Individual differences in dimensions of personality may play an important role in explaining risk for disordered gambling behavior as well as the comorbidity between disordered gambling behavior and other substance-related addictive disorders.
To identify the personality correlates of problem gambling in a representative non-treatment-seeking sample, as well as to determine whether these are similar to the personality correlates of other substance-related addictive disorders and whether individual differences in personality might account for the comorbidity between disordered gambling behavior and other substance-related addictive disorders.
Longitudinal population-based study.
A complete birth cohort of young adults born in Dunedin, New Zealand, between April 1, 1972, and March 31, 1973 (N = 939; 475 men, 464 women).
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire assessments of personality were obtained at age 18 years; structured interview-based diagnoses of past-year problem gambling and alcohol, cannabis, and nicotine dependence were obtained at age 21 years.
Problem gambling at age 21 years was associated with higher scores on the higher-order personality dimension of negative emotionality (d = 0.90) and with lower scores on the personality dimension of constraint (d = -0.72) measured at age 18 years compared with control subjects who did not have a past-year addictive disorder at age 21 years. Problem gambling was also associated with Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire indicators of risk-taking (d = 0.50) and impulsivity (d = 0.56). The personality profile associated with problem gambling was similar to the profiles associated with alcohol, cannabis, and nicotine dependence. The relations between problem gambling and the substance-related addictive disorders (odds ratios = 3.32-3.61) were reduced after controlling for individual differences in personality (odds ratios = 1.90-2.32).
From the perspective of personality, problem gambling has much in common with the addictive disorders, as well as with the larger class of "externalizing" or "disinhibitory" disorders. Knowledge gained from the study of common personality underpinnings may be helpful in determining where disordered gambling behavior should reside in our diagnostic classification system.
"Only a minority of studies fail to find a significant relationship (e.g., Petry 2001; Langewisch and Frisch 1998; Lejoyeux et al. 1998). In addition to these cross-sectional data, there is also some preliminary evidence that impulsivity indicators in childhood are prospectively associated with gambling disorder in emerging adults (Slutske et al. 2005; Dussault et al. 2011; Auger et al. 2010). "
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 07/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11469-015-9572-z · 0.99 Impact Factor
"), higher aggression (Slutske et al. 2005) and lower agreeableness (MacLaren et al. 2011) scores were found in excessive gamblers compared to non-problem gamblers. With regard to coping, gambling problems were found to be positively associated with the use of avoidant and emotion-focused strategies, and negatively associated with the use of problem-focused strategies (Bergevin et al. 2006; Gupta and Derevensky 2001; Lightsey and Hulsey 2002; Nower et al. 2004a). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The study aimed to identify different patterns of gambling activities (PGAs) and to investigate how PGAs differed in gambling problems, substance use outcomes, personality traits and coping strategies. A representative sample of 4989 young Swiss males completed a questionnaire assessing seven distinct gambling activities, gambling problems, substance use outcomes, personality traits and coping strategies. PGAs were identified using latent class analysis (LCA). Differences between PGAs in gambling and substance use outcomes, personality traits and coping strategies were tested. LCA identified six different PGAs. With regard to gambling and substance use outcomes, the three most problematic PGAs were extensive gamblers, followed by private gamblers, and electronic lottery and casino gamblers, respectively. By contrast, the three least detrimental PGAs were rare or non-gamblers, lottery only gamblers and casino gamblers. With regard to personality traits, compared with rare or non-gamblers, private and casino gamblers reported higher levels of sensation seeking. Electronic lottery and casino gamblers, private gamblers and extensive gamblers had higher levels of aggression-hostility. Extensive and casino gamblers reported higher levels of sociability, whereas casino gamblers reported lower levels of anxiety-neuroticism. Extensive gamblers used more maladaptive and less adaptive coping strategies than other groups. Results suggest that gambling is not a homogeneous activity since different types of gamblers exist according to the PGA they are engaged in. Extensive gamblers, electronic and casino gamblers and private gamblers may have the most problematic PGAs. Personality traits and coping skills may predispose individuals to PGAs associated with more or less negative outcomes.
Journal of Gambling Studies 05/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10899-015-9547-9 · 2.29 Impact Factor
"Among dimensionally measured personality traits, people with PG are reported to have elevated levels of impulsivity (or impulsiveness) that could indicate impaired executive functioning (Black et al. 2013; Castellani and Rugle 1995; Forbush et al. 2008; Ledgerwood et al. 2009). Interestingly, impulsivity increases as gambling behavior worsens; high levels in normal gamblers have been correlated with the subsequent development of PG (Slutske et al. 2005; Vitaro et al. 1997). While relatively few PG researchers have examined the personality dimensions described by Cloninger et al. (1993, 1994), those who have report high scores for novelty seeking (Black et al. 2013; Kim and Grant 2001; Martinotti et al. 2006; Nordin and Nylander 2007). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study investigates the presence of personality disorders, impulsiveness, and novelty seeking in probands with DSM-IV pathological gambling (PG), controls, and their respective first-degree relatives using a blind family study methodology. Ninety-three probands with DSM-IV PG, 91 controls, and their 395 first-degree relatives were evaluated for the presence of personality disorder with the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality. Impulsiveness was assessed with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS). Novelty seeking was evaluated using questions from Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory. Results were analyzed using logistic regression by the method of generalized estimating equations to account for within family correlations. PG probands had a significantly higher prevalence of personality disorders than controls (41 vs. 7 %, OR = 9.0, P < 0.001), along with higher levels of impulsiveness and novelty seeking. PG probands with a personality disorder had more severe gambling symptoms; earlier age at PG onset; more suicide attempts; greater psychiatric comorbidity; and a greater family history of psychiatric illness than PG probands without a personality disorder. PG relatives had a significantly higher prevalence of personality disorder than relatives of controls (24 vs. 9 %, OR = 3.2, P < 0.001) and higher levels of impulsiveness. Risk for PG in relatives is associated with the presence of personality disorder and increases along with rising BIS Non-Planning and Total scale scores. Personality disorders, impulsiveness, and novelty seeking are common in people with PG and their first-degree relatives. The presence of a personality disorder appears to be a marker of PG severity and earlier age of onset. Risk for PG in relatives is associated with the presence of personality disorder and trait impulsiveness. These findings suggest that personality disorder and impulsiveness may contribute to a familial diathesis for PG.
Journal of Gambling Behavior 11/2014; DOI:10.1007/s10899-014-9505-y · 1.28 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.