Cognitive and metacognitive differences between problem and nonproblem gamblers in wagering tasks

Lueddeke, Sara E.; Higham, Philip A.

doi:10.1037/e520592012-533

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that Type 2 SDT has been helpful in objectively assessing several underlying components of performance on the dice gambling task. SDT has a well-established methodology and holds the potential to help researchers understand the cognitive and metacognitive differences not just between RGs and NGs, but between these groups and problem gamblers as well (e.g., Lueddeke & Higham, 2011). In the long-term, SDT may be used as a screening tool to determine which cognitive/metacognitive skills need addressing in metacognitive therapy with problem gamblers (Lindberg, Fernie, & Spada, 2011).…”

Section: Practical Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expertise and Gambling: Using Type 2 Signal Detection Theory to Investigate Differences between Regular Gamblers and Nongamblers

Lueddeke

Higham

2011

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an experimental investigation into how individuals make decisions under uncertainty when faced with different payout structures in the context of gambling. Type 2 signal detection theory was utilized to compare sensitivity to bias manipulations between regular nonproblem gamblers and nongamblers in a novel probability-based gambling task. The results indicated that both regular gamblers and nongamblers responded to the changes of rewards for correct responses (Experiment 1) and penalties for errors (Experiment 2) in setting their gambling criteria, but that regular gamblers were more sensitive to these manipulations of bias. Regular gamblers also set gambling criteria that were more optimal. The results are discussed in terms of an expertise-transference hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Practical Implications and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%