Is Endorsing Gambling as an Escape More a Trait or a State?
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., R2 = .165). The indices of gambling experience were significant predictors of escape scores and also accounted for a substantial amount of variance (R2 = .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.
KeywordsDisordered gambling Escape Big five personality traits Decision making University students
- American Psychiatric Association. (2003). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., Text Revision). American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC. http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org//book.aspx?bookid=22.
- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association. http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/book.aspx?bookid=556.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: final report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Center on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- 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
- Howell, D. C. (2013). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.Google Scholar