Personality and problem gambling: a prospective study of a birth cohort of young adults.

Department of Psychologcal Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia 65211, USA.
Archives of General Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.75). 08/2005; 62(7):769-75. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.7.769
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In problem gamblers, diminished cognitive control and increased impulsivity is present compared to healthy controls. Moreover, impulsivity has been found to be a vulnerability marker for the development of pathological gambling (PG) and problem gambling (PrG) and to be a predictor of relapse. In this review, the most recent findings on functioning of the brain circuitry relating to impulsivity and cognitive control in PG and PrG are discussed. Diminished functioning of several prefrontal areas and of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) indicate that cognitive-control related brain circuitry functions are diminished in PG and PrG compared to healthy controls. From the available cue reactivity studies on PG and PrG, increased responsiveness towards gambling stimuli in fronto-striatal reward circuitry and brain areas related to attentional processing is present compared to healthy controls. At this point it is unresolved whether PG is associated with hyper- or hypo-activity in the reward circuitry in response to monetary cues. More research is needed to elucidate the complex interactions for reward responsivity in different stages of gambling and across different types of reward. Conflicting findings from basic neuroscience studies are integrated in the context of recent neurobiological addiction models. Neuroscience studies on the interface between cognitive control and motivational processing are discussed in light of current addiction theories. Clinical implications: We suggest that innovation in PG therapy should focus on improvement of dysfunctional cognitive control and/or motivational functions. The implementation of novel treatment methods like neuromodulation, cognitive training and pharmacological interventions as add-on therapies to standard treatment in PG and PrG, in combination with the study of their effects on brain-behavior mechanisms could prove an important clinical step forward towards personalizing and improving treatment results in PG.
    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 05/2014; 8:141. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00141 · 4.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the relationships between risk (i.e., gambling cognitions, gambling urges, psychological distress) and protective factors (i.e., life satisfaction, resilience, gambling refusal self-efficacy) and problem gambling among 310 Singaporeans aged between 18 and 73 years. Data on demographics, risk and protective factors, and gambling behavior were collected through electronic and paper surveys. Hierarchical multiple regression was employed to assess the contributions of the risk and protective factors in predicting problem gambling. Three risk factors (i.e., gambling cognitions, gambling urges, psychological distress) and two protective factors (i.e., resilience, gambling refusal self-efficacy) were found to significantly and uniquely predict problem gambling. Furthermore, the risk factors significantly interacted with the protective factors to moderate gambling severity. Gambling refusal self-efficacy shows significant protective effects against problem gambling, while the effects of resilience on gambling vary across settings. Both factors need to be taken into account in the understanding of problem gambling.
    Journal of Gambling Behavior 01/2014; 31(2). DOI:10.1007/s10899-013-9440-3 · 1.28 Impact Factor