Relapse in pathological gamblers: A pilot study on the predictive value of different impulsivity measures

Abstract

Backgrounds and aims: Pathological gambling, a common psychiatric disorder, has many similarities with substance use disorders. Relapse, an important element in addictive disorders, however, has seldom been studied in pathological gambling. Hence, in analogy with previous research studies examining the role of self-report and neurocognitive measures on relapse in substance dependent patients, the present pilot study was executed. Methods: Twenty-two pathological gamblers and 31 healthy controls took part in this research. They filled in self-report questionnaires measuring impulsive personality (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaires) and performed neurocognitive tasks measuring impulsivity, decision-making and attentional bias (Iowa Gambling Task, Delay Discounting Task, Stroop Gambling Task). Twelve months later gambling activity was re-examined. Results: Analyses showed that PGs who relapsed (n = 13) did not differ on self-report and neurocognitive measures of impulsivity with PGs who did not relapse (n = 9). However, both groups did differ in age at onset. Finally, healthy controls and PGs differed in some (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Stroop Gambling Task), but not all impulsivity measures (Delay Discounting Task, Iowa Gambling Task, Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaires). Conclusions: One-year relapse in pathological gamblers is not predicted by self-report and or neurocognitive measures of impulsivity and decision-making. The similarities in performances between pathological gamblers and healthy controls illustrate the relative health of the examined pathological gamblers. This last finding supports the idea that subtypes of pathological gamblers exist so that different treatment strategies might be necessary.

Reward Preferences of Pathological Gamblers Under Conditions of Uncertainty: An Experimental Study

“…The association between the inability to tolerate delay and gambling severity, in contrast with past studies (Madden et al, 2009;Miedl et al, 2012;Petry, 2001a;Petry, 2012;Wilde, Goudriaan, Sabbe, Hulstijn, & Dom, 2013) confirms the pattern observed in Alessi and Petry's study (2003). Even if this study does not permit a comprehensive insight into the nature of this relationship, recent research on problem and non-problem gambling adolescents highlights that delay discounting is one of the strongest predictor of gambling problems (Cosenza & Nigro, 2015).…”

“…Although several authors consider delay discounting as a behavioral feature of impulsivity (e.g., Ainslie, 1975;de Wit, 2009), the literature has not clarified the nature of this relationship. Some studies have observed an association between the two constructs (e.g., Alessi & Petry, 2003;Andrade & Petry, 2012;Kräplin et al, 2014;Petry, 2001aPetry, , 2012, whereas other studies have not confirmed this pattern of results (e.g., Madden, Petry, & Johnson, 2009;Wilde, Goudriaan, Sabbe, Hulstijn, & Dom, 2013).…”

Iowa Gambling Task (IGT): twenty years after – gambling disorder and IGT

“…More specifically, abstinent (e.g., Goudriaan et al, 2005) or non-abstinent (e.g., Power et al, 2012) PG with (e.g., Cavedini et al, 2002) or without co-morbid substance (e.g., Brevers et al, 2012a) abuse seem to display a stubborn preference for disadvantageous deck selection during the IGT, as compared with healthy control participants. Nevertheless, a couple of studies reported non-significant difference between PG and controls on the IGT (Tanabe et al, 2007; Linnet et al, 2011a,b, 2012; De Wilde et al, 2013). This finding could be due to the low sample size of the PG group recruited in these studies (see Table 1).…”

Impulsivity and gambling: A complex clinical association across three measures

“…The impulsivity domain of the EIQ has shown the most consistent association with gambling severity, with several studies finding that greater EIQ impulsivity scores correlate with a variety of gambling severity measures, and some suggesting it can be used to distinguish problem gamblers from recreational gamblers . Examinations using the BIS and SST in GD have produced mixed results, with certain studies identifying significant clinical associations, whereas others have not . The majority of studies have, however, found that impulsivity is generally greater in GD patients relative to healthy controls and other patients on both the SST and BIS .…”