2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk-taking decisions in pathological gamblers is not a result of their impaired inhibition ability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
44
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
6
44
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The finding that an immediate reward focus was significantly associated with greater numbers of gambling problems supports numerous studies that have shown as problem gamblers exhibit higher rates of discounting than non-problem gambling controls (e.g., Kertzman et al, 2011;Reynolds, 2006;Robbins, & Clark, 2015). This is also consistent with recent models of pathological gambling (Bechara, 2003;Evans & Coventry, 2006;van Holst et al, 2010) that motivational and valuation systems in pathological gamblers may over-estimate the value of immediate short-term rewards.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The finding that an immediate reward focus was significantly associated with greater numbers of gambling problems supports numerous studies that have shown as problem gamblers exhibit higher rates of discounting than non-problem gambling controls (e.g., Kertzman et al, 2011;Reynolds, 2006;Robbins, & Clark, 2015). This is also consistent with recent models of pathological gambling (Bechara, 2003;Evans & Coventry, 2006;van Holst et al, 2010) that motivational and valuation systems in pathological gamblers may over-estimate the value of immediate short-term rewards.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…the Iowa Gambling Task; IGT), limiting findings to selected aspects of these two functions and therefore arguably limiting the generalizability of findings (Bechara et al, 2002;Monterosso et al, 2001). We therefore employed two different tasks measuring each of these domains: the Stroop color-word interference task (Kertzman et al, 2011;Stroop, 1935) and a gaming-related Go/No-Go task to measure inhibitory control processes, as well as the Cups task (Weller et al, 2007), and the IGT (Bechara et al, 1994) to measure aspects of decision-making under conditions of risk and ambiguity, respectively.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main difference found was that fellows with gambling disorder displayed significant differences in blocks 3, 4 and 5 of the Iowa Gambling Task; specifically, subjects with gambling disorder learned the Iowa Gambling Task slower than controls, and had augmented detrimental options. Furthermore, this was not explained by deficits in inhibition response (Stroop Test), nor by the amount of commission mistakes (Go/ NoGo Task; Kertzman et al, 2011).…”
Section: Overview Of the Experimental Work About The Relationship Betmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Also, another investigation contrasted a group of fellows with comorbid gambling disorder and pd, against a group of fellows with gambling disorder and without pd (Jiménez-Murcia et al, 2012), it found that both groups differ in terms of aging factors, onset of gambling disorder, alcohol consumption and other factors. Another research compared a group of fellows with gambling disorder and matched controls based on a series of psychological tests; the main difference was that gamblers showed variances (deficits) in blocks 3, 4 and 5 of the Iowa Gambling Task (slow learning and augmented detrimental options) (Kertzman, Lidogoster, Aizer, Kotler, & Dannon, 2011).…”
Section: Description Of Gambling Disorder: Characteristics and Comorbmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation