Addiction Research and Theory, 200?, Vol. 00, No. 0, pp. 1–12
PERSONALITY TRAITS IN PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING: SENSATION SEEKING, DEFERMENT OF GRATIFICATION AND COMPETITIVENESS AS RISK FACTORS
2
2
ADRIAN PARKE, MARK GRIFFITHS* and PAUL IRWING
2 1
Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NGI 4BU (Received . . .) To date, research into personality traits among gamblers has been largely inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive values of three personality traits on pathological gambling (sensation seeking, deferment of gratification and competitiveness) – two of which (deferment of gratification and competitiveness) have never been investigated before. A questionnaire was administered to 114 gamblers of whom 38% were classified as pathological gamblers according to the DSM-IV criteria. The questionnaire included the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, M. (1984). Sensation seeking: a comparative approach to a human trait. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 7, 413–471.), the Deferment of Gratification Scale (Ray, J.J. and Najman, J. (1986). The generalisability of deferment of gratification. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 117–119.) and the Gambling Competitiveness Scale constructed by the authors specifically for this study. Results showed that competitiveness had a strong positive predictive value for pathological gambling, and that deferment of gratification had relatively strong negative predictive value. Sensation seeking was shown not to be a significant predictor of pathological gambling. This is the first ever study to show empirically that competitiveness and deferment of gratification appear to be important risk factors in pathological gambling. Keywords: Pathological gambling; Sensation seeking; Deferment of gratification; Competitiveness
Recent research has highlighted that around three quarters of the population (72%) have gambled within the last year and that just under 1% of the UK population are problem gamblers (National Centre for Social Research, 2000). It is evident that problem gambling is a serious disorder, potentially addictive, and can have many negative consequences. Furthermore, recent deregulation measures will lead to an increase in opportunity and access to gamble. This will lead to an increase in the level of problem and/or addictive gambling (Griffiths, 1999). Research into the causes of problem gambling is still at a relatively early stage, and it is clear that gambling addiction results from an interaction between many different variables (e.g., environmental, social, psychological and/or biological). Some of the most researched variables have
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected] ISSN 1606-6359 print: ISSN 1476-7392 online ß 200? Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1606635310001634500
+
[28.10.2003–4:04pm]
FIRST PROOFS
{GandB}Gart/GART-31016.3d
Addiction Research and Theory (GART)
Paper: GART-31016
Keyword
2
A. PARKE et al.
been in the area of individual differences. This research has examined a number of different personality traits and their relationship and association with both gambling and problem gambling. To date research into personality traits among gamblers has been largely consistent. This will not come as a surprise to situationists such as Gergen (1968) who commented, ‘‘The prevalent view that normal behaviour of individuals is consistent is misconceived. . . (and the research evidence) strongly suggest that consistency in thought or action, does not constitute the normal range of affairs’’ (pp. 305–306). However, to suggest that gambling behaviour is totally dependent on the situational and structural gambling environment is also misconceived. The fact that gambling behaviour in an environment varies so dramatically cross-sectionally (i.e., why are some gamblers pathological in their behaviour and others not?) is testament that individual differences plays an important role in development of gambling behaviour. The major argument of situationists for the rejection of the existence personality traits, is the assumption that the cross-situational consistencies are too weak to play an important role (Kendrick and Funder, 1988). Mischel (1968) states that correlations between scores on trait measures and actual behaviour rarely exist above 0.3. However, Funder and Ozer (1983) state that many of the ‘powerful experimental manipulations’ recorded in psychological research rarely exist above 0.3. In regards to gambling research, discovering personality traits that have any statistically significant predictive value for identifying potential at risk groups is very desirable. This is of particular interest when considering the deregulation of gambling statutes in the UK, and the predicted subsequent widespread increase in gambling behaviour. When considering the nature of the behaviour, gambling’s attraction primarily lies in the arousal of wining and (in some cases) losing money. However the subjective experience of wining and losing money creates other openings for behaviour reinforcement. Kusyszyn (1977) proposes that gambling is fundamentally a form of ‘adult play’ and arousal from gambling is therefore induced by ‘playing with money’ rather than ‘playing for money’. Furthermore, Kusyszyn (1977) states that other inherent human needs are satiated when gambling including physical tension, emotional arousal, cognitive challenge and release from reality. All of these are met through the basic arousal of winning and losing money while gambling, hence by default meeting such needs is a secondary motivator. Given the pivotal role of arousal in gambling, it is proposed that Sensation Seeking (Zuckerman, 1979) is a personality trait that warrants further investigation in regards to its relationship with pathological gambling. Sensation seeking is the ‘‘need for varied, novel and complex sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experience’’ (Zuckerman, 1979, p. 10). In accord with Zuckerman’s (1979) theory, it is predicted that high sensation seekers will perceive gambling situations to be less risky and will enjoy the arousing experience (surgency-elation effect) more than low sensation seekers (i.e., pathological gamblers will have higher sensation seeking levels than nonpathological gamblers). However Zuckerman (1979) reported that empirical research needed to be performed before conclusions can be made with any conviction. Studies in this area have provided contrasting results with some studies supporting the hypothesis (Kuley and Jacobs, 1988), some studies showing no difference between gamblers and non-gamblers (Anderson and Brown, 1984; Ladouceur and Mayrand, 1986) and others showing gamblers to be lower on sensation seeking than normals
+
[28.10.2003–4:04pm]
FIRST PROOFS
{GandB}Gart/GART-31016.3d
Addiction Research and Theory (GART)
Paper: GART-31016
Keyword
PERSONALITY TRAITS IN PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING
3
(Blaszczynski et al., 1986; Dickerson et al., 1987). Furthermore, some studies have suggested that different types of gamblers have different sensation-seeking scores (Coventry and Brown, 1993). Two traits that have yet to be investigated empirically are competitiveness and deferment of gratification. In most forms of gambling there is intrinsic structural competition. Kohn (1992) states that structural competition is a situation in which two or more individuals vie for tangible or intangible rewards that are too scarce to be equally enjoyed by all. In terms of gambling, tangible rewards are obviously the money or prize won and intangible rewards refer to the social aspects of gambling, where the gambler is acknowledged through peer comparison to possess skill (admirable gambling ability). Essentially, the gambling is a zero-sum game where one party profits and one party loses as a result of other’s gain. The structural competition of an environment leads to individuals being motivated to be competitive and creating and sustaining a ‘competitive psychological climate’ where efforts are focussed on obtaining goals (Kohn, 1992). This theory can be applied to gambling institutions. Gamblers are in competition with opposing gamblers for scarce resources (for money), and to similar extent with the proprietors of such gambling environments for money. There is temptation to speculate that it is the structural competition of the games and the environment which motivates and induces gamblers to be competitive. Therefore, evaluating the predictive validity for the personality trait of competitiveness for identifying pathological gamblers is irrelevant because it is the gambling which creates the competitiveness, rather than the competitiveness causing the excessive gambling. However, when evaluating the ‘person-situation interaction’ proposals (Kendrick and Funder, 1988), support is given to the investigation of competitiveness as a predictor of pathological gambling. This is based on two of the person-situation interaction assumptions. Firstly Rausch (1977) highlights that a person’s personality trait can actually influence the environment and situation. Applying this to the gambling environment, competition in the shape of predatory slot machine gambling creates a competitive, potentially hostile, slot machine arcade (Parke and Griffiths, 2003). Secondly, Snyder and Ickles (1985) show that individuals choose to engage in environments that match their personality traits. From this, it is reasonable to speculate that gamblers with a high level of competitiveness will be attracted, comfortable and motivated to continue gambling in an environment that they perceive as competitive. The idea of the competitiveness of the activity being a primary motivator to gamble is supported. Shaffer (1998) postulated that men are more likely to develop problematic, gambling behaviour because of their conventionally high levels of aggression, impulsivity and competitiveness. Wiebe (2003), speculating on the high participation in US college basketball betting, commented that boys were above all attracted to the competitiveness of betting on teams and games. Moreover, Looney (2003) supported this theory by again stating that male gamblers are attracted to sports betting because ‘they love competitiveness’. Based on such evidence, it is hypothesised that a gambler who is highly competitive will experience more arousal and stimulation, and be drawn to gambling as an outlet to release competitive instincts and drives. Competitiveness may be particularly relevant to pathological gambling when trying to understand why in the face of negative and damaging consequences, pathological gamblers persist in their self-destructive habit. Highly competitive individuals (gamblers) are more sensitive to social comparison
+
[28.10.2003–4:04pm]
FIRST PROOFS
{GandB}Gart/GART-31016.3d
Addiction Research and Theory (GART)
Paper: GART-31016
Keyword
4
A. PARKE et al.
with peers regarding their task performance (Spence and Helmreich, 1983; Epstein and Harackiewicz, 1992; Reeve and Deci, 1996). In simple terms, it is reasonable to suggest that competitive gamblers may be reluctant to stop gambling until they are in a positive state in relation to opposing gamblers, perhaps explaining excessive gambling. Sociological perspectives also suggest competitiveness levels could be associated with pathological gambling. Cornish (1978) believes that factors of the human instinctual expressive needs, such as competition, can be temporarily sufficed when engaging in gambling activities. Evidence exists supporting gambling as an instrumental outlet for expressing competitive instinctual urges (Hartman and van Valley, 1997; Kusyszyn, 1977). Goffman (1972) developed the ‘deprivation-compensation’ theory by suggesting that the stability of society no longer creates situations where competitive instincts are tested. Naturally, gambling is an artificial, self imposed situation of instability which can be instrumental in creating an opportunity to test competitive capabilities. It is therefore hypothesised that pathological gamblers will possess higher levels of competitiveness than non-pathological gamblers. Deferment of gratification as a trait has traditionally been measured through experimental methods (Ray and Najman, 1986). For example, asking participants if they would prefer £ 5 now or £ 10 in three days time. An answer to questions such as this in experimental conditions, is believed to measure an individual’s general propensity to defer gratification. However, Wormith and Hasenpusch (1979) have demonstrated that answers to questions such as the above example are normally uncorrelated; therefore, questioning the validity and even the existence of a trait of gratification deferment. In response to this proposition, Ray and Najman (1986) developed a scale that was verified to measure a personality trait which be classified as deferment of gratification. The scale consisted of 12 items which had a reliability coefficient of 0.72 (Cronbach’s alpha). The scale had a mean inter-item correlation of 0.17, showing that each question measured a relatively small but distinctive component of the trait of deferment of gratification. Development of the trait of gratification deferment in childhood has been proposed as having a significant effect on an individual’s social status in the future, in terms of maintaining the ability to be upwardly mobile through social classes (Koenig et al., 1980; Funder et al., 1983). This is based on the premise that those who have a predilection to deter gratification, have an inclination to invest significantly in their educational development and have tendency to be frugal and show financial prudence (Ray and Najman, 1986). However, Straus (1962) has demonstrated that no positive correlation exists between socio-economic status and the behavioural pattern of gratification deferment. The role of deferment of gratification in gambling is mostly drawn from the economic theories on pathological gambling forwarded by Wagenaar (1988) and Cornish (1978). It makes economic sense to gamble in situations where the expected utility is high or at least positive. However, gambling activities only provide these opportunities very rarely. For instance, someone who gambles £10 on the lottery each week because they perceive the chance of winning a life altering lottery jackpot has greater utility than the £10 spent elsewhere every week. It is highly probable that saving the £10 every week would make more economic sense. Nevertheless, it is also probable that even when considering interest rates and cumulative capital growth, the savings will never compare to a lottery jackpot. Another assumption is that many problem gamblers
+
[28.10.2003–4:04pm]
FIRST PROOFS
{GandB}Gart/GART-31016.3d
Addiction Research and Theory (GART)
Paper: GART-31016
Keyword
PERSONALITY TRAITS IN PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING
5
are not willing to wait (i.e., they want instant financial gratification). By briefly overviewing the literature on these three personality traits, it is hypothesised that: . Pathological gamblers will have higher levels of sensation seeking than non-pathological gamblers (Hypothesis 1). . Pathological gamblers will have lower levels of deferment of gratification than nonpathological gamblers (Hypothesis 2). . Pathological gamblers will have higher levels of competitiveness than non-pathological gamblers (Hypothesis 3).
METHOD Participants A sample of 114 gamblers were sampled from a general population of ‘people who gamble’. For purposes of this particular study a participant was defined as a gambler if they participated in any or any combination of the following activities: betting on the outcome of sporting events; playing the National Lottery; playing AWPs (slot machines); playing any casino games or playing bingo. Many of the sample gambled on more than one type of activity. Only 15 participants gambled on one type of activity although the primary form of gambling for most participants in this study was slot machines. Of the participants, 86.8% admitted to be involved with at least two or more types of gambling activity. Moreover, 56.6% of the sample admitted to participating in three or more type of gambling activity. Over 6% of the sample revealed that they participated in at least six types of gambling activity. Of the sample, 91 participants (80%) were male and 23 participants (20%) were female; 22.8% of the sample were undergraduate students. The participants’ ages ranged from under 17 years old to over 60 years old, and had normal distribution (48% were aged up to 25 years and 52% were over 26 year, with mean age being 26.3). Over two-thirds of the female participants (70%) were aged 36 years or older, whereas only 25.3% of males were similarly aged. The vast majority of participants were regular gamblers with approximately three quarters (75.5%) gambling at least weekly. Just over a quarter of the sample (28%) gambled daily and 5.3% gambled at least once a month. Out of a sample of 114 people who gambled, 42 (38%) were identified as pathological gamblers using the DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling.
Instruments A questionnaire was devised and employed to collect data on the sample’s demographic information such as age, gender and gambling preferences (such as how often they gamble and how many types of gambling activities they regularly participate in). The questionnaire also examined levels of sensation seeking, deferment of gratification and competitiveness, as well as information indicating whether the participant was a pathological gambler. All scales, bar the Gambling Competitiveness Scale (GCS) have been validated elsewhere. As the GCS was developed by the authors, details are given (below) relating to its psychometric development. Internal reliability checks
+
[28.10.2003–4:04pm]
FIRST PROOFS
{GandB}Gart/GART-31016.3d
Addiction Research and Theory (GART)
Paper: GART-31016
Keyword
6
A. PARKE et al.
were carried out by the authors on all the screening instruments used and are reported in each section below. Sensation seeking To measure the construct of sensation seeking, the 13-item Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) developed by Zuckerman (1984) was employed. Through factor analysis Zuckerman (1984) found that sensation seeking consisted of four components: thrill seeking; experience seeking; disinhibition and boredom susceptibility. Participants select one of two statements that most accurately reflect their preference. For example, item 2 requires the participant to select either ‘‘I am invigorated by a brisk, cold day’’ or ‘‘I can’t wait to get indoors on a cold day’’. Internal reliability of the scale was shown to be high, having an alpha coefficient of 0.83. Test–retest reliability over a three-month period was 0.72 (Zuckerman, 1984). The internal reliability of the scale measured by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72. Deferment of gratification The variable of the deferment of gratification triat was measured through the Deferment of Gratification Scale (DGS) (Ray and Najman, 1986). Initially 18 items were selected to initiate development of a DGS. This scale was administered to a random doorstep sample of 209 people, in the city of Brisbane. Six of the initial 18 items were shown to have no correlation with any other items, and were subsequently removed leaving a comparatively reliable 12-item scale. Internal reliability of the scale was 0.72 (using Cronbach’s alpha; Ray and Najman, 1986). The scale is a 12-item measure that requires the participant to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions regarding their preferences on delaying gratification. For example on item 9 the participant is required to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to ‘‘Do you like to spend your money as you get it’’. The internal reliability of the scale was 0.61 (using Cronbach’s alpha). Competitiveness The competitiveness trait was measure through a self-devised scale – the Gambling Competitiveness Scale (GCS). The initial attempt at developing a scale produced an 11-item scale which was shown to measure three factors through exploratory factor analysis. The sample used to develop the GCS consisted of 93 undergraduate students. Of this sample 32.3% were female and 67.7% were male with a mean age of 20.7. The aim of the scale is to apply surfacing results to the whole population of people who gamble; therefore, the extraction method employed was Maximum Likelihood. It was hypothesised that the factors that emerge would be interrelated; therefore, the factors were obliquely rotated using Direct Oblimin rotation. Through assessment of the item loadings on each factor (see Table I), three factors emerged – Internal Competitiveness, External Competitiveness and Game Playing. The first factor, internal competitiveness, had an eigenvalue of 2.74 and the second factor, external competitiveness, had an eigenvalue of 1.57. On theoretical grounds the ‘game playing’ factor was removed to attempt to improve the construct validity of the scale. TABLE I Item loadings on competitiveness factors (initial solutions). Pattern matrix
I I I I I I
+
[28.10.2003–4:04pm]
like to gamble to show others how good I am at it like to gamble to see how good I am at it like to gamble to beat the system enjoy taking risks am ambitious am competitive
FIRST PROOFS
{GandB}Gart/GART-31016.3d
1
2
0.13 0.22 0.19 0.57 0.73 1.01
0.57 0.90 0.74 4.27E02 3.35E03 2.89E02
Addiction Research and Theory (GART)
Paper: GART-31016
Keyword
PERSONALITY TRAITS IN PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING TABLE II
Item loadings on competitiveness factors (revised solution). Pattern matrix 1
I I I I I I
7
am competitive am ambitious enjoy taking risks like to gamble to beat the system like to gamble to see how good I am it like to gamble to show others how good I am at it
0.99 0.54 0.50 0.10
2
0.15 0.66 0.62 0.59
Following the removal of these items, the scale was (again) factor analysed to assess scale validity. Maximum Likelihood extraction was used to generalise the findings of this study to the universal gambling population. As there are theoretical grounds to assume that internal and external competitiveness are interrelated, oblique rotation was performed (Direct Oblimin). The results showed that the factors were correlated (r ¼ 0.44) supporting the application of oblique rotation. A two-factor solution emerged (again, internal and external competitiveness) (see Table II). Internal competitiveness (factor 1) had an eigen value of 2.57 and accounted for 43% of the variance. External competitiveness (factor 2) had an eigen value of 1.2 and accounted for 20.1% of the variance. The internal reliability was 0.72 (using Cronbach’s alpha). The final format of the scale consisted of 6 items rated on a 10-point Likert scale. The items consisted of statements about competitive reasons for gambling (‘I like to gamble to show others how good I am at it’) and general competitive tendencies (‘I am competitive’). The participant indicated their level of agreement to the statements with possible answers ranging from 1 (‘never’) to 10 (‘always’). Problem gambling Problem gambling was measured using the DSM-IV (1994) criteria for pathological gambling. The 10-item DSM criteria includes items such as ‘Do you need to gamble with increasing amount of money in order to achieve the desired excitement?’ ‘Have you jeopardised or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of gambling.’ According to DSM-IV (1994), if a participant answers positively to five or more of the criteria they are likely to be a pathological gambler. Although the DSM criteria were developed for use in clinical settings, many researchers in the field use the DSM as an indicative screening tool for the identification of problem gambling. The most notable use of this is in the UKs only national prevalence gambling study (Sproston et al., 2000). Furthermore, Sproston et al. found a high correlation between scores on the DSM-IV and the (more typically used) SOGS (South Oaks Gambling Screen). The internal reliability of the DSM-IV scale was 0.75.
Procedure The participants were selected from a population of people who participated in some form of gambling. These were approached as they vacated specific gambling establishments (i.e., amusement arcade, betting shops, bingo halls etc.). Informed consent was obtained by all participants, and all were debriefed after completing the questionnaire. Questionnaire completion lasted approximately 15 min. Multiple regression (hierarchical factor entry) was employed to regress the three personality traits on pathological
+
[28.10.2003–4:04pm]
FIRST PROOFS
{GandB}Gart/GART-31016.3d
Addiction Research and Theory (GART)
Paper: GART-31016
Keyword
8
A. PARKE et al.
gambling to assess their predictive value as a group and their own specific regression coefficient.
RESULTS The mean score on the SSS was 7.4 (out of the 13) (SD ¼ 3.05). The mean SSS score for pathological gamblers was 8.43 whereas the mean score for non-pathological gamblers was 6.78. However, a t-test showed that there was no significant difference in mean scores on the SSS between pathological and non-pathological gamblers (t ¼ (df, 112) 2.87, p > 0.01). The mean score on the DGS was 5.2 (out of 12) (SD ¼ 2.58). The mean score on the DGS for pathological gamblers was 4.05 whereas the mean DGS score for non-pathological gamblers was 5.86. A t-test showed that there was indeed a significant difference between mean scores on the DGS between pathological and non-pathological gamblers (t ¼ (df, 112) 3.82, p
