ArticlePDF Available

Loss-chasing in gambling behaviour: neurocognitive and behavioural economic perspectives

Authors:

Abstract

Loss-chasing describes the tendency of a gambler to amplify their betting in an effort to recoup prior losses. It is widely regarded as a defining feature of disordered gambling, and a hallmark of the transition from recreational to disordered gambling. We consider the empirical evidence for this central role of loss-chasing in disordered gambling. We highlight multiple behavioural expressions of chasing, including between-session and within-session chasing. From a neurocognitive perspective, loss-chasing could arise from compromised executive functions including inhibitory control, mood-related impulsivity (urgency) and compulsivity, for which there is compelling evidence in disordered gambling. This view is contrasted with a behavioural economic perspective that emphasizes the subjective valuation of outcomes to the gambler, and may better account for nuances in gamblers’ complex response to loss, such as the significance of ‘breaking even’. Neuroimaging and psychopharmacological research on loss-chasing may help to arbitrate between these two perspectives.
1
Loss-chasing in gambling behaviour: neurocognitive and behavioural economic perspectives
Ke Zhang and Luke Clark
Centre for Gambling Research at UBC, Department of Psychology, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Address for correspondence: Dr Luke Clark, Centre for Gambling Research at UBC, Department
of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6T 1Z4. E-mail: luke.clark@psych.ubc.ca
This is an Author Accepted Manuscript. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors'
permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, as: Zhang K and Clark L (2020)
Loss-chasing in gambling behaviour: neurocognitive and behavioural economic perspectives.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 31: 1-7. DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.006
Funding and Disclosures
Luke Clark is the Director of the Centre for Gambling Research at UBC, which is supported by
funding from the Province of British Columbia and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation
(BCLC), a Canadian Crown Corporation. The BCLC and BC Government impose no constraints
on publishing. LC has received travel honoraria/reimbursements from the National Association
for Gambling Studies (Australia) and National Center for Responsible Gaming (US), and
honoraria for academic services from the National Center for Responsible Gaming (US) and
Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (Canada). He has not received any further direct or
indirect payments from the gambling industry or groups substantially funded by gambling. He
has received royalties from Cambridge Cognition Ltd. relating to neurocognitive testing. KZ
report no conflicts of interest.
2
This work was supported by the Centre for Gambling Research at UBC core funding from the
Province of British Columbia and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC). LC
receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada) and the
BC Ministry of Finance. KZ received a Faculty of Arts Graduate Award from UBC.
Abstract
Loss-chasing describes the tendency of a gambler to amplify their betting in an effort to recoup
prior losses. It is widely regarded as a defining feature of disordered gambling, and a hallmark of
the transition from recreational to disordered gambling. We consider the empirical evidence for
this central role of loss-chasing to disordered gambling. We highlight multiple behavioural
expressions of chasing, including between-session and within-session chasing. From a
neurocognitive perspective, loss-chasing could arise from compromised executive functions
including inhibitory control, mood-related impulsivity (urgency) and compulsivity, for which
there is compelling evidence in disordered gambling. This view is contrasted with a behavioural
economic perspective that emphasizes the subjective valuation of outcomes to the gambler, and
may better account for nuances in the gamblers’ complex response to loss, such as the
significance of ‘breaking even’. Neuroimaging and psychopharmacological research on loss-
chasing may help to arbitrate between these two perspectives.
Keywords: gambling, addiction, risk-taking, impulsivity, reference points, urgency.
Highlights (3 x 85 characters):
Chasing is a sensitive symptom of disordered gambling with multiple expressions.
Neurocognitive constructs of negative urgency and compulsivity may underlie chasing.
3
Behavioral economic constructs of loss-aversion and re-referencing may also contribute.
Introduction
Gambling has undergone steady expansion in recent decades, with advances in modern slot
machine design (1), online accessibility of gambling (2), and gambling marketing (3), to name
just three examples. Although the majority of gamblers bet within their means, international
estimates are that 0.1% - 5.8% of individuals display gambling problems (4). Negative
expectancy (‘house edge’) is an inherent aspect of modern commercial gambling, meaning that
continued gambling will inexorably result in financial losses. Understanding why some gamblers
continue to bet in the face of such losses is a central challenge in psychological research on
gambling. Phenomenological descriptions have traditionally highlighted loss-chasing as a
defining feature of problem gambling (5–8). The first objective of the current article is to
evaluate empirical research on this ‘centrality’ of loss-chasing. We will then consider two
approaches to understanding loss-chasing: a neurocognitive perspective that emphasizes fronto-
striatal circuitry regulating inhibition and compulsivity, and a behavioural economic perspective
that emphasizes the subjective valuation of losses to the gambler. Lastly, we consider
neuroimaging and psychopharmacological research on loss-chasing that may help to arbitrate
between these perspectives.
The Centrality of Loss-Chasing in Problem Gambling
Qualitative descriptions of disordered gambling describe how loss-chasing establishes and
maintains a downward spiral of negative consequences for the gambler’s finances, relationships,
and mental wellbeing (5). Loss-chasing is often the most commonly endorsed item in screening
4
tools for disordered gambling (9). It was endorsed by 60% of gamblers who met one diagnostic
criteria, and 80% of gamblers who met 3-4 criteria (10). Chasing is also central to dominant
theoretical approaches to disordered gambling. The Pathways Model (11) is best known as a
framework for characterizing subtypes of problem gamblers, but in fact pathway 1 is posited as
a common pathway shared by all disordered gamblers, moving from gambling exposure,
through conditioning of arousal/excitement, to habitual and harmful gambling. In this common
pathway, chasing is the ‘conduit’ from learning-based processes to the negative financial
consequences.
It is important to recognize that loss-chasing can be expressed behaviourally in multiple distinct
ways (12). The wording of diagnostic items typically asks if the gambler returns another day to
recoup past losses. This between-session chasing was evident in female college athletes, in
whom it appeared to be the best discriminator between social and problem gambling (13).
Chasing can also be demonstrated within a gambling session, and in multiple ways. In laboratory
studies, individual differences in disordered gambling severity predicted persistent gambling; for
example on a simulated slot machine (14–16). Besides persistence, chasing can also be expressed
in the amount bet. For example, on a roulette task with 50/50 red/black predictions, bet size
increased on longer losing streaks, but did not change across winning streaks, which was again
interpreted as an expression of loss-chasing (17).
A Neurocognitive Perspective on Loss-Chasing
Disordered gambling is associated with altered executive functions, subserved by fronto-striatal
brain circuitry (18,19). Inhibition is a core component of the executive functions, and by a simple
5
account, loss-chasing could arise from impaired inhibition, giving rise to impulsivity as the
tendency to make rapid, hasty gambling decisions in pursuit of winning. In a meta-analysis of
case-control studies assessing impulsivity in disordered gambling, moderate-to-large effect sizes
were seen on the stop signal task as the best validated assay of motor inhibition (20). The stop
signal reaction time was also sensitive to gambling severity, in a cross-sectional study assessing
non-problem, at-risk, and disordered gamblers (21). Another widely used test of impulsivity -
delay discounting, is also sensitive problem gambling severity, and could further contribute to
the temporal short-sightedness of chasing decisions (22).
In conceptualizing loss-chasing as impaired inhibition, one consideration is how losing contexts
could amplify this impairment. Psychometric research on impulsivity identifies an affect-related
component, termed urgency, as one of the most robust group differences across addictive
disorders, including gambling disorder (23,24). Negative urgency in particular may provide a
feedback mechanism in substance addictions, by which the negative affect associated with drug
withdrawal can fuel impulsive drug-seeking (25). This effect was evident in heavy alcohol
drinkers with higher negative urgency, who were more emotionally reactive to stressful events
and showed greater subsequent alcohol demand (26). Loss-chasing may be a logical counterpart
to this effect in gambling addiction, by which the negative emotions arising from gambling
losses fuel impulsive escalation of gambling. In support of this hypothesis, induced negative
mood states in recreational gamblers increased slot machine persistence (27). In a translational
model of urgency in healthy humans and rats, reward omission increased frustration and
persistent behaviour (28). Refinement of these procedures to incorporate more realistic gambling
stimuli/outcomes may be fruitful line of enquiry. These motivational expressions of chasing can
6
also be captured on latency measures: Verbruggen and colleagues (29) investigated how prior
gains and losses affected the initiation latencies of gambling choices. By including a safe option
as a neutral baseline, they showed that losses prompted faster, more impulsive responding on the
next trial (29).
With persistence as its central feature, chasing may alternatively be conceptualized as a case of
compulsivity. Cognitive-behavioural research on compulsivity is relatively new compared to
models of impulsivity, but emphasizes the repetition of behaviour in a way that is insensitive to
negative consequences (30,31). Addiction experts identified seven neurocognitive constructs as
central to addictive disorders; compulsivity was the only ‘expert-initiated’ construct that was not
present within the NIH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) (32). Yet its behavioural assessment
remains controversial. One framework separates four types of neurocognitive procedures:
contingency-based cognitive flexibility, attentional set-shifting, attentional bias, and habit
learning (30).The flexibility and set-shifting components here relate to the ‘shifting’ dimension
of executive functions (33). A systematic review and meta-analysis of these domains in gambling
disorder identified deficits in the first three domains, but no studies were identified that tested
validated probes of habit learning (34). Habit formation has a central role in the Pathways Model
of disordered gambling (11), and is perhaps especially relevant to continuous forms of gambling
such as modern slot machines. At the same time, recent work highlights the inadequacies of
current behavioural assays of habit in human subjects (35) and lack of expected group
differences in treatment-seeking drug user(36).
Behavioural Economics and Loss-Chasing
7
According to Prospect Theory, choice is guided by a value function that relates objective gains
and losses to their subjective value to the person (37). The value function (Figure 1) has three
key characteristics, which may contribute to loss-chasing in a number of ways. First, the S-shape
displays diminishing sensitivity to accumulating outcomes. Second, the loss function is steeper
than the gain function, accounting for loss aversion: losses typically ‘loom larger’ than
equivalently-sized gains (e.g. 38). Third, gain and loss prospects are evaluated relative to a
reference point, which is relevant in the context of a series of gambles: to what extent does the
individual update their reference point between each gamble?
Empirical studies of the value function in disordered gambling have focused primarily on loss
aversion (39–43). Two studies (39,40) support an intuitive prediction that disordered gamblers
have reduced loss aversion relative to healthy controls. However, another study found that loss
aversion was bimodally distributed in disordered gamblers (43), and other studies related these
individual differences to treatment duration (41) or preferences for strategic vs non-strategic
games (42).
Chasing may be related to a gambler’s capacity to re-reference between successive gambles.
Imas (44) compared risky betting in healthy participants under two conditions, termed ‘paper
losses’ and ‘realized losses’. The paper loss condition displayed the participant’s earnings as an
account balance, and in this condition, bet size increased in response to losing feedback. If the
losses were realized by the transfer of money (either physically or imagined) between gambles,
this loss-chasing effect was abolished, which Imas (44) attributed to re-referencing. Future work
can usefully investigate whether regular and problem gamblers also benefit from financial re-
8
referencing, and how in-game mechanics can promote such effects (see also 45).
Figure 1: Consider two successive gambles, both offering a 50% probability of winning $10 and 50%
probability losing $10. The first gamble is accepted and the outcome is the $10 loss. In making the
decision for the second gamble could re-reference back to the origin (𝑅); this may bias risk avoidance
because the steepest part of the loss function is at 𝑅. Alternatively, the gambler may not update their
reference point, evaluating the second gamble from 𝑅. This may bias the gambler towards risk-taking,
due to diminishing sensitivity of losses at 𝑅. Hypothetically, gamblers could also partially update their
reference point to an intermediate point between 𝑅 and 𝑅.
A further development in gambling research is ‘behavioural tracking’ of account-based data,
either from online gambling platforms or casino loyalty card data (2). This ‘big data’ has the
advantage of being field data, from gamblers using their own funds. In one study, gamblers who
later closed their accounts displayed increased losses and increasing bet size in the days prior to
closure, a possible sign of chasing (46). But their increased bets appeared to be seen on less risky
gambles; such ‘strategic’ adjustment in betting style is arguably hard to reconcile with lower-
level executive dysfunction emphasized by the neurocognitive perspective. Another longitudinal
9
analysis of data from the same gambling operator (bwin.com) looked at trends in weekly betting
as a function of profits and losses (47). On average, online gamblers increased their betting as a
function of the long-term loss (i.e. since the start of the data window), but simultaneously,
betting decreased in proportion to recent losses over the prior week. A similar effect was
observed in a field study in casino gamblers: on sessions following large losses (>1000 Swiss
Francs), the overall pattern was for patrons to reduce wagering on the following visit (48). It is
unclear to what extent these patterns reflect recreational versus disordered gambling, but these
studies highlight once again the complex response to losses among gamblers.
Neurobiological Correlates of Loss-Chasing
Neuroimaging and psychopharmacological studies may help to arbitrate between these two
perspectives. If the neural substrates of chasing behaviour indicate underactivity of prefrontal
control systems associated with generalized disinhibition and persistence, this would support the
neurocognitive perspective. If chasing were related to brain systems implicated in outcome
processing, and displayed sensitivity to subjective value and reference points, this would support
the behavioural economic stance. Certainly, a number of studies have tested reward signalling in
disordered gamblers using variants of the Monetary Incentive Delay Task (MIDT; see 49). A
meta-analysis of MIDT studies in gambling disorder found reduced striatal signalling to reward
anticipation cues (50). Perhaps surprisingly - given the recognition of loss-chasing in the
diagnosis - fewer studies have examined neural responses to anticipated and delivered loss in
gamblers. There is some psychophysiological evidence that dysregulation in gambling disorder is
predominantly gain-related, with no alterations in aversive threat processing (51). Nevertheless,
using fMRI, Balodis et al., (52) found that individuals with gambling disorder showed reduced
10
activity in medial prefrontal cortex and striatum during both anticipation and receipt of loss
outcomes. In another study, the response to loss avoidance was decreased in disordered gamblers
in the same brain regions, but the response to loss anticipation was actually increased (53).
Striatal hyper-activity to loss anticipation was also seen in a further experiment, in which loss-
related activity in the anterior insula also correlated positively with gambling severity (54).
A series of imaging and psychopharmacological studies by Rogers and colleagues used a double-
or-quits (‘Martingale’) task to operationalize chasing decisions more directly. Participants
receive an initial loss, and then make a series of choices to either accept that loss or take a
gamble to recover the loss, with a risk of doubling its value (55,56). In a proof of principle study
in healthy participants, quitting decisions resulted in large cortical activation including anterior
insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and parietal cortex (55), while chase decisions yielded a
more focal response in ventromedial prefrontal cortex and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex,
which typically represent subjective reward value. A later study compared these responses in
gambling disorder and healthy control groups, and included a third group with cocaine
dependence (56). There were no group differences in the medial frontal network on quit
decisions, but in the response to the loss preceding decision, medial prefrontal activity was
heightened in the gambling disorder group on sequences that were ultimately quit, highlighting
the high cognitive-emotional demands that these decisions entail (56).
Other studies in gambling disorder have examined the neural circuitry that underpins cognitive
flexibility, centring on the lateral prefrontal cortex (57,58). Using a probabilistic reversal
learning task, Verdejo-Garcia et al., (58) compared groups with gambling disorder, healthy
11
controls, and cocaine dependence. The three groups performed similarly on a task that was
optimized for neuroimaging, but the gamblers and cocaine users displayed reduced activation in
ventrolateral prefrontal cortex during the critical contingency reversals. Notably, brain
stimulation techniques including transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be able to
enhance lateral prefrontal cortical function, with recent evidence for improvements in cognitive
flexibility in a group with gambling disorder on the Wisconsin Card Sort Task (59).
At a neurochemical level, dopamine and serotonin transmission has been reliably implicated in
loss-chasing. Using the double-or-quits task in healthy participants, a dietary serotonin depletion
reduced the overall number of chase decisions (60). This finding merges with the extensive pre-
clinical literature on the role of serotonin in punishment-induced inhibition (61–63), such that a
serotonin imbalance could conceivably result in punishment-induced disinhibition as a mechanism
for loss-chasing. In convergent evidence from a genotyping study using a serotonin polygenic
score, genetic influences on serotonin transmission were associated with alcohol problems via trait
negative urgency (64). Meanwhile, psychopharmacological challenge studies with dopamine
agents (methylphenidate, pramipexole) indicate a complementary role, as a function of the value
of the loss being chased. According to ‘escalation of commitment’ (65), participants may chase an
inconsequential loss but typically become more cautious at larger stakes; enhancing dopamine
transmission attenuated this effect (60,66). A rodent model of the loss-chasing task provided
further details on receptor subtypes and anatomical localization. Decisions to quit were modulated
by 5-HT1A drug (8-OH-DPAT) (67) but not a 5-HT2A receptor antagonist (68), and the 5-HT1A
agent affected chasing in opposite directions when injected into anterior insular versus
orbitofrontal cortex (68). For dopamine, the D2 receptor drug eticlopride reduced chase decisions
12
while a D1 agent (SCH23390) did not influence loss-chasing (67).
Discussion
The present article compared loss-chasing from the perspectives of a neurocognitive approach,
emphasizing inhibition, compulsivity, and negative urgency, and a behavioural economic
approach that emphasizes individual differences in aspects of the value function. In terms of
established neurocognitive case-control differences in disordered gambling, there is a strong
support for the former approach, although this ‘low level’ perspective remains under-specified in
describing how chasing behaviours emerge under losing contexts. In reviewing both behavioural
and neuroimaging evidence for the effects of losses in people with gambling problems, there is
evidence for both hypo and hyper reactivity, which mirror the phenomenological question as to
whether people with disordered gambling are fundamentally less affected by losing (providing a
simple explanation for why they persist in such risky behaviour), or whether chasing is better
conceptualized as a sensitization of loss-related processing. We argue that the behavioural
economic perspective provides some insights into the nuances of this loss response; for example,
in describing the asymmetry of loss-aversion. Reference point updating may also be very
relevant to chasing, both in terms of individual differences in the tendency to update, and
features of the game environment that encourage re-referencing; these effects could explain the
significance of breaking even for gamblers who chase (48). Currently, there is limited research
looking to characterize these effects in people with gambling disorder, and there is an added
methodological challenge of designing gambling tasks that can isolate multiple components of
Prospect Theory simultaneously. We note that the neurocognitive and behavioural economic
accounts are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have much to be gained from integration. The
translational studies of the double-or-quits task offer a case in point, and future research could
13
manipulate subjective value in paradigms used to probe negative urgency or habit learning. The
unresolved question here is whether chasing is best considered as a series of independently-
triggered impulsive decisions, perhaps of escalating intensity and desperation, or rather as a
‘batch’ of compulsive responses that is issued without reflection upon individual choices or
outcomes (i.e. re-referencing). The nature of free choice is a fundamental question in addictive
disorders (69) and understanding these mechanisms will also shape our understanding of
substance addictions and other candidate behavioural addictions.
14
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:
* special interest
** outstanding interest
1. Murch WS, Clark L. Games in the Brain: Neural Substrates of Gambling Addiction.
Neuroscientist. 2016;22(5):534–545.
2. Deng X, Lesch T, Clark L, Clark L. Applying Data Science to Behavioral Analysis of
Online Gambling. Curr Addict Reports. 2019;1–6.
3. Newall PW, Moodie C, Reith G, Stead M, Critchlow N, Morgan A, Dobbie F. Gambling
Marketing from 2014 to 2018: a Literature Review. Curr Addict Reports. 2019;6(2):49–
56.
4. Calado F, Griffiths MD. Problem gambling worldwide: An update and systematic review
of empirical research (2000–2015). J Behav Addic. 2016;5(4):592–613.
5. Lesieur HR. The Compulsive Gambler’s Spiral of Options and Involvement. Psychiatry.
1979;42(1):79–87.
6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders,
Fifth Edition (DSM-5). 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
7. Stinchfield R, Govoni R, Frisch GR. DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological
gambling: Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy. Am J Addict. 2005;14(1):73–
82.
8. Ladouceur R, Walker M. A cognitive perspective on gambling. In: Salkovskis, PM,
editors. Trends in cognitive therapy. Oxford (UK): Wiley; 1996. p. 89–120.
9. Hodgins DC, Stea JN, Grant JE. Gambling disorders. Lancet. 2011;378(9806):1874–1884.
15
10. Toce-Gerstein M, Gerstein DR, Volberg RA. A hierarchy of gambling disorders in the
community. Addiction. 2003;98(12):1661–1672.
11. Blaszczynski A, Nower L. A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling.
Addiction. 2002;97(5):487–499.
12. O’Connor J, Dickerson M. Definition and measurement of chasing in off-course betting
and gaming machine play. J Gambl Stud. 2003;19(4):359–386.
13. Temcheff CE, Paskus TS, Potenza MN, Derevensky JL. Which diagnostic criteria are
most useful in discriminating between social gamblers and individuals with gambling
problems? An examination of DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria. J Gambl Stud.
2016;32(3):957–968.
14. Ciccarelli M, Cosenza M, Griffiths MD, D’Olimpio F, Nigro G. The interplay between
chasing behavior, time perspective, and gambling severity: An experimental study. J
Behav Addict. 2019;1–9.
15. Lister JJ, Nower L, Wohl MJ. Gambling goals predict chasing behavior during slot
machine play. Addict Behav. 2016;62:129–134.
16. **Nigro G, Ciccarelli M, Cosenza M. The illusion of handy wins: Problem gambling,
chasing, and affective decision-making. J Affect Disord. 2018;225:256–259. An
experiment showing within-session chasing behaviour is associated with problem
gambling severity. 'Chasers' also made poorer decisions in Iowa Gambling Task,
even after controlling their gambling.
17. Studer B, Limbrick-Oldfield EH, Clark L. “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!”:
Effects of Streaks on Confidence and Betting in a Binary Choice Task. J Behav Decis
Mak. 2015;28(3):239–249.
16
18. Leeman RF, Potenza MN. Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and
substance use disorders: A focus on impulsivity and compulsivity. Psychopharmacology.
2012;219(2):469–490.
19. Moccia L, Pettorruso M, De Crescenzo F, De Risio L, di Nuzzo L, Martinotti G, Bifone
A, Janiri L, Di Nicola M. Neural correlates of cognitive control in gambling disorder: a
systematic review of fMRI studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;78:104–116.
20. Chowdhury NS, Livesey EJ, Blaszczynski A, Harris JA. Pathological Gambling and
Motor Impulsivity: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. J Gambl Stud.
2017;33(4):1213–1239.
21. Odlaug BL, Chamberlain SR, Kim SW, Schreiber LRN, Grant JE. A neurocognitive
comparison of cognitive flexibility and response inhibition in gamblers with varying
degrees of clinical severity. Psychol Med. 2011;41(10):2111–2119.
22. Amlung M, Vedelago L, Acker J, Balodis I, MacKillop J. Steep delay discounting and
addictive behavior: a meta-analysis of continuous associations. Addiction.
2017;112(1):51–62.
23. Kale D, Stautz K, Cooper A. Impulsivity related personality traits and cigarette smoking
in adults: A meta-analysis using the UPPS-P model of impulsivity and reward sensitivity.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;185:149–167.
24. Farstad SM, von Ranson KM, Hodgins DC, El-Guebaly N, Casey DM, Schopflocher DP.
The influence of impulsiveness on binge eating and problem gambling: A prospective
study of gender differences in Canadian adults. Psychol Addict Behav. 2015;29(3):805-
812.
25. Zorrilla EP, Koob GF. Impulsivity Derived From the Dark Side: Neurocircuits That
17
Contribute to Negative Urgency. Front Behav Neurosci. 2019;13:1–15.
26. Owens MM, Amlung MT, Stojek M, MacKillop J. Negative Urgency Moderates
Reactivity to Laboratory Stress Inductions. J Abnorm Psychol. 2018;127(4):385-393.
27. *Devos G, Clark L, Maurage P, Billieux J. Induced sadness increases persistence in a
simulated slot machine task among recreational gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav.
2018;32(3):383–388. Experimentally induced sadness (elicited from emotional film
clips) increased persistence on a simulated slot machine task, in a between-groups
design compared to neutral mood.
28. Gipson CD, Beckmann JS, Adams ZW, Marusich JA, Nesland TO, Yates JR, Kelly TH,
Bardo MT. A translational behavioral model of mood-based impulsivity: Implications for
substance abuse. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;122(1–2):93–99.
29. Verbruggen F, Chambers CD, Lawrence NS, McLaren IP. Winning and losing: Effects on
impulsive action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017;43(1):147–168.
30. Fineberg NA, Chamberlain SR, Goudriaan AE, Stein DJ, Vanderschuren LJ, Gillan CM,
Shekar S, Gorwood PA, Voon V, Morein-Zamir S, Denys D, Sahakian B, Moeller FG,
Robbins TW, Potenza MN. New Developments in Human Neurocognition: Clinical,
Genetic and Brain Imaging Correlates of Impulsivity and Compulsivity Naomi. CNS
Spectr. 2014; 19(1): 69–89.
31. Fontenelle LF, Harrison BJ, Pujol J, Davey CG, Fornito A, Bora E, Pantelis C, Yücel M.
Brain functional connectivity during induced sadness in patients with obsessive-
compulsive disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2012;37(4):231–240.
32. *Yücel M, Oldenhof E, Ahmed SH, Belin D, Billieux J, Bowden-Jones H, et al. A
transdiagnostic dimensional approach towards a neuropsychological assessment for
18
addiction: an international Delphi consensus study. Addiction. 2019;114(6):1095–1109.
In a Delphi study, addiction experts identified seven primary constructs in
substance and behavioural addictions. Compulsivity was the only construct not
present within the NIH Research Domain Criteria. Reward valuation was
considered most relevant to vulnerability; habit and compulsivity were selectively
relevant to chronicity.
33. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The Unity
and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe”
Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis and. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49–100.
34. **van Timmeren T, Daams JG, van Holst RJ, Goudriaan AE. Compulsivity-related
neurocognitive performance deficits in gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;84:204–217. Meta-analysis of compulsivity-
related neurocognitive functioning in gambling disorder. Reliable deficits in
contingency-based flexibility, attentional set-shifting, and attentional
bias/disengagement, and no studies identified on habit learning.
35. Watson P, de Wit S. Current limits of experimental research into habits and future
directions. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018;20:33–39.
36. Hogarth L, Lam‐Cassettari C, Pacitti H, Currah T, Mahlberg J, Hartley L, Moustafa A.
Intact goal‐directed control in treatment‐seeking drug users indexed by outcome‐
devaluation and Pavlovian to instrumental transfer: critique of habit theory. Eur J
Neurosci. 2019;50(3):2513–2525.
37. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econom
J Econom Soc. 1979;47(3):263–291.
19
38. Wu Y, van Dijk E, Aitken MRF, Clark L. Missed losses loom larger than missed gains:
Electrodermal reactivity to decision choices and outcomes in a gambling task. Cogn
Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016;16(2):353–361.
39. Gelskov S V., Madsen KH, Ramsøy TZ, Siebner HR. Aberrant neural signatures of
decision-making: Pathological gamblers display cortico-striatal hypersensitivity to
extreme gambles. Neuroimage. 2016;128:342–352.
40. Genauck A, Quester S, Wüstenberg T, Mörsen C, Heinz A, Romanczuk-Seiferth N.
Reduced loss aversion in pathological gambling and alcohol dependence is associated
with differential alterations in amygdala and prefrontal functioning. Sci Rep.
2017;7(1):16306.
41. Giorgetta C, Grecucci A, Rattin A, Guerreschi C, Sanfey AG, Bonini N. To play or not to
play: A personal dilemma in pathological gambling. Psychiatry Res. 2014;219(3):562–
569.
42. Lorains FK, Dowling NA, Enticott PG, Bradshaw JL, Trueblood JS, Stout JC. Strategic
and non-strategic problem gamblers differ on decision-making under risk and ambiguity.
Addiction. 2014;109(7):1128–1137.
43. Takeuchi H, Kawada R, Tsurumi K, Yokoyama N, Takemura A, Murao T, Murai T,
Takahashi H. Heterogeneity of Loss Aversion in Pathological Gambling. J Gambl Stud.
2016;32(4):1143–1154.
44. Imas A. The realization effect: Risk-taking after realized versus paper losses. Am Econ
Rev. 2016;106(8):2086–2109.
45. Broussard J, Wulfert E. Debiasing of gambling beliefs and behaviors using a digital
gambling accelerator. Psychol Addict Behav. 2019;33(3):337–348.
20
46. Xuan Z, Shaffer H. How do gamblers end gambling: Longitudinal analysis of internet
gambling behaviors prior to account closure due to gambling related problems. J Gambl
Stud. 2009;25(2):239–252.
47. Ma X, Kim SH, Kim SS. Online gambling behavior: The impacts of cumulative outcomes,
recent outcomes, and prior use. Inf Syst Res. 2014;25(3):511–527.
48. **Rüdisser M, Flepp R, Franck EP. When Do Reference Points Update? A Field
Analysis of the Effect of Prior Gains and Losses on Risk-Taking over Time. University
of Zurich, Instition of Business Administration, UZH Business Working Paper 369. 2017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3047800. A behavioural tracking study in land-based
casino gamblers. Large prior losses reduced the wagers in the next visit whereas
small prior losses (and large prior wins) had minimal impact.
49. **Clark L, Boileau I, Zack M. Neuroimaging of reward mechanisms in Gambling
disorder: an integrative review. Mol Psychiatry. 2019;24(5):674–693. This review
summarizes neuroimaging evidence from both fMRI and PET for changes in
reward processing in gambling disorder, with attention to components of the
decision-making process (choice, anticipation, outcome).
50. Luijten M, Schellekens AF, Kühn S, MacHielse MW, Sescousse G. Disruption of reward
processing in addiction: An image-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance
imaging studies. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(4):387–398.
51. *Ring P, Probst CC, Neyse L, Wolff S, Kaernbach C, van Eimeren T, Camerer CF,
Schmidt U. It’s All About Gains: Risk Preferences in Problem Gambling. J Exp Psychol
Gen. 2018;147(8):1241-1255. A thorough behavioural economic study in which a
21
group with gambling disorder overweighted winning probabilities compared to
healthy controls, but did not differ in multiple aspects of loss processing.
52. Balodis IM, Kober H, Worhunsky PD, Stevens MC, Pearlson GD, Potenza MN.
Diminished frontostriatal activity during processing of monetary rewards and losses in
pathological gambling. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;71(8):749–757.
53. Romanczuk-Seiferth N, Koehler S, Dreesen C, Wüstenberg T, Heinz A. Pathological
gambling and alcohol dependence: Neural disturbances in reward and loss avoidance
processing. Addict Biol. 2015;20(3):557–569.
54. Choi JS, Shin YC, Jung WH, Jang JH, Kang DH, Choi CH, Choi SW, Lee JY, Hwang JY,
Kwon JS. Altered Brain Activity during Reward Anticipation in Pathological Gambling
and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):3–10.
55. Campbell-Meiklejohn DK, Woolrich MW, Passingham RE, Rogers RD. Knowing When
to Stop: The Brain Mechanisms of Chasing Losses. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(3):293–300.
56. Worhunsky PD, Potenza MN, Rogers RD. Alterations in functional brain networks
associated with loss-chasing in gambling disorder and cocaine-use disorder. Drug Alcohol
Depend. 2017;178:363–371.
57. de Ruiter MB, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE, Oosterlaan J, Sjoerds Z, Van Den Brink W.
Response perseveration and ventral prefrontal sensitivity to reward and punishment in
male problem gamblers and smokers. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34(4):1027–1038.
58. Verdejo-Garcia A, Clark L, Verdejo-Román J, Albein-Urios N, Martinez-Gonzalez JM,
Gutierrez B, Soriano-Mas C. Neural substrates of cognitive flexibility in cocaine and
gambling addictions. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;207(2):158–164.
22
59. **Soyata AZ, Aksu S, Woods AJ, İşçen P, Saçar KT, Karamürsel S. Effect of
transcranial direct current stimulation on decision making and cognitive flexibility in
gambling disorder. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;269(3):275–284. Tested the
effect of brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in gambling disorder: 3 sessions
of active tDCS to prefrontal cortex improved decision-making and cognitive
flexibility.
60. Campbell-Meiklejohn D, Wakeley J, Herbert V, Cook J, Scollo P, Ray MK, Selvaraj S,
Passingham RE, Cowen P, Rogers RD. Serotonin and dopamine play complementary roles
in gambling to recover losses. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36(2):402–410.
61. Crockett MJ, Clark L, Robbins TW. Reconciling the Role of Serotonin in Behavioral
Inhibition and Aversion: Acute Tryptophan Depletion Abolishes Punishment-Induced
Inhibition in Humans. J Neurosci. 2009;29(38):11993–11999.
62. Robinson OJ, Roiser JP. The Role of Serotonin in Aversive Inhibition: Behavioural,
Cognitive and Neural Perspectives. Psychopathol Rev. 2016;3(1):29–40.
63. Worbe Y, Palminteri S, Savulich G, Daw ND, Fernandez-Egea E, Robbins TW, Voon V.
Valence-dependent influence of serotonin depletion on model-based choice strategy. Mol
Psychiatry. 2016;21(5):624–629.
64. Wang FL, Chassin L. Negative Urgency Mediates the Relation Between Genetically
Influenced Serotonin Functioning and Alcohol Problems. Clin Psychol Sci.
2018;6(1):106–122.
65. Staw BM. Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen
course of action. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1976;16(1):27–44.
66. Campbell-Meiklejohn D, Arndis S, Scheel-Krüger J, Wohlert V, Gjerløff T, Frith CD,
23
Rogers RD, Roepstorff A, Møller A. In for a Penny, in for a Pound: Methylphenidate
Reduces the Inhibitory Effect of High Stakes on Persistent Risky Choice. J Neurosci.
2012;32(38):13032–13038.
67. Rogers RD, Wong A, McKinnon C, Winstanley CA. Systemic administration of 8-OH-
DPAT and eticlopride, but not SCH23390, alters loss-chasing behavior in the rat.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38(6):1094–1104.
68. Ishii H, Ohara S, Tobler PN, Tsutsui KI, Iijima T. Dopaminergic and serotonergic
modulation of anterior insular and orbitofrontal cortex function in risky decision making.
Neurosci Res. 2015;92:53–61.
69. Heyman GM. Addiction: a disorder of choice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press; 2009.
... Alternatively, the winning scenario might encourage gamblers to play more strategically with available funds; they can afford to bet more but they did not wish to lose those profits, hence shortening the session. By expressing chasing in one form but not another, this suggests the gamblers are not simply impulsive risk-seekers 33 . ...
... This effect of losses being greater than wins aligns with loss aversion in the general population and corroborates the central role of losses in developing gambling problems among screening protocols for Gambling Disorder (e.g., Problem Gambling Severity Index or PGSI; the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-5). This behavioural potency of losses may be explained by conceptualizing chasing as a form of urgency-the affect-related component of impulsivity 33 . In supporting this conceptualization, empirical studies on impulsivity showed that losses prompted a faster reaction time to the next gambling trial than wins 6,34 , and laboratory-induced negative affect from film clips extended gambling persistence 35 . ...
Article
Full-text available
Chasing refers to the escalation of betting behaviour. It is conventionally seen when losing but can also be seen after wins. Diagnostic and screening items for gambling problems describe chasing as returning ‘another day’ to gamble. However, gamblers may also chase within sessions, and this is particularly relevant in online gambling. This study focused on two expressions of within-session chasing: (1) increasing the bet amount, or (2) a reduced probability of quitting the session, as a function of prior losses or wins. These expressions were examined across five online gambling products: slot machines, probability games, blackjack, video poker, and roulette. Our results showed that gamblers bet more and played longer sessions after immediate losses, but they bet less and played shorter sessions when losing cumulatively. The reversed pattern in the cumulative model may be due to financial constraints. For wins, gamblers bet more after both immediate and cumulative wins, but they also played shorter sessions. Chasing patterns were qualitatively similar by game type—with limited evidence for our hypothesis that chasing would be greatest for slot machines as an established high-risk category. Overall, chasing is multi-faceted, varying across the behavioural expressions, by the immediate or cumulative timeframe of prior outcomes, and by game type.
... First, responsible gambling programming and public health messaging can be targeted at individuals who fluctuate considerably in their amount wagered and net loss, or who either wager or experience losses at consistently high levels. These individuals might be: (1) exhibiting unsustainable gambling involvement, (2) taking steps to reduce their gambling due to lack of control (Hing et al., 2015), and/or (3) increasing their gambling to chase losses (Banerjee et al., 2023;Edson et al., 2023;Zhang & Clark, 2020), chase wins (Chen et al., 2022), or to experience the same level of arousal as they previously experienced (i.e., tolerance; Blaszczynski et al., 2008;Lee et al., 2020). People with consistently high levels of involvement might also benefit from responsible gambling and public health messaging (Gainsbury et al., 2018;Newall et al., 2023), which might help them to moderate their gambling behavior. ...
Article
Full-text available
Research about the distribution of gambling activity and what percentage certain subgroups of gamblers are responsible for is mixed, but all indicates that a small minority (i.e., the vital few) is responsible for a greater amount of gambling activity than the large majority (i.e., the trivial many). The present pre-registered study extends this line of research to a large dataset of digital gambling records for a cohort of sports bettors from Europe (n = 36,331) over a 6-year period (2015–2020) to examine (1) whether distributions based on amount wagered and net loss in this cohort change over time on a yearly basis, (2) the extent to which individuals are stable or change their distribution group membership from the vital few to the trivial many (and vice versa) over time, and (3) how distribution group membership predicts the use of a cool-off feature (i.e., a temporary break from being able to gamble on the website) and self-exclusion (i.e., permanent exclusion from the gambling website). We observed that gambling expenditure distributions were mainly stable over time. Individual distribution group membership varied, such that the size of the vital few comprised 3 to 6.5% of active users each year. The largest subgroup was an early churn subgroup (i.e., stopped playing after the first year; about 66% of the sample), followed by people who remained in the trivial many for their study period (i.e., the stable trivial; 21 to 22%). Moving between distribution groups over time was strongly associated with using cool-off or self-exclusion features. Our findings have important implications for understanding the distributions of gambling spending among sports gamblers, the extent to which membership in high-spending groups remains stable over time, and potential risks for responsible gambling tool use and gambling-related problems.
... The third theme, centered on guidance against gambling, echoes Thiruvalluvar's advocacy against developing a desire for the game, despite the chances to win. He warns against the captivating nature of gambling, emphasizing its potential to ensnare individuals and lead to significant losses in the longer run, which aligns with the negative winning expectancy theory (Zhang & Clark, 2020), suggesting that prolonged gambling habits are more likely to result in losses than gains. He tries to shed light on one's erroneous belief by questioning whether an individual can lead a good, prosperous life by engaging in gambling despite the potential for loss. ...
Article
Full-text available
Thirukkural, a timeless classic in ancient Tamil literature authored by Thiruvalluvar, encompasses various aspects of human life and offers profound insights into moral and ethical conduct. In this paper, we attempt to explore the themes within the couplets in the gambling chapter of Thirukural through an inductive thematic analysis approach. The themes that emerged were the negative consequences of gambling, the addictive nature of gambling, and the prescription against gambling, offering timeless guidance for navigating the complexities of gambling behaviors, disorders, and treatments. Additionally, this research examines the applicability of Thirukkural’s teachings to modern-day gambling scenarios, considering the evolving nature of gambling practices and the ethical challenges they present
... While neurobiological differences may be present in individuals with GD [39], recent research suggests that craving and chasing stem both from functional alterations in cerebellum-related connectivity that might underpin gambling severity [40][41][42]. However, chasing seems to depend mainly on dysfunctions in the cognitive mechanisms underpinning decision-making. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Dysfunctional decision-making and intense craving represent pivotal aspects across all addictive behaviors, notably evident in gambling addiction where these factors significantly shape chasing behavior—continuing gambling to recoup losses—indicative of problematic gambling. This study explores the correlation between chasing behavior, craving, affective decision-making, decision-making styles, and gambling severity among habitual Italian gamblers. Methods One hundred and sixty-six participants from diverse gambling venues completed assessments including the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), the General Decision-Making Style (GDMS), the Gambling Craving Scale (GACS), and a computerized task to measure chasing behavior. Participants were randomly assigned to Control and Loss chasing conditions. Results Regression analyses revealed craving as a predictor of chasing behavior. Interestingly, individuals with a dependent decision-making style exhibited lower tendencies to chase. While IGT performance correlates with chasing frequency, it is not associated with the decision to continue or cease gambling. Intriguingly, gambling severity (SOGS total score) did not feature in the final models of both regression analyses. Discussion These findings emphasize the significant role of craving in driving chasing behavior. Additionally, this study introduces, for the first time, the idea that a dependent decision-making style could potentially serve as a safeguard against chasing proneness. Conclusions The study suggests a fundamental dichotomy between chasers and nonchasers among gamblers, irrespective of gambling severity. This distinction could be instrumental in tailoring more effective intervention strategies for gambling disorder treatment.
... There are multiple behavioral expressions of loss-chasing (Chen et al. 2022;Zhang and Clark 2020). The DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5 Task Force, and American Psychiatric Association DS 2013) criteria for gambling disorder describe loss-chasing as the tendency to "return another day to get even." ...
Article
Full-text available
Betting more after losses (i.e., “loss‐chasing”) is a central clinical feature of disordered gambling. According to prospect theory, increasing risk‐seeking following losses could arise from a failure to “re‐reference.” By contrast, successful re‐referencing between successive decisions closes the mental account, and any losses are regarded as final or realized ; gamblers should not chase realized losses. The present study sought to test this “realization effect” among gamblers using an ecologically valid online gambling task. We were further interested in whether the effectiveness of the loss realization varied as a function of problem gambling severity. Using online recruitment of past‐year gamblers stratified on the Problem Gambling Severity Index, we tested a group without gambling problems ( n = 227), a group with at‐risk gambling ( n = 239), and a group with gambling problems ( n = 223). Over a sequence of nine bets, after the sixth bet, half of the participants underwent a simulated realization procedure that entailed cashing out from the gambling website and redepositing their remaining funds on another website. The feedback comparison group were shown their account balance after the sixth bet but did not withdraw or transfer their funds. In line with the realization effect, the group with non‐problem gambling significantly reduced their bet after cashing out. The realization procedure did not significantly ameliorate loss‐chasing in the groups with at‐risk gambling or gambling problems. We conclude that the realization effect can be elicited in an online gambling context but that stronger interventions for realizing losses may be required for people experiencing gambling problems.
... The Loss-chasing refers to the continuation and/or intensification of gambling following losses (Lesieur, 1979;Zhang & Clark, 2020). Chasing is often expressed within-sessions via persistence, change in stake amount and speed of play (Banerjee et al., 2023). ...
Poster
Full-text available
Background and aims: Loss-chasing (persisting and/or intensifying gambling to recoup previous losses) is a key clinical symptom of gambling disorder. A recent large-scale study assessed loss-chasing within sessions following immediate losses and wins in an online commercial gamble and found that gamblers stopped playing and decreased stake amount after losses than wins but played more quickly following losses than wins (Chen et al., 2022).However, how loss-chasing may change across outcome streaks has remained unclear. The current study aimed to replicate Chen et al. (2022) and extend it to outcome streaks. Methods. A large-scale dataset of 4308 gamblers (~71 million rounds) from the same gamble was analyzed to assess three facets of within-session chasing following winning and losing streaks, namely persistence, changes in stake size and speed of play. Results: We replicated the main findings from Chen et al. Extending the previous findings, gamblers significantly decreased persistence and stake amount but did not change speed of play as the losing streak increased. Contrarily, no clear pattern was observed following winning streaks. Moreover, gambler’s gambling involvement level (high vs. low) did not impact within-session chasing. Discussion and conclusion: The current results can be most parsimoniously explained by the wealth effect, in which reduced gambling funds following consecutive losses constrained gamblers’ tendency to continue and increase stake sizes, but not their speed of play. This finding has implications for both research into the psychological mechanisms of chasing, and safer gambling initiatives that aim to identify markers of chasing in real gambling.
... Loss-chasing refers to the continuation and/or intensification of gambling to recoup one's losses (Lesieur, 1977). It is a key diagnostic criterion in the DSM-5 for GD (APA, 1994;2013), and plays a central role in the development and maintenance of problematic gambling (Zhang & Clark, 2020). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Loss-chasing is a key clinical symptom of gambling disorder. Understanding its behavioural manifestation in real gambling will help better understand and identify problematic gambling behaviour. A recent study found that in an online commercial gamble, gamblers were more likely to stop playing and decreased stake sizes after immediate losses than wins but played more quickly following losses than wins (Chen et al., 2022). However, how within-session chasing may change across outcome streaks was unclear. To address this question, we analyzed a large-scale dataset (4308 gamblers, ~71 million rounds) from the same gamble, and assessed three facets of within-session chasing following winning and losing streaks, namely persistence, changes in stake size and speed of play. We replicated the main findings from Chen et al. Extending the previous findings, gamblers decreased persistence and reduced stake sizes but did not change speed of play as losing streaks continued. No clear pattern was observed for winning streaks. Exploratory analyses indicated that reduced funds following losing streaks and the expectation that losing streaks will continue jointly may best explain these results. These findings provide more insights into the underlying mechanisms of chasing and may help identify markers of chasing in real gambling.
Article
Full-text available
Cryptocurrency and day trading have grown in popularity over the past decade following the creation of the first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, in 2009. These activities share important features with gambling, including risking money on an uncertain outcome, a chance of monetary rewards, and the potential to experience harm (e.g., financial or relationship problems). However, little is known about cryptocurrency and day trading engagement in the adult population, including associations with gambling behavior, harm, and psychological factors that might moderate these relationships. We analyzed cross-sectional data for n = 822 adults from an online panel in the U.S. to examine: (1) the extent to which cryptocurrency trading, day trading, and gambling are associated, (2) relationships between cryptocurrency trading, day trading, and higher risk gambling behavior, and (3) whether financially focused self-concept and four types of gambling motives moderate these relationships. We found moderate to strong positive intercorrelations between cryptocurrency and day trading, and gambling behavior, including engagement and risk. We identified significant moderating effects of financially focused self-concept, and coping motives for gambling, on the relationship between cryptocurrency trading and gambling frequency, and between day trading and gambling frequency. For the models predicting higher risk gambling status, the only significant moderators were financially focused self-concept for the day trading model, and the enhancement motive for the cryptocurrency and day trading models. Our results have important implications for understanding interrelationships between gambling-adjacent activities and more traditional gambling forms, as well as the moderating roles of key psychosocial concepts in these relationships.
Article
Kumar Oynama Bozukluğu, tekrarlayıcı ve süreğen bir şekilde devam eden kumar oynama davranışıyla karakterize edilen bir klinik tablodur. Kumar Oynama Bozukluğu, nörobiyolojik ve klinik olarak alkol ve madde kullanım bozuklukları ile ortak özellikler taşıması sebebi ile DSM-5’te madde ile ilişkili olmayan ilk ve tek davranışsal bağımlılık olarak yer almaktadır. Kumar Oynama Bozukluğu’nu nörobiyolojik ve nörobilişsel olarak incelediğimizde dopamin, serotonin, norepinefrin ve glutamat gibi nörotransmitterlerin hastalık gelişiminde etkili olduğu düşünülmektedir. Nörobilişsel perspektiften bakıldığında ise Kumar Oynama Bozukluğu temelinde pozitif pekiştireçlerle gelişen davranışsal koşullanma, değer atfetme, dürtüsellik ve karar verme süreçlerindeki bozuklukların yer aldığı gözlenmektedir. Birey, olumsuz yaşam olaylarıyla baş etme mekanizması olarak kumar oynama davranışını benimserse, bu davranış zamanla artarak devam eder. Zaman içinde artan kumar oynama davranışı, bireyin kendini kontrol etme kapasitesini zayıflatır ve ortaya çıkan olumsuz sonuçlara rağmen kumar oynama davranışının devam etmesine yol açar. Bu kısır döngü, bireyin iş, aile, akademik ve sosyal alanlarda sorunlar yaşamasına neden olarak hastalığın daha da şiddetlenmesine katkı sağlar. Kumar Oynama Bozukluğu, başlangıçta zararsız görünen bir davranış olmasına rağmen, altta yatan yatkınlık ve koruyucu faktörlerin dengesine bağlı olarak bağımlılığa dönüşebilir.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of Review Gambling operators’ capacity to track gamblers in the online environment may enable identification of those users experiencing gambling harm. This review provides an update on research testing behavioral variables against indicators of disordered gambling. We consider the utility of machine learning algorithms in risk prediction, and challenges to be overcome. Recent Findings Disordered online gambling is associated with a range of behavioral variables, as well as other predictors including demographic and payment-related information. Machine learning is ideally suited to the task of combining these predictors in risk identification, although current research has yielded mixed success. Recent work enhancing the temporal resolution of behavioral analysis to characterize bet-by-bet changes may identify novel predictors of loss chasing. Summary Data science has considerable potential to identify high-risk online gambling, informed by principles of behavioral analysis. Identification may enable targeting of interventions to users who are most at risk.
Article
Full-text available
Negative urgency is a unique dimension of impulsivity that involves acting rashly when in extreme distress and impairments in inhibitory control. It has been hypothesized to derive from stress that is related to negative emotional states that are experienced during the withdrawal/negative affect stage of the addiction cycle. Classically, a transition to compulsive drug use prevents or relieves negative emotional states that result from abstinence or stressful environmental circumstances. Recent work suggests that this shift to the "dark side" is also implicated in impulsive use that derives from negative urgency. Stress and anxious, depressed, and irritable mood have high comorbidity with addiction. They may trigger bouts of drug seeking in humans via both negative reinforcement and negative urgency. The neurocircuitry that has been identified in the "dark side" of addiction involves key neuropeptides in the central extended amygdala, including corticotropin-releasing factor. The present review article summarizes empirical and conceptual advances in the field to understand the role of the "dark side" in driving the risky and detrimental substance use that is associated with negative urgency in addiction.
Article
Full-text available
Background and aims: Chasing refers to continued gambling in an attempt to recoup previous losses and is one of the diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder. However, research on the topic is still in its infancy. This study investigated whether chasing behavior mediates the relationship between time perspective and gambling severity. Methods: Non-problem gamblers (N = 26) and problem gamblers (N = 66) with the same demographic features (age and gender) were compared on the Consideration of Future Consequences and a computerized task assessing chasing. The Italian South Oaks Gambling Screen was used to discriminate participants in terms of gambling severity. Results: Significant correlations were found relating to gambling severity, chasing, and time perspective. More specifically, the results showed that problem gamblers reported more chasing and a foreshortened time horizon. Chasers, compared to non-chasers, were found to be more oriented to the present. Regression analysis showed that male gender, present-oriented time perspective, and chasing were good predictors of gambling severity. Finally, to clarify if present orientation was on the path from chasing to gambling severity or if chasing was the mediator of the impact of present orientation on gambling severity, a path analysis was performed. The results indicated that present orientation had a direct effect on gambling severity and mediated the relationship between chasing and gambling involvement. Conclusion: The findings support the exacerbating role of chasing in gambling disorder and for the first time show the relationship of time perspective, chasing, and gambling severity among adults.
Article
Full-text available
Problem gamblers tend to adhere to rigid rules about the chances of winning and are resistant to counterfactual information. To promote a more accurate understanding of the odds of scratch-off ticket gambling, we created a brief debiasing intervention consisting of a digital gambling accelerator program that offers demonstrations of the long-term outcomes of gambling. Using a sample of nontreatment seeking scratch-off lottery gamblers recruited from the community (42 subclinical and 45 probable pathological gamblers), we compared the accelerator intervention to brief motivational interviewing (MI) and a control condition. Participants rated their chances of winning, urge to gamble, and readiness to change before and after the interventions. Self-reported dollar amount spent on scratch-off tickets and number of days gambled were assessed at baseline and again at 2- and 4-week follow-ups. Following the active interventions, gamblers in both conditions reported greater readiness to change than controls, and those in the accelerator condition also gave lower ratings of their chances of winning and urge to gamble. Marginal models showed participants in the accelerator condition gambled fewer days at the 2-week follow-up and spent less money at both the 2- and 4-week follow-ups compared to controls; no other between-subjects differences achieved statistical significance. Digital gambling accelerators can impact several clinically relevant domains of gambling and may be useful as stand-alone or adjunct interventions to treat gambling problems.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of Review Legislation and technology have led to unprecedented changes in the frequency and content of gambling marketing in many countries. We build upon previous reviews by exploring research on gambling marketing from between 2014 and 2018. Recent Findings Most literature reviewed was from the UK or Australia, with three key findings identified. First, gambling marketing is highly targeted and ubiquitous around sport, with the most popular strategies being increasing brand awareness, advertising complex financial incentives for participation and advertising complex betting odds. Second, perceptions of gambling advertising, particularly among vulnerable groups (e.g. children, problem gamblers) appear to be influenced by this targeted content. Third, emerging research suggests that awareness of gambling marketing is associated with more frequent and riskier gambling behaviour. Summary The reviewed literature suggests that gambling marketing is targeted and influences how gambling is perceived, and that it may affect gambling-related behaviours.
Article
Full-text available
Decision making and cognitive flexibility are two components of cognitive control that play a critical role in the emergence, persistence, and relapse of gambling disorder. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been reported to enhance decision making and cognitive flexibility in healthy volunteers and individuals with addictive disorders. In this triple-blind randomized sham-controlled parallel study, we aimed to determine whether tDCS over DLPFC would modulate decision making and cognitive flexibility in individuals with gambling disorder. Twenty participants with gambling disorder were administered Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Subsequently, participants were administered three every other day sessions of active right anodal /left cathodal tDCS (20 min, 2 mA) or sham stimulation over bilateral DLPFC. WCST and IGT were readministered following the last session. Baseline clinical severity, depression, impulsivity levels, and cognitive performance were similar between groups. TDCS over the DLPFC resulted in more advantageous decision making (F1,16 = 8.128, p = 0.01, ɳp² =0.33) and better cognitive flexibility (F1,16 =8.782, p = 0.009, ɳp² = 0.35), representing large effect sizes. The results suggest for the first time that tDCS enhanced decision making and cognitive flexibility in gambling disorder. Therefore, tDCS may be a promising neuromodulation-based therapeutic approach in gambling disorder. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03477799.
Article
Full-text available
The structural MRI evidence for gray matter deficits in GD is currently inconclusive, although a conservative statement would be that any reductions are modest in comparison to the reliable deterioration seen in SUDs [57,58,59]. This conclusion is supported by GD studies employing direct 3-group designs with an SUD comparison group [28, 44]. Nevertheless, individual differences in brain anatomy correlate with vulnerability factors, including impulsivity, which may be transdiagnostic across addictive disorders [44, 46]. DTI studies indicate more consistent reductions in white matter integrity that are of a distributed nature and similar to changes described in SUDs. It is currently unclear whether gray matter or white matter alterations in GD relate directly to reward-based symptom clusters.
Article
Full-text available
Background The U.S. National Institutes of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) seek to stimulate research into biologically validated neuropsychological dimensions across mental illness symptoms and diagnoses. The RDoC framework comprises 39 functional constructs designed to be revised and refined, with the overall goal to improve diagnostic validity and treatments. This study aimed to reach a consensus among experts in the addiction field on the ‘primary' RDoC constructs most relevant to substance and behavioural addictions. Methods Forty‐four addiction experts were recruited from Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The Delphi technique was used to determine a consensus as to the degree of importance of each construct in understanding the essential dimensions underpinning addictive behaviours. Expert opinions were canvassed online over three rounds (97% completion rate), with each consecutive round offering feedback for experts to review their opinions. Results Seven constructs were endorsed by ≥80% of experts as ‘primary' to the understanding of addictive behaviour: five from the Positive Valence System (Reward Valuation, Expectancy, Action Selection, Reward Learning, Habit); one from the Cognitive Control System (Response Selection/Inhibition); and one expert‐initiated construct (Compulsivity). These constructs were rated to be differentially related to stages of the addiction cycle, with some more closely linked to addiction onset, and others more to chronicity. Experts agreed that these neuropsychological dimensions apply across a range of addictions. Conclusions The study offers a novel and neuropsychologically informed theoretical framework, as well as a cogent step forward to test transdiagnostic concepts in addiction research, with direct implications for assessment, diagnosis, staging of disorder, and treatment.
Article
Full-text available
Problem gambling is a serious socioeconomic problem involving high individual and social costs. In this article, we study risk preferences of problem gamblers including their risk attitudes in the gain and loss domains, their weighting of probabilities, and their degree of loss aversion. Our findings indicate that problem gamblers are systematically more risk taking and less sensitive toward changes in probabilities in the gain domain only. Neither their risk attitudes in the loss domain nor their degree of loss aversion are significantly different from the controls. Additional evidence for a similar degree of sensitivity toward negative outcomes is gained from skin conductance data—a psychophysiological marker for emotional arousal—in a threat-of-shock task.
Article
Full-text available
Animal studies have demonstrated that chronic exposure to drugs of abuse impairs goal‐directed control over action selection indexed by the outcome‐devaluation and specific Pavlovian to instrumental transfer procedures, suggesting this impairment might underpin addiction. However, there is currently only weak evidence for impaired goal‐directed control in human drug users. Two experiments were undertaken in which treatment‐seeking drug users and non‐matched normative reference samples (controls) completed outcome‐devaluation and specific Pavlovian to instrumental transfer procedures notionally translatable to animal procedures (Experiment 2 used a more challenging biconditional schedule). The two experiments found significant outcome‐devaluation and specific Pavlovian to instrumental transfer effects overall and there was no significant difference between groups in the magnitude of these effects. Moreover, Bayes factor supported the null hypothesis for these group comparisons. Although limited by non‐matched group comparisons and small sample sizes, the two studies suggest that treatment‐seeking drug users have intact goal‐directed control over action selection, adding uncertainty to already mixed evidence concerning the role of habit learning in human drug dependence. Neuro‐interventions might seek to tackle goal‐directed drug‐seeking rather than habit formation in drug users. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.