Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 889–900 | Cite as

Pause for Thought: Response Perseveration and Personality in Gambling

  • Philip J. Corr
  • Stephen J. Thompson
Original Paper

Abstract

In a sample of normal volunteers, response perseveration (RP) on a computerised gambling task, the card perseveration task, was examined under two conditions: No pause (Standard task) and a 5-s pause (Pause task) following feedback from previous bet. Behavioural outcomes comprised number of cards played (and cash won/lost) and latency of response. Individual differences in these outcomes were conceptualised in terms of the reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. Results showed that, on the Standard task only, sub-scales of the Carver and White (J Pers Social Psychol 67:319–333, 1994) Behavioural Approach System scale positively correlated with number of cards played and amount of money lost (indicative of impaired RP), but these associations were abolished with the imposition of a 5-s pause between feedback and the opportunity to make the next bet—this pause also had an overall main effect of improving RP and reducing losses. As related research shows that such a pause normalises the RP deficit seen in pathological gamblers, these findings hold potentially valuable implications for informing practice in the prevention and treatment of pathological gambling, and point to the role played by individual differences in approach motivation.

Keywords

Response perseveration Pause Personality Behavioural Approach System Gambling Internet Reinforcement sensitivity theory 

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell-Sills, L., Liverant, G. I., & Brown, T. A. (2004). Psychometric evaluation of the behavioral inhibition/behavioral activation scales in a large sample of outpatients with anxiety and mood disorders. Psychological Assessment, 16, 244–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carver, C. S., & White, T. (1994). Behavioural inhibition, behavioural activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduction. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 1–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corr, P. J., & McNaughton, N. (2012). Neuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits: A two stage (valuation–motivation) approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 2339–2354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gambling Act. (2005). London: The Stationary Office. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents.
  7. Goudriaan, A. E., Oosterlaan, J., de Beurs, E., & van den Brink, W. (2005). Decision making in pathological gambling: A comparison between pathological gamblers, alcohol dependents, persons with Tourette syndrome and normal controls. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 137–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. McCormick, R. A. (1993). Disinhibition and negative affectivity in substance abusers with and without a gambling problem. Addictive Behaviours, 18, 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2009). Central theories of motivation and emotion. In G. G. Berntson & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.), Handbook of neuroscience for the behavioural sciences (pp. 710–730). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Newman, J. P., & Lorenz, A. (2003). Response modulation and emotion processing: Implications for psychopathy and other dysregulatory psychopathology. In R. J. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 1043–1067). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Newman, J. P., Patterson, C. M., & Kosson, D. S. (1987). Response perseveration in psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 145–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newman, J. P., & Wallace, J. F. (1993). Diverse pathways to deficient self-regulation: Implications for disinhibitory psychopathology in children. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 699–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Patterson, C. M., Kosson, D. S., & Newman, J. P. (1987). Reaction to punishment, reflectivity, and passive avoidance learning in extraverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 565–567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thompson, S., & Corr, P. J. (2013). A feedback-response pause normalises response perseveration deficits in pathological gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11469-013-9440-7.
  17. Vitaro, F., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Impulsivity predicts problem gambling in low SES adolescent males. Addiction, 94, 565–575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., et al. (2011). British gambling prevalence survey 2010. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCity University LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations