(Im)probable Win. Relationships among Individual Differences in Temperament, Gambler’s Beliefs and Gambling Engagement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15678/PJOEP.2017.12.04Keywords:
gambling, temperamental differences, gambler’s beliefs, subjective probabilityAbstract
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
Issue
Section
License
Authorship
The Author (Co-authors) declares that the submitted paper does not infringe on the third parties’ copyright, consents to submitting the paper to the reviewing procedure and introducing editorial changes in it, and conveys proprietary copyright to the paper free of charge to publisher for uses stipulated in paragraph 50 of the Polish Bill on Copyright and Related Rights of 4.02.1994, provided that the paper has been accepted for publication and published.
Conditions of use
The Publisher owns the proprietary copyright to all materials published in the journal. Articles are made available on the basis of non-exclusive Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. The full text of the licence can be found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode, and its accessible summary a thttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en.
Posting the text in the repository, on the author’s homepage or other website is permitted on condition that it does not entail gaining material benefits and the text is equipped with full source documentation (including the title, volume, issue and internet address of the journal).
All those interested in using the materials published in the journal for commercial purposes are kindly requested to contact the Editors.
