.7, p < .001).

Only two studies have been directed towards academic achievement empirically. We consider academic achievement as a probable risk factor for PG.

Immigrants and Ethnic Groups

In the helpline study by Potenza et al. (2001), African-American ethnicity was identified as a significant risk factor (X 2 = 3.87, p < .05). In the Welte et al. study (2004), being African-American, Hispanic, or Asian were all risk factors for problematic gambling (IRR 1.96–4.71; p < .01). In the Volberg et al. (2001) study, being born outside the country was shown to be a risk factor for gambling problems (OR = 2.08, p = .01).

Because three studies have been directed towards immigrants and ethnic groups empirically, (but only two have focused on ethnicity), we consider immigration and ethnic groups as probable risk factors for PG.

Physiological and Biological Factors

Heart Rate and Arousal

One study used a laboratory setting with an artificial casino and compared it to a real casino situation. A group of 12 experienced gamblers showed significantly higher heart rate (HR) increases (p < .0001) in the real casino condition. The correlation between the amount of money wagered and HR increase was significant (r xy = .741, p < .0005, one-tailed). The other group consisted of students (n = 12) who did not differ from the experienced gamblers in their reactions to the artificial casino (Anderson and Brown 1984).

A second empirical study was performed by Leary and Dickerson (1985) who followed high- and low (n = 22/22) frequency players by assessing heart rate during playing. Playing was significantly associated with increases in arousal in both groups but was significantly more so by high-frequency players (p < .05).

Cocco et al. (1995) hypothesized that poker machine gamblers and horse race gamblers should differ in their state of arousal. Of the 12 problem poker machine players and 13 horse race gamblers assessed, the researchers were able to show that poker machine gamblers showed higher arousal avoidance and higher trait anxiety as compared to horse race gamblers (both p < .05). No attempt was made to predict pathological gambling.

Only two studies have been directed towards heart rate and arousal empirically. Consequently, we consider heart rate and arousal as a probable risk factor for PG.

Griffiths (1995) reviewed the literature on this field (see Griffiths 1995, Table 1.4, p. 18) and it seems the correlation of increased heart rate to increased playing among gamblers compared to non-gamblers is weak. Empirical support for such a notion seems too weak to justify further reporting.

Transmitter Activity

Bergh et al. (1997) studied monoamines and their metabolites in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from 10 PGs and 7 controls. There was a significant difference between the two groups (unpaired t tests): the experimental group showing a decrease in dopamine (DA) and an increase in 3,4–dihydroxyphenanylacetic acid (DOPAC) as well as in homovanillic acid (HVA). The ratio DOPAC/DA and HVA/DA was significantly different as well. Noradrenaline (NA) and its metabolite MHPG were increased, whereas 5-HT and 5-HIAA were unchanged.

Roy et al. (1988) investigated CSF levels of 3–methoxy-4-hydroxyphenolglycol (MHPG) and urinary outputs of noradrenaline (NA), in a group of PG (n = 24), and compared them to controls (n = 20). They showed that gamblers had significantly lower plasma MHPG levels than controls (t = 2.9, p < .007), and significantly greater urinary outputs of NA (F = 11.6, p < .0003). The results are discussed in a theoretical framework.

Blanco et al. (1996) studied platelet MAO activity on 27 male PGs compared to matched controls using the Jackman’s procedure. They found that MAO activity was lower in the PGs than in controls (p < .01, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test).

Three studies have been performed to examine transmitter activity in relation to PG. Several transmitters have been studied and due to the complex interactions between these neurotransmitters, the results are difficult to interpret.

Genetic Studies

The dopamine D2A1 allele has been connected to substance abuse. Comings et al. (1996) studied the presence of the dopamine (DA) D2 receptor in a PG sample without drug addiction, and a control sample. The group with PG they showed a significantly different occurrence of D2A1 allele (OR = 5.03).

Ibáñez et al. (2001) studied 69 consecutive PGs applying for treatment for their gambling. They used the SOGS to diagnosis PG as well as the full DSM-IV (APA 2000) clinical interview (both Axis I and II). They assessed allele distribution of the dopamine receptor gene (DRD2) polymorphism. The results showed that DRD2 polymorphism was different in gamblers with and without psychiatric comorbidity (X 2 = 13.9, p = .003) and the allele DRD2 C4 allele was present in 42% with comorbid psychiatric disorders compared to 5% without (X 2 = 7.0, p = .008).

Other studies assessed D2, D4 and D1 as well as serotonin and norepinephrine genes as possible risk factors for PG (Comings et al. 2001). A family study also reported that the D1 receptor gene is associated with PG (da Silva Lobo et al. 2007). We consider genetic studies as probable instruments for assessment of PG risk factors.

Cognitive Distortions

The literature reports a range of gambling-related cognitive psychopathology (Toneatto 1999). For example, magnification of gambling skill results in the gambler having an exaggerated self-confidence and ignoring the severity of losses. Superstitious beliefs are characterized by the thought that the gambler has a reliable means of manipulating outcome in his or her favour. Subcategories are talismanic superstitions that a certain object increases winning probability, behavioural superstitions that some rituals can increase winning, and cognitive superstitions that certain mental states can influence winning. The gambler’s fallacy means that a series of losses is expected to be compensated for by chasing and therefore becomes the means by which the gambler recovers losses.

Erroneous Perception or Biased Evaluations

Gilovich (1983) investigated factors leading to continued gambling behavior in spite of loosing more than winning. In one experiment he investigated how much time the subjects (29 students) used in their explanations for losses versus wins. It appeared that they used more time to discuss losses than for wins (t = 2.33, p < .05). In a second experiment, 64 students reported that their memories from the previous week correctly reported 47% of the losses but only 27% of wins (t = 2.33, p < .05).

Savoie and Ladouceur (1995) studied erroneous perceptions in two studies. The question examined was if it is possible to modify the erroneous perceptions through exact information about the probability of negative gains on gambling. The study aimed to revise the erroneous concepts among the participants and to eventually modify their playing customs.

Savoie and Ladouceur’s (1995) first study involved 100 subjects regularly participating in a lottery (53M/47F) and 100 (42M/58F) participating only occasionally. A short interview asked questions regarding their superstitious habits and preferences about lottery, choosing numbers, etc. The probability of winning was estimated as higher amongst the regular players than the occasional players (X 2 = 6.94, p < .01). The experimental group differed from the control group in that they believed that their strategies of choosing their numbers increased their chances to win (X 2 = 13.66, p < .01).

In their second study, 44 regular lottery players were asked about playing habits, concepts about lotteries, participation frequency, strategies involved in choosing numbers, degree of confidence, irregular preferences, and gains from the lottery. Participants were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups (n = 22/22). They were asked to compare the preciseness of their concepts with the actual result probabilities. A month later, they received the same questionnaire again. The results showed that the regular players had more erroneous perceptions than the control. The experimental group had become less confident to win (F = 7.38, p < .025), while the control group had reduced their playing activity during the time (t = 3.2, p < .025).

Illusion of Control

“Illusion of control” means an expectancy of a personal success probability inappropriately higher than the objective probability would warrant. It is based on the idea that factors from skill situations introduced into chance situations cause individuals to feel inappropriately confident. A series of six experiments examined the effects of competition, choice, familiarity, and active involvement on illusion of control (Langer 1975). In these experiments, a variety of factors were manipulated: bias (confidence/shyness) (t = 5.46, p < .005); choice (t = 4.33 p < .005); familiarity (t = 5.46, p < .005); involvement (F = 7.33, p < .01). Subjects did not distinguish chance from skill-determined events. The subjects acted as if they could control outcomes and they gave up the opportunity to exert real control.

In a second study, Langer and Roth (1975) performed an experiment to examine the development of illusion of control. They investigated attributions in a purely chance task (predicting coin tosses), where the task had a descending, ascending, or random sequence of outcomes. Early successes did induce a skill orientation towards the task (F = 4.20, <.05). The subjects with a descending condition rated themselves as significantly better at predicting outcomes than the other two conditions. They also selectively remembered past successes and expected more future successes.

Gilovich and Douglas (1986) also studied the development of illusion of control. They showed that evaluations of randomly determined gambling outcomes were biased (F = 10.72, p < .001). The losers appeared to use manipulated fluke events to explain away the outcome, whereas winners discounted their significance. In a second experiment, the outcomes were shown to be biased towards randomly determined gambling outcomes (t = 2.56, p < .02). Subjects were induced to perceive an “illusion of control” and the outcome affected those who had lost the first bet but had no effect on those who had won. In the no-control condition, the responses were more symmetric to the fluke manipulations by winners and losers.

There is strong evidence that illusion of control is a phenomenon that could interact with the development of PG. Nine experiments have been performed on normal subjects (students and company employers).

Varia

Availability of Plays

Countries with high level of gambling availability have among the highest prevalence rates of pathological gambling. Availability of gambling is correlated with prevalence of pathological gambling (Campell and Lester 1999; Walker 1992).

Ladouceur et al. (1999b) directly tested the effect of increased availability of gambling activities and the rate of pathological gambling in the community by conducting two prevalence studies separated by a 7-year period. The second study conducted after more gambling venues were available showed a 75% increase in the number of pathological gamblers.

Sensory Characteristics

Loba et al. (2001) studied the effect of sensory manipulations (fast speed/sound, slow speed/no sound, counter present), to examine subjective self-reported differences in reaction amongst gamblers. They used video lottery terminals (VLT), a “continuous” form of gambling, where time between wager and payout is short. Subjects included 60 (22F/38M) regular (playing at least twice a month) VLT players, recruited via advertisements. They used the SOGS to assess PG severity and used a survey of subjective reactions to VLT manipulations. The experimental condition was either a video poker game or a 20 min spinning reels game. The game versions had varied sensory characteristics (i.e. slow/no sound, fast/sound, control, counter present). The results showed that non-PG subjects were bothered by fast speed and sound, while PG subjects were bothered by slow speed and no sound. There was a significant main effect of sensory features (F = 11.29, p < .001) and a sensory feature by game interaction (F = 5.50, p < .01). The sensory features gave significant results for the following subjective variables: excitement (F = 9.85, p < .001), enjoyment (F = 7.69, p < .005), tension-reduction (F = 6.95, p < .005), easy to stop (F = 4.62, p < .05), desire to play again (F = 4.86, p < .01), notice difference (F = 19.68, p < .001), and bothered (F = 11.29, p < .001). Decreased speed and turning off the sound decreased ratings of enjoyment, excitement, and tension reduction for PG subjects compared to non-PG subjects. The study supports Griffiths (1993) notion that sensory characteristics are important in the development of PG.

This study (Loba et al. 2001) presented very robust data on seven important subjective variables. The tentative conclusion is that several sensory characteristics may play an important role in the development of PG.

Schedules of Reinforcement

In some early work, Skinner (1953, 1969) defined the schedule of reinforcement as a simple temporal order of response and consequence. The consequence, if positive, could work as a reward for the behaviour or response emitted. If negative, it could have a punishing effect. A continuous reinforcement (reward in each trial) is easy to manipulate. Withdrawing the reinforcer will cause the behaviour to eventually cease (extinguish). An intermittent reinforcement/reward, however, is more resistant against extinction. A fixed ratio (FR10, every tenth occasion), or a variable interval (VI 1 hr, every hour), has a stronger effect, and is less amenable to extinction. A random reinforcement is the strongest conditioning, which is hardest to extinguish. Therefore, the payout interval, in games of chance may be important in the development of PG.

Early wins may induce a skill orientation (Gilovitch 1983) and reinforce the need to try again, even if the contingency schedule is rather intermittent. In the same manner, a big win in gambling can also be analyzed with the operant model. The concept of the near miss has been assessed by Griffiths (1991) and is also in accordance with the operant principles.

Skinner himself did not rely on statistical probability testing, rather he designed straightforward models, where the effect was easily visible and beyond doubt. Therefore, it is unsuitable to add statistical tests to support the importance of the operant conditioning model. The results reported are clearly clinically significant.

There is a vast body of research illustrating the usefulness and importance of the operant model. This model can improve the understanding of the mechanisms of development of PG.

Age of Onset

In a study by Bondolfi et al. (2000), age of onset (before age 21) was shown to be a significant risk factor for PG (X 2 = 10.17, p = .01).

In the Volberg et al. (2001) study, age of onset was shown to be a risk factor for gambling problems (19.9 years for non-gambling problems and 15.6 years for problem gambling) (F = 52.57, p = .000).

Only two studies examined age of onset, and therefore, we consider age of onset as a probable PG risk factor.

Rapid Onset

Breen and Zimmerman (2002) studied the latency of PG-onset (from age of regular involvement, to PG criteria; in years) in 44 consecutive PG subjects. The primary form of gambling at PG-onset was the only variable retained in a stepwise multiple regression analysis (F = 8.42, p < .01). The traditional gamblers had a longer latency period than machine gamblers (3.58 vs 1.08 years; t = 2.90, p < .01).

Only one study has been performed on rapid onset, thus, we consider rapid onset as a probable PG risk factor.

Comorbidity and Concurrent Symptoms

Depression

In a study by Getty et al. (2000), a difference in depression between experimental (mean 17.73) and control (mean 8.80) groups (F = 17.43, p < .001) was noted. In the study by Ibáñez et al. (2001), higher rates of depression, as examined by the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck and Steer 1993), were found in the more serious pathological gamblers (t = 3.4, p = .0001).

A study by Potenza et al. (2005) found that in males with PG, 34% of the genetic variance for major depressive disorder (MDD) contributed to PG and vice versa.

With three studies performed on depression, we consider depression as a probable PG risk factor.

Anxiety

In the study by Ibáñez et al. (2001), trait anxiety (STAIT) was significantly higher amongst the more severe pathological gamblers (t = 2.0, =.05).

With only one study performed on anxiety, we consider anxiety as a probable PG risk factor.

OCD

Frost et al. (2001) studied the relationship between OCD symptoms and PG in 89 subjects (48F/41M). PG was diagnosed through use of the SOGS and OCD symptoms through the YBOCS (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) (Goodman et al. 1989a, b) as well as a hoarding scale. Thirty-six participants met criteria for PG. The results showed higher intensity of symptoms for the PG group than for the rest, particularly for obsessions (t = 3.45, p < .001), compulsions (t = 2.77, p < .01), hoarding (t = 2.71, p < .01), urge to gamble (t = 36–16, p < .001), avoidance (t = 4.30, p < .001), and impulsivity (IES; t = 3.66, p < .005).

With six areas covered (by one paper) on the relationship of OCD to PG, we consider OCD as a probable risk factor for PG. This connection also supports the close relationship between obsessions and obsessive gambling.

Alcohol Abuse

In the study by Feigelman et al. (1995), both a lifetime alcohol problem (r xy = 0.14, p = .02) and use of alcohol within the last month (r xy = 0.14, p = .02) were significantly related to problem gambling.

In the Ladouceur et al. (1999a) study, statistical analyses showed a relationship between SOGS scores and alcohol use (F = 24.71, p < .0001).

In a twin study of genetics, between 12% and 20% of the genetic variation in the risk for PG was accounted for by the risk for alcohol dependence (Slutske et al. 2000).

We consider alcoholism as a probable PG risk factor.

Other Drugs

In the study by Feigelman et al. (1995), there was a significant relationship between problem gambling, having a major drug problem within the last year (r xy = 0.12, p = .04), and frequency of heroin use (r xy = 0.14, p = .02).

The study mentioned above (Ladouceur et al. 1999a) also showed a relationship between SOGS scores and cigarette smoking (F = 20.42, p < .0001). In the study by Winters et al. (1993b), frequent drug use was significantly connected to more problem gambling (X 2 = 46.2, p < .001). The study mentioned above (Ladouceur et al. 1999a) also showed a relation between SOGS and drug use (F = 29.09, p < .0001). The helpline study by Potenza et al. (2001) reported that drug use was identified as a significant risk factor (X = 5.66, p < .02).

Because the five studies were examining different drugs, we consider drug abuse a probable PG risk factor.

Personality Disorders

In a study by Slutske et al. (2001), 7,869 men from 4,497 twin pairs (Vietnam Era Twin Registry) were diagnosed with PG using the DSM-III-R (APA 1987), with whilst using the DIS for antisocial behavior disorders. Telephone interviews were conducted to ascertain prevalence rates of PG and antisocial behavior disorders. The results showed elevated prevalence rates of antisocial personality disorder amongst individuals with a history of PG (OR = 6.4).

In a study by Ibáñez et al. (2001), there were more personality disorders in the more severe cases of PG subjects (t = 3.0, p = .004).

With only two studies performed on personality disorders, we consider personality disorder as a probable PG risk factor.

Personality Symptoms and Characteristics

Coping Styles

Getty et al. (2000) studied a group of members of Gamblers Anonymous (n = 30) compared to a matched control group (n = 30). The PG diagnosis was made using the SOGS. The study used the Problem-Focused Styles of Coping Inventory (PF-SOC). All types of coping styles, suppressive, reactive and reflective were significantly different between the experimental and control group with the experimental group being higher on suppressive (F = 13.81, p < .001) and reactive (F = 16.22, p < .001) while lower on reflective coping styles (F = 7.81, p < .007).

With only one study performed on maladaptive coping, we consider maladaptive coping as a probable PG risk factor.

Impulsivity

Vitaro et al. (1997) studied impulsivity among 754 adolescent boys using the Eysenck Impulsiveness Scale (EIS). PG severity was assessed with the SOGS. There was a clear relationship between greater PG severity and high rates of impulsivity (X = 30.58, p < .01).

With only one study performed on impulsivity, we consider impulsivity as a probable PG risk factor.

Hyperactivity (ADHD)

Carlton and Manowicz (1994) found that adult pathological gamblers had a higher than average ate of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In a retrospective study and subsequent EEG assessments of pathological gamblers, they found that gamblers had patterns of activation similar to children with ADHD. The study does not include significance evaluations and is therefore not mentioned in the table.

Sensation Seeking

Blanco et al. (1996) investigated 27 PG and 27 matched control subjects found significant differences between the two groups (WMP = Wilcoxon Mathed Pairs) on the Sensation Seeking Scales (subscale Thrill and Adventure seeking, both p < .03; and Disinhibition, p < .01).

With only one study performed on sensation seeking, we consider sensation seeking as a probable PG risk factor.

Delinquency, Criminal and Illegal Activity

In the study by Winters et al. (1993b), delinquency status, illegal activity, or arrest were related to problem gambling (X = 47.3, p < .001).

In the study by Feigelman et al. (1995), there was a significant relationship between problem gambling and criminality in general (r xy = 0.25, p = .001) as well as in number of arrests for criminal offenses (r xy = 0.16, p = .01).

The study conducted by Ladouceur et al. (1999a) also showed a relationship between SOGS scores and delinquency as measured by the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (F = 176.18, p < .0001).

In the helpline study by Potenza et al. (2001), delinquency was identified as a significant risk factor (X = 9.53, p < .002).

In the study by Hall et al. (2000), there was a clear relation between PG and duration of incarceration (t = 16.53, p < .001) and illegal activity (t = 7.83, p = .02).

With five studies performed on delinquency/illegal activity, we consider maladaptive delinquency/illegal activity as a well-established PG risk factor.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to identify the existing empirical studies regarding the risk factors for the development and maintenance of pathological gambling. This is especially important for the implementation of prevention and treatment for PG. A study by Volberg et al. (1996) has illustrated the importance of obtaining such knowledge in order to enable, correct, and implement effective interventions.

We reviewed studies with sound experimental designs. Although both epidemiological and treatment studies could contribute to this knowledge, we choose not to include them for two reasons: (1) there are already several reviews published on epidemiological and treatment studies; and (2) the review task would be too heavy to take in one round.

The critical review of 35 different factors or dimensions unfolded very few “well-established risk factors for PG” (9 factors), where the conclusions could be supported by more than two studies. These were demographic variables (age, gender), cognitive distortions (erroneous perceptions, illusion of control), sensory characteristics, schedules of reinforcement, and comorbid states (OCD, drug abuse), and delinquency/illegal acts. Many categories (22) are considered to constitute probable risk factors (1–2 supporting studies).

The relationship between PG and some probable factors of importance (among them physiological and biological factors) are rather unclear at this time.

The different groups show some documentation for all groups of variables (see Table 2) as implicated in the development of PG, although not enough to give clear support for more than nine variables. A strong group of variables consists of demographics, where age and gender are clear risk factors in a number of studies.

Physiological and genetic studies give indications that these types of variables are related to PG in an important way. Detailed interpretation of the results in is difficult at this time. However, a variety of neurotransmitters may still be probable markers for PG risk factors.

The cognitive distortions studied amongst others by Gilovitch (1983) and Langer (1975) show a clear relationship between cognitive factors and PG, at least in the analogue setting. Only a few studies (i.e., Savoie and Ladouceur 1995), however, examined these variables in the natural environment of real gambling.

The main conclusion from the present critical review is, that very little is known with regard to risk factors for the development and maintenance of PG. This is the case both for the existence of risk factors, their strength and importance, as well as their mechanisms of action.

Consequently, there is a great need for empirical research on the development and maintenance of PG. This research should be in concert with epidemiological and prospective longitudinal studies to elucidate the prevalence (and change) of PG in normal populations, in risk populations, and in individuals with PG. Further actions should be directed towards interventions (prevention, treatment), and experimental studies should be directed towards mechanisms of action of risk factors.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a Career Development Award (JEG-K23 MH069754-01A1).

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd edition, revised. (DSM-III-R). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4rd edition, text revision. (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, G., & Brown, R. J. F. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling, sensation-seeking and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 401–410.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Manual for the beck depression inventory. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Bergh, C., Eklund, T., Sodersten, P., & Nordin, C. (1997). Altered dopamine function in pathological gambling. Psychological Medicine, 27, 473–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanco, C., Orensanz-Munor, L., Blanco-Jerez, C., & Sáiz-Ruiz, J. (1996). Pathological gambling and platelet MAO activity: A psychobiological study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 119–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bondolfi, G., Osiek, C., & Ferrero, F. (2000). Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in Switzerland. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 101, 473–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 31–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, R. J. F. (1986). Arousal and sensation-seeking components in the general explanation of gambling and gambling addictions. The International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 1001–1016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, F., & Lester, D. (1999). The impact of gambling opportunities on compulsive gambling. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 126–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlton, P. L., & Manowicz, P. (1994). Factors determining the severity of pathological gamblers in males. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cocco, N., Sharpe, L., & Blaszcynski, A. P. (1995). Differences in preferred level of arousal in two subgroups of problem gamblers. A preliminary report. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Comings, D. E., Rosenthal, R. J., Lesieur, H. R., Rugle, L. J., Muhleman, D., Chiu, C., Dietz, G., & Gade, R. (1996). A study of the dopamine D2 receptor gene in pathological gambling. Pharmacogenetics, 6, 223–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comings, D. E., Gade-Andavolu, R., Gonzalez, N., Wu, S., Muhleman, D., Chen, C., Koh, P., Farwell, K., Blake H, Dietz, G., MacMurray, J. P., Lesieur, H. R., Rugle, L. J., & Rosenthal, R. J. (2001). The additive effect of neurotransmitter genes in pathological gambling. Clinical Genetics, 60(2), 107–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. da Silva Lobo, D. S., Vallada, H. P., Knight, J., Martins, S. S., Tavares, H., Gentil, V., & Kennedy, J. L. (2007). Dopamine genes and pathological gambling in discordant sib-pairs. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(4), 421–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickson, L. M., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2002). The prevention of gambling problems in youth: a conceptual framework. Journal of Gambling studies, 18, 97–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feigelman, W., Kleinman, P. H., Lesieur, H. R, Millman, R. B., & Lesser, M. L. (1995). Pathological gambling among methadone patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 39, 75–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frost, R. O., Meagher, B. M., & Riskind, J. H. (2001). Obsessive-compulsive features in pathological lottery and scratch-ticket gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 5–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Getty, H. A., Watson, J., & Frisch, G. R. (2000). A comparison of depression and styles of coping in male and female GA members and controls. Journal of Gambling studies, 16, 377–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilovich, T. (1983). Biased evaluation and persistence in gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1110–1126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilovich, T., & Douglas, C. (1986). Biased evaluations of randomly-determined gambling outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodman, W. K., Price, L. H., Rasmussen, S. A., Mazure, C., Fleischmann, R. L., Hill, C. L., Heninger, G. R., & Charney, D. S. (1989a). The yale-brown obsessive compulsive scale. I. Development, use, and reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46(11), 1006–1011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodman, W. K., Price, L. H., Rasmussen, S. A., Mazure, C., Delgado, P., Heninger, G. R., & Charney, D. S. (1989b). The yale-brown obsessive compulsive scale. II. Validity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46(11), 1012–1016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Goudriaan, A. E., Oosterlaan, J., de Beurs, E., & Van den Brink, W. (2004). Pathological gambling: a comprehensive review of biobehavioral findings. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(2), 123–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffiths, M. D. (1991). Psychobiology of the near miss in fruit machine gambling. Journal of Psychology, 125, 347–357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffiths, M. (1993). Tolerance in gambling: An objective measure using the psychophysiological analysis of male fruit machine gamblers. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 365–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths, M. (1995). Adolescent gambling. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. L. (2000). Adolescents with gambling problems: From research to treatment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 315–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall, G. W., Carriero, N. J., Takushi, R. Y., Montoya, I. D., Preston, K. L., & Gorelick, D. A. (2000). Pathological gambling among cocaine-dependent outpatients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1127–1133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ibáñez, A., Blanco, C., Donahue, E., Lesieur, H. R., Pérez de Castro, I., Fernández-Piqueras, J., & Sáiz-Ruiz, J. (2001). Psychiatric comorbidity in pathological gamblers seeking treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1733–1735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ladouceur, R., Boudreault, N., Jacques, C., & Vitaro, F. (1999a). Pathological gambling and related problems among adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 8, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., & Girouz, I. (1999b). Prevalence of problem gambling: a replication study 7 years later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 802–804.Google Scholar
  34. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Langer, E. J., & Roth J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 951–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leary, K., & Dickerson, M. (1985). Levels of arousal in high- and low-frequency gamblers. Behavioural Research and Therapy, 23, 635–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Loba, P., Stewart, S. H., Klein, R. M., & Blackburn, J. R. (2001). Manupulations of the features of standard Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) games: Effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 297–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nathan, P. E., & Gorman, J. M. (1998). A guide to treatments that work. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Potenza, M. N., Steinberg, M. A., McLaughlin, S. D., Wu, R., Rounsaville, B. J., & O’Malley, S. S. (2001). Gender-related differences in the characteristics of problem gamblers using a gambling helpline. American Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 1500–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Potenza, M. N., Xian, H., Shah, K., Scherrer, J. F., & Eisen, S. A. (2005). Shared genetic contributions to pathological gambling and major depression in men. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(9), 1015–1021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). Pathological gambling. A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1009–1061.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy, A., Adinoff, B., Roehrich, L., Lamparski, D., Custer, R., Lorenz, V., Barbaccia, M., Guidotti, A., Costa, E., & Linnoila, M. (1988). Pathological gambling: A psychobiological study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 369–373.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Savoie, D., & Ladouceur, R. (1995). Évaluation et modification de conceptions erronées au sujet des. Loteries. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R., Scanlan, K. M., & Cummings, T. N. (1994). Pathological Gambling among adolescents: Massachusetts gambling screen (MAGS). Journal of Gambling Studies, 10, 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaffer, H. J., & Hall, M. N. (1996). Estimating the prevalence of adolescent gambling disorders: A quantitative synthesis and guide toward standard gambling nomenclature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vender Bilt, J. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1369–1376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sharpe, L. (2002). A reformulated cognitive-behavioral model of problem gambling. A biopsychosocial perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  51. Slutske, W. S., Eisen, S. A., True, W. R., Lyons, M. J., Goldberg, J., & Tsuang, M. T. (2000). Common genetic vulnerability for pathological gambling and alcohol dependence in men. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 666–673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slutske, W. S., Eisen, S., Xian, H., True, W. R., Lyons, M. J., Goldberg, J., & Tsuang, M. (2001). A twin study of the association between pathological gambling and antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 297–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spunt, B., Dupont, I., Lesieur, H., Liberty, H. J., & Hunt, D. (1998). Pathological gambling and substance misuse: A review of the literature. Substance Use & Misuse, 33, 2535–2560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 1593–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vitaro, F., Arsenault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (1997). Dispositional predictors of problem gambling in male adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1769–1770.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Volberg, R. A., Dickerson, M. G., Ladouceur, R., & Abbott, M. W. (1996). Prevalence studies and the development of services for problem gamblers and their families. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Volberg, R. A., Abbot, M. W., Rönnberg, S., & Munck, I. M. E. (2001). Prevalence and risks of pathological gambling in Sweden. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 104(4), 250–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walker, R. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  59. Walters, G. D. (2002). Behavior genetic research on gambling and problem gambling: A preliminary meta-analysis of available data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wardman, D., el-Guebaly, N., & Hodgins, D. (2001). Problem and pathological gambling in North American aboriginal populations: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 81–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. C., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors for pathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 323–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R., & Fulkerson, J. (1993a). Toward the development of an adolescent gambling severity scale. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R., & Fulkerson, J. (1993b). Patterns and characteristics of adolescent gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agneta Johansson
    • 1
  • Jon E. Grant
    • 2
  • Suck Won Kim
    • 2
  • Brian L. Odlaug
    • 2
  • K. Gunnar Götestam
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychiatry and Behavioural Medicine, Department of NeuroscienceThe Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations