Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 257–267 | Cite as

Gambling Related Cognitions Mediate the Association Between Thinking Style and Problem Gambling Severity

  • Melissa S. Emond
  • Harvey H. C. Marmurek
Original Paper


This study examined the associations among thinking style (rational versus experiential), gambling related cognitions, and problem gambling severity. The participants were 70 female and 41 male regular gamblers who completed the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (Raylu and Oei, Addiction 99:757–769, 2004), the Rational-Experiential Inventory (Pacini and Epstien, J Pers Soc Psychol 76(6):972–987, 1999), and the Problem Gambling Severity Index (Ferris and Wynne, The Canadian problem and gambling index: final report. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa, 2001). Rational thinking was negatively related to problem gambling severity. Gambling related biases increased with problem gambling severity but the strength of those biases was dampened by rational thought. The patterns by which gambling related cognition mediated the association between thinking style and gambling severity suggest that therapeutic interventions may benefit from a consideration of a gambler’s thinking style.


Problem gambling Cognitive distortions Thinking styles 


  1. Abbott, M. W., Volberg, R. A., & Ronnberg, S. (2004). Comparing the New Zealand and Swedish national surveys of gambling and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 237–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–829.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  4. Hoffmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-process perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 105–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Johansson, A., Grant, J. E., Kim, S. W., Odlaug, B. L., & Götestam, K. G. (2009). Risk factors for problematic gambling: A critical literature review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 67–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., & Doucet, C. (2002). Understanding and treating the pathological gambler. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Oei, T., Lin, J., & Raylu, N. (2007). Validation of the Chinese version of the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS-C). Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 972–987.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2004). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): Development, confirmatory factor validation and psychometric properties. Addiction, 99, 757–769.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Bilt, J. V. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1369–1375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Shiloh, S., Salton, E., & Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stone, C. A., & Sobel, M. E. (1990). The robustness of estimates of total indirect effects in covariance structure models estimated by maximum likelihood. Psychometrika, 55, 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M. O., & Hoffman, J. H. (2008). The prevalence of problem gambling among U.S. adolescents and young adults: Results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 119–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Williams, R. J., & Connollt, D. (2006). Does learning about the mathematics of gambling change gambling behavior? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20, 62–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Witteman, C., van den Bercken, J., Claes, L., & Godoy, A. (2009). Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wulfert, E., Blanchard, E. B., Freidenberg, B. M., & Martell, R. S. (2006). Retaining pathological gamblers in cognitive behavior therapy through motivational enhancement. Behavior Modification, 30, 315–340.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations