(Im)probable Win. Relationships among Individual Differences in Temperament, Gambler’s Beliefs and Gambling Engagement

Authors

  • Angelika Olszewska SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny, II Wydział Psychologii we Wrocławiu
  • Agata Sobków SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny, II Wydział Psychologii we Wrocławiu
  • Czesław S. Nosal SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny, II Wydział Psychologii we Wrocławiu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15678/PJOEP.2017.12.04

Keywords:

gambling, temperamental differences, gambler’s beliefs, subjective probability

Abstract

The study examines the relationships among individual differences in temperament, gamblers’ beliefs and involvement in gambling. The results of psychological studies indicate that gambling is related to impulsivity. Additionally, the studies showed that regular players produce more gambler biases. However, recent studies have not shown the function of the gamblers’ beliefs. Do gamblers rationalise after gambling? Do gamblers’ beliefs motivate them to gamble? We sought an answer to these questions. The investigation was conducted among 353 gamblers. All participants completed a Gambler’s Belief and Behaviour Questionnaire. We demonstrated that gamblers’ beliefs were predicted by impulsivity, reward sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty. Furthermore, the tendency to gamble was predicted by gamblers’ beliefs even when temperamental differences were controlled for.

References

Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R. (2005). The Somatic Marker Hypothesis: A Neural Theory of Economic Decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010.

Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., Anderson, S.W. (1994). Insensitivity to Future Consequences Following Damage to Human Prefrontal Cortex. Cognition, 50(1–3), 7–15.

Blais, A.R., Weber, E.U. (2006) A Domain-specific Risk-taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 33–47.

Blaszczynski, A., Steel, Z., McConaghy, N. (1997). Impulsivity in Pathological Gambling: The Antisocial Impulsivist. Addiction, 92(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03639.x.

Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

Cooper, A., Smillie, L.D., Corr, P.J. (2010). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Mini-IPIP Five-factor Model of Personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 688–691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.004.

Corr, P.J., Cooper, A.J. (2016). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and Validation. Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 418–427. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000273.

Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, S.B.G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales. London, England: Hodder and Stoughton.

Gąsiorowska, A., Bajcar, B. (2006). Kwestionariusz Zainteresowań Zawodowych – nowe narzędzie dla doradcy zawodowego. Zeszyty Informacyjno-Metodyczne Doradcy Zawodowego, 37, 27–76.

Gignac, G.E., Szodorai, E. (2016). Effect Size Guidelines for Individual Differences Researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.

Goodie, A.S. (2005). The Role of Perceived Control and Overconfidence in Pathological Gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-005-5559-1.

Gray, J.A. (1982). Précis of the Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-hippocampal System. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(3), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00013066.

Griffiths, M.D. (1994). The Role of Cognitive Bias and Skill in Fruit Machine Gambling. British Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1994.tb02529.x.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.

LeDoux, J. (2017). Lęk. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.

Loewenstein, G.F., Hsee, C.K., Weber, E.U., Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267.

McNaughton, N., Gray, J.A. (2000). Anxiolytic Action on the Behavioural Inhibition System Implies Multiple Types of Arousal Contribute to Anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00344-X.

Navas, J.F., Billieux, J., Perandrés-Gómez, A., López-Torrecillas, F., Cándido, A., Perales, J.C. (2017). Impulsivity Traits and Gambling Cognitions Associated with Gambling Preferences and Clinical Status. International Gambling Studies, 17(1), 102–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2016.1275739.

Niewiadomska, I., Augustynowicz, W., Palacz-Chrisidis, A., Chwaszcz, J. (2014). Bateria metod służących do oceny ryzyka. Lublin: Instytut Psychoprofilaktyki i Psychoterapii, Stowarzyszenie Natanaelum.

Nosal, C.S. (1986). Mózg, prawdopodobieństwo, transgresja. Studia Filozoficzne, 3, 14–27.

Nosal, C.S. (2006). Nadzieja, czas i heurystyka żagla. W: E. Aranowska, M. Goszczynska (red.), Człowiek wobec wyzwań i dylematów współczesności (s. 228–243). Warszawa: Scholar.

Nosal, C.S. (2011). Teoria transgresji po 30 latach: główne założenia, problemy i niektóre mechanizmy transgresj. W: Transgresje – innowacje – twórczość. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.

Olszewska, A. (2017). Wpływ cech behawioralnego układu aktywacyjnego na uleganie inklinacjom poznawczym u hazardzistów. Praca magisterska. SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny Filia we Wrocławiu, II Wydział Psychologii.

Petrova, D.G., Van der Pligt, J., Garcia-Retamero, R. (2014). Feeling the Numbers: On the Interplay between Risk, Affect, and Numeracy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(3), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1803.

Pickering, A.D., Corr, P.J. (2008). J.A. Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) of Personality. W: The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 1 – Personality Theories and Models (s. 239–256). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200462.n11.

Potenza, M.N. (2008). Review. The Neurobiology of Pathological Gambling and Drug Addiction: An Overview and New Findings. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363(1507), 3181–3189. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0100.

Rottenstreich, Y., Hsee, C.K. (2001). Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00334.

Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive Reward Signal of Dopamine Neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.80.1.1.

Sharpe, L. (2002). A Reformulated Cognitive-behavioral Model of Problem Gambling. A Biopsychosocial Perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00087-8.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science. New York, N.Y. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G. (2007). The Affect Heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006.

Sobkow, A., Traczyk, J., Zaleśkiewicz, T. (2016). The Affective Bases of Risk Perception: Negative Feelings and Stress Mediate the Relationship between Mental Imagery and Risk Perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 932.

Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive Psychopathology of Problem Gambling. Substance Use and Misuse, 34(11), 1593–1604.

Tyszka, T. (2014). Motywy angażowania się ludzi w gry hazardowe. Decyzje, 22(22), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.40.

Zaleśkiewicz, T. (2001). Beyond Risk Seeking and Risk Aversion: Personality and the Dual Nature of Economic Risk Taking. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.426.

Zuckerman, M., Glicksohn, J. (2016). Hans Eysenck’s Personality Model and the Constructs of Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.003.

Downloads

Published

2018-09-26

Issue

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES