Skip to main content

A Functional Analytic Approach to Understanding Disordered Gambling

Abstract

The Gambling Functional Assessment (GFA) hypothesized four possible maintaining functions of gambling behavior, including social attention, escape from aversive events, access to tangible items, and sensory stimulation. In the years following the GFA’s release, research teams have argued for a revised model of the GFA to account for just two possible functions maintaining gambling behavior (positive and negative reinforcement). In the current study, we examined the extent to which a four-factor gambling functional assessment was possible, sustaining a conceptual and theoretical orientation consistent with a functional behavioral account of gambling. Three hundred and sixty-five recreational and disordered gamblers completed a demographic survey, the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), and the GFA. An exploratory factor analysis was first conducted to determine GFA functional items that loaded onto a common factor, and a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine if a four-factor model, consistent with the functional categories of the GFA, provided a good fit for the obtained data. Outcomes supported the model, suggesting that a four-factor functional account of gambling behavior can be obtained. Differing results obtained by separate research teams, however, suggest that more precise research may be needed in the development and analysis of functional instruments for use with gamblers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018.

  • Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszcznski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00015.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, M. R., & Johnson, T. E. (2007). The gambling functional assessment (GFA): an assessment device for identification of the maintaining variables of pathological gambling. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 1, 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, M. R., Wilson, A. N., & Habib, R. (2016). Neurological evidence of acceptance and commitment therapy effectiveness in college-age gamblers. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 18, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambino, B., & Lesieur, H. (2006). The south oaks gambling screen (SOGS): a rebuttal to critics. Journal of Gambling Issues, 17, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2006.17.10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Common factor analysis versus component analysis: Some well and little known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 33–39.

  • Guercio, J. M., Johnson, T., & Dixon, M. R. (2012). Behavioral treatment for pathological gambling in persons with acquired brain injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-485.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: a review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.

  • Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J., Cowdery, G. E., & Cataldo, M. F. (1990). Experimental analysis and extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. E., Hamer, R. M., & Nora, R. M. (1998). The lie/bet questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers: a follow-up study. Psychological Reports, 83, 1219–1224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. W., Grant, J. E., Adson, D. E., & Young, C. S. (2001). Double-blind naltrexone and placebo comparison study in the treatment of pathological gambling. Biological Psychiatry, 49, 914–921.

  • Ladouceur, R., Lachance, S., & Fournier, P. M. (2009). Is control a viable goal in the treatment of pathological gambling? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.11.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The south oaks gambling screen (the SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. C., Meier, E., Muchlenkamp, J., & Weatherly, J. N. (2009). Testing the construct validity of Dixon and Johnson’s (2007) Gambling Functional Assessment. Behavior Modification, 33, 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445508320927.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, H. J., & Kidman, R. (Eds.). (2003). Shifting perspectives on gambling and addiction. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021267028254.

  • Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the south oaks gambling screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(00)00158-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchfield, R., & Winters, K. C. (2001). Outcome of Minnesota’s gambling treatment programs. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012268322509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherly, J. N., Aoyama, K., Terrell, H. K., & Berry, J. C. (2014). Comparing the Japanese version of the Gambling Functional Assessment–Revised to an American sample. Journal of Gambling Issues, 29, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2014.29.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherly, J. N., Dymond, S., Samuels, L., Austin, J. L., & Terrell, H. K. (2014). Validating the gambling functional assessment—revised in a United Kingdom sample. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30, 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9354-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-9275-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark R. Dixon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

This paper is based on a portion of the dissertation of the second author, completed while affiliated with Southern Illinois University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dixon, M.R., Wilson, A.N., Belisle, J. et al. A Functional Analytic Approach to Understanding Disordered Gambling. Psychol Rec 68, 177–187 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0279-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0279-y

Keywords

  • Addiction
  • Behavior analysis
  • Disordered gambling
  • Gambling functional assessment