Neurocognitive Components of Gambling Disorder

Navas, Juan F.; Billieux, Joël; Verdejo-García, Antonio; Perales, José C.

doi:10.4324/9780429490750-7

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, results fit well in the Gambling Space Model formulated by Navas et al [37] (see also [32,38]). In this model, articulated as a development of the seminal Pathways…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Decision-making inflexibility in a reversal learning task is associated with severity of problem gambling symptoms but not with a diagnosis of substance use disorder

Jara-Rizzo¹,

Navas²,

Rodas³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Decisions made by disordered gamblers are markedly inflexible. However, whether anomalies in learning from feedback are gambling-specific, or extend beyond gambling contexts, remains an open question. More generally, addictive disorders –including gambling disorder– have been proposed to be facilitated by individual differences in learning-driven decision-making inflexibility. Individual differences in decision-making inflexibility have been studied in the lab with the Affective Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task (PRLT). In this task, participants are first asked to learn which of two choice options is more advantageous, on the basis of trial-by-trial feedback, but, once preferences are established, reward contingencies are reversed, so that the advantageous option becomes disadvantageous and vice versa. Inflexibility is revealed by a less effective reacquisition of preferences after reversal, which can be distinguished from more generalized acquisition deficits.Methods: In the present study, we compared PRLT performance across two groups of 25 treatment-seeking patients with an addictive disorder and reported gambling problems, and 25 matched controls [18 Males/7 Females in both groups, Mage(SDage) = 25.24 (8.42) and 24.96 (7.90), for patients and controls, respectively]. Beyond testing for differences in the shape of PRLT learning curves across groups, the specific effect of gambling symptoms’ severity was also assessed in the group of patients. In order to surpass previous methodological problems, full acquisition and reacquisition curves were fitted using generalized mixed-effect models. Results: Results showed that (1) controls learned more efficiently than patients in all phases of the task, and were more likely to make correct choices by the end of each task phase, regardless of contingency (and so there were no specific signs of decision-making inflexibility in the group of patients); (2) gambling severity in the group of patients was specifically associated with more inefficient learning in phases with reversed contingencies (i.e., decision-making inflexibility). Conclusion: Decision-making inflexibility, as revealed by difficulty to reacquire decisional preferences based on feedback after contingency reversals, seems to be specifically associated with gambling problems, but not necessarily with a substance-use disorder diagnosis. This result aligns with gambling disorder models in which domain-general compulsivity is linked to vulnerability to develop gambling-specific problems with exposure to gambling opportunities.

show abstract

“…Taken together, results fit well in the Gambling Space Model formulated by Navas et al [37] (see also [32,38]). In this model, articulated as a development of the seminal Pathways…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Decision-making inflexibility in a reversal learning task is associated with severity of problem gambling symptoms but not with a diagnosis of substance use disorder

Jara-Rizzo¹,

Navas²,

Rodas³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Converging evidence shows the pivotal role of affect regulation in GD [65, 66, 67, 68]. More specifically, recent theoretical models–the Gambling Space Model [38] and the Process Model , [68], see also [69]–specify how altered affect regulation can fuel problem gambling at different levels. The present study portrays evidence that the different ways in which gambling can be used as an overt emotion regulation strategy are somewhat bounded together.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, punishment sensitivity has been observed to contribute to negative affect dysregulation and gambling severity [36], but also to protect gamblers from exposing themselves to gambling activities [34, 37]. These seemingly opposite effects [37, 38, 39] suggest that the relationships between BIS/BAS measures and gambling behavior are more complex than initially hypothesized. For example, a study [40] explored the relationships between the BIS/BAS constructs and addictive behaviors, and found differential associations between separate reward-related traits (e.g., Drive and Fun seeking) and gambling, alcohol use, and tobacco use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the roots, structure, and implications of gambling motives: An integrative approach

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale and method Accurately identifying motives to gamble is crucial in the functional analysis of gambling behavior. In this study, a data-driven approach was followed to clarify the factor structure underlying a pool of motives for gambling, selected from the Gambling Motives Questionnaire–Financial (GMQ-F), and the Reasons for Gambling Questionnaire (RGQ), in a sample of regular problem and non-problem gamblers. Additionally, the role of gambling motives in the relationship between root behavioral activation/inhibition systems (BIS/BAS) and gambling severity, frequency, and preferences was explored using structural equation modelling (SEM). Results and conclusions The present study identified Social, Financial, and Fun/thrill-related gambling motives factors, but also a fourth factor in which some positive and negative reinforcement-based motives were grouped into a single and broader Affect regulation factor. This Affect regulation factor shared variance both with BIS and BAS-related measures, and was the only direct predictor of disordered gambling symptoms. The Fun/thrill factor was directly related to frequency of participation in high-arousal, skill-based games, and all factors were related to participation in lower-arousal, chance games (with Social motives negatively predicting both participation in the latter and total severity). In the SEM model, measures of BIS/BAS sensitivity were connected to gambling behavior only through gambling motives. Based on measures of items’ specificity, a shortened Spanish scale (the brief Gambling Motives Inventory, bGMI) is proposed to assess gambling motives in accordance with the observed 4-factor structure.

show abstract

“…A large body of research confirms significantly higher impulsivity scores in IGD, compared to controls [44,47,75]. Moreover, this approach has been included in recent theoretical models of GD [52] in an attempt to characterize different GD profiles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recently proposed Gambling Space Model (GSM, [52]) reformulates the Pathways Model from a dimensional perspective. The model proposes the existence of four dimensions that would be relevant for the characterization of risky gambling and GD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The paradoxical relationship between emotion regulation and gambling-related cognitive biases

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Gambling behavior presents substantial individual variability regarding its severity, manifestations, and psychological correlates. Specifically, differences in emotion regulation, impulsivity, and cognitive distortions have been identified as crucial to describe individual profiles with implications for the prevention, prognosis, and treatment of gambling disorder (GD). Aims and method The aim of the present study was to investigate the associations of gambling-related cognitions (measured according to the GRCS model) with impulsivity (UPPS-P model) and emotion regulation (CERQ model), in a sample of 246 gamblers with different levels of gambling involvement, using mixed-effects modelling to isolate theoretically relevant associations while controlling for the potentially confounding effects of sociodemographic and clinical covariates. Results Affective/motivational dimensions of UPPS-P impulsivity positive urgency and sensation seeking , on the one hand, and CERQ emotion regulation strategies reappraisal , rumination and blaming others , on the other, independently and significantly predicted distorted gambling-related cognitions. Conclusions These results (a) reinforce the ones of previous studies stressing the relevance of emotional and motivational processes in the emergence of gambling-related cognitive distortions; and (b) replicate the seemingly paradoxical finding that gamblers use emotion regulation strategies customarily considered as adaptive (i.e. reappraisal) to strengthen and justify their biased beliefs about gambling outcomes and controllability.

show abstract

Neurocognitive Components of Gambling Disorder

Cited by 19 publications

References 61 publications

Decision-making inflexibility in a reversal learning task is associated with severity of problem gambling symptoms but not with a diagnosis of substance use disorder

Decision-making inflexibility in a reversal learning task is associated with severity of problem gambling symptoms but not with a diagnosis of substance use disorder

Reconsidering the roots, structure, and implications of gambling motives: An integrative approach

The paradoxical relationship between emotion regulation and gambling-related cognitive biases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About