Current Psychology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 38–44 | Cite as

Is Endorsing Gambling as an Escape More a Trait or a State?

  • Jeffrey N. Weatherly
  • Thomas V. Petros
  • Harpa L. Jónsdóttir


Research has shown a strong relationship between disordered gambling and the contingency of escape, but it has yet to determine whether endorsing gambling as an escape is more the result of trait or state factors. Two hundred twenty four university students completed a self-report gambling questionnaire designed to measure the contingencies maintaining their gambling behavior. They also completed measures of the five major personality traits, their decision-making competencies, and their gambling history/experience. These indices were then used as predictors of endorsing gambling as an escape in a three-tiered hierarchical linear regression analysis. The personality factors of Agreeableness and the ability to apply decision rules were significant predictors of endorsing gambling as an escape, but personality measures together accounted for only a relatively small amount of variance (i.e., R 2 = .165). The indices of gambling experience were significant predictors of escape scores and also accounted for a substantial amount of variance (R 2 = .399). These results indicate that gambling as an escape is more influenced by state than trait factors, which has implications for both practitioners and researchers.


Disordered gambling Escape Big five personality traits Decision making University students 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Each author declares that s/he has no conflict of interest


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2003). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., Text Revision). American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association. Scholar
  3. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00015.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938–956. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: final report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Center on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  6. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 46–61). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Howell, D. C. (2013). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.Google Scholar
  8. Jansen, B. J., van Duijvenvoorde, A. K., & Huizenga, H. M. (2012). Development of decision making: sequential versus integrative rules. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 87–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Sota, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2010). NEO inventories for the NEO-PI-3, NEO-FFI-3, NEO-PI-R: professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR.Google Scholar
  12. McMillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6, 147–174. doi: 10.1080/14459790600927845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, J. C., Meier, E., & Weatherly, J. N. (2009). Assessing the reliability of the gambling functional assessment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 121–129. doi: 10.1007/s10899-008-9109-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Petry, N. M. (2005). Pathological gambling: etiology, comorbidity, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10894-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rockloff, M. J., Greer, N., Fay, C., & Evans, L. G. (2011). Gambling on electronic gaming machines is an escape from negative self reflection. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, 63–72. doi: 10.1007/s10899-010-9176-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28. doi: 10.1037/h0092976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shead, N. W., Callan, M. J., & Hodgins, D. C. (2008). Probability discounting among gamblers: Differences across problem gambling severity and affect-regulation expectancies. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 536–541. doi:  10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.008.
  18. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the south oaks gambling screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(00)00158-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Stinchfield, R. (2003). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of a measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 180–182. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big five inventory: convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 84–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weatherly, J. N. (2013). The relationship between endorsing gambling as an escape and the display of gambling problems. Journal of Addiction, 2013, 7. doi: 10.1155/2013/156365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weatherly, J. N., Aoyama, K., Terrell, H. K., & Berry, J. C. (2014a). Comparing the Japanese version of the gambling functional assessment – revised to an American sample. Journal of Gambling Issues, 29, 1–20.  10.4309/jgi.2014.29.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weatherly, J. N., & Derenne, A. (2012). Investigating the relationship between the contingencies that maintain gambling and probability discounting of gains and losses. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weatherly, J. N., Dymond, S., Samuels, L., Austin, J. L., & Terrell, H. K. (2014b). Validating the gambling functional assessment – revised in a United Kingdom sample. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30, 335–347. doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9354-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Weatherly, J. N., Miller, J. C., & Terrell, H. K. (2011). Testing the construct validity of the gambling functional assessment – revised. Behavior Modification, 35, 553–569. doi: 10.1177/0145445511416635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Weatherly, J. N., Miller, J. C., Montes, K. S., & Rost, C. (2012). Assessing the reliability of the gambling functional assessment – revised. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 217–223. doi: 10.1007/s10899-011-9275-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Weatherly, J. N., & Miller, K. B. (2013a). Exploring the factors related to endorsing gambling as an escape. International Gambling Studies, 12, 52–64. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2012.703214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weatherly, J. N., & Miller, K. B. (2013b). What variables predict endorsing gambling as an escape on the GFA-R? Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 7, 5–16. Scholar
  29. Weatherly, J. N., Terrell, H. K., & Bogenreif, D. (2013). Testing the internal consistency and construct validity of the gambling functional assessment – revised in a general-population sample. Modern Behavioral Science, 1, 37–48. Scholar
  30. Weiss, S. M., & Loubier, S. L. (2010). Gambling habits of athletes and nonathletes classified as disordered gamblers. The Journal of Psychology, 144, 507–521. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2010.503248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). A qualitative investigation of problem gambling as an escape-based coping strategy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 80, 107–125. doi: 10.1348/147608306X107881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey N. Weatherly
    • 1
  • Thomas V. Petros
    • 1
  • Harpa L. Jónsdóttir
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations