Gambling Behavior Severity and Psychological, Family, and Contextual Variables: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

This study compares 3 groups consisting of individuals with no gambling problem, those with some problem, and pathological gamblers, according to the following 4 levels of analysis: social context (i.e., accessibility and social acceptance), family context (i.e., family of origin issues, family functioning, and family quality of life), marital issues (i.e., marital satisfaction and adjustment), and individual issues (i.e., congruence, differentiation of self, and psychopathological symptoms). The study protocol of 8 standardized scales, a sociodemographic questionnaire, and 6 independent questions was administered to 331 adults. The main results indicate that although the 2 groups of nonpathological gamblers exhibited differing levels of gambling severity, they did not differ statistically, suggesting that gambling-related problems were only evident when a pathological level was attained. The pathological gamblers exhibited a greater number of family, marital, and individual difficulties compared to the other 2 groups.

Risk factors for pathological gambling along a continuum of severity: Individual and relational variables

“…Such problems include the management of emotions and affection (more specifically their expression and communication), poorly defined family rules and roles, and poor communication, which is often characterized by discussions and lies (Kalischuk, Nowatzki, Cardwell, Klein, & Solowoniuk, 2006). However, several studies conducted in Portugal (Cunha & Relvas, 2014;Cunha, de Sousa, Fonseca, & Relvas, 2015) suggest that the difficulties in family functioning only appear in the most severe forms of gambling disorder and thus do not facilitate distinguishing PG from the other types of gambler (NP and SP), as was the case in this study. In contrast, psychopathological symptoms (BSI-PSI) and differentiation of self (DSI-R) enabled distinguishing the groups in the two sets of performed comparisons (NP vs. PG and SP vs. PG), and their behavior was highly similar.…”

Jogo patológico em 3D: Variáveis familiares, conjugais e individuais

“…variables: A comparative analysis. (Cunha, de Sousa, Fonseca, & Relvas, 2016) Este estudo compara três grupos -162 indivíduos sem problemas de jogo, 117 indivíduos com alguns problemas de jogo e 52 jogadores patológicos -atendendo a quatro níveis de análise: social (i.e., acessibilidade e aceitação social do jogo a dinheiro), familiar (i.e., aspetos relacionados com transgeracionalidade, funcionamento familiar e qualidade de vida), conjugal (i.e., satisfação e ajustamento conjugais) e individual (i.e., congruência, diferenciação do self e sintomatologia psicopatológica). Para além disso, fez-se uma análise de clusters no grupo de jogadores patológicos.…”