Subtyping Study of a Pathological Gamblers Sample

Álvarez-Moya, Eva M.; Jiménez‐Murcia, Susana; Aymamí, María Neus; Gómez-Peña, Mònica; Granero, Roser; Santamaría, Juanjo; Menchón, José M.; Fernández‐Aranda, Fernando

doi:10.1177/070674371005500804

Cited by 73 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is in accordance with recent data published by Dannon, Shoenfeld, Rosenberg, Kertzman and Kotler (2010) indicating that PGs were no more impulsive than HCs, or even less impulsive in some instances. Overall, an increasing number of authors currently suggests the existence of different subtypes of pathological gambling (Alvarez-Moya et al, 2010;Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002;Shead, Callan and Hodgins, 2008). Our PG sample best resembles the conditioned or emotionally vulnerable problem gamblers as defined by Blaszczynski and Nower (2002) or type IV or high-functioning problem gamblers described by Alvarez-Moya et al (2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, an increasing number of authors currently suggests the existence of different subtypes of pathological gambling (Alvarez-Moya et al, 2010;Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002;Shead, Callan and Hodgins, 2008). Our PG sample best resembles the conditioned or emotionally vulnerable problem gamblers as defined by Blaszczynski and Nower (2002) or type IV or high-functioning problem gamblers described by Alvarez-Moya et al (2010). All of these PGs subgroups are defined as having a more adaptive personality profile, lower levels of substance use, and fewer psychopathological disturbances (Alvarez-Moya et al, 2010;Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002) and thus fewer impulsivity deficits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, on a phenotypical and pathological level there are striking similarities with substance use disorders (SUD), even though there is no administration of an exogenous substance to cause harmful effects in the brain (e.g., Potenza, 2001). Impairments in self-regulatory behavior and underlying brain processes for instance are hypothesized to be central in the development and maintenance of both pathological gambling and SUD (Alvarez-Moya et al, 2010;Koob and Volkow, 2010;Leeman & Potenza, 2012). These and other similarities have given ground for the suggestion that gambling disorders should be reclassified within the upcoming DSM-V within the category substance use and addictive disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2012, www.DSM5.org).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Wilde¹,

Goudriaan²,

Sabbe³

et al. 2013

Journal of Behavioral Addictions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Wilde¹,

Goudriaan²,

Sabbe³

et al. 2013

Journal of Behavioral Addictions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A sample of 112 gambling disorder patients undergoing cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for GD noted that high levels of impulsivity at the initiation of treatment were positively correlated with treatment discontinuation [52]. Similarly, in a sample of 88 adult patients with GD, deficits in self-regulation (including impulsivity) were significantly related to higher rates of dropping out from CBT [53]. Further, a study of 127 treatment-seeking gamblers found a positive correlation between personality traits of novelty-seeking and dropping out of treatment [25].…”

Section: Conclusion: Can a Dimensional Approach To Personality Impromentioning

confidence: 99%

Gambling and Personality Dimensions

Odlaug

Chamberlain

2013

Curr Behav Neurosci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gambling dates back to ancient times, yet new arenas for gambling, such as the Internet, and methods of assessing psychiatric illness in the modern age have shifted our understanding of gambling as an addiction. Accordingly, Gambling Disorder is now a part of the Addictive Disorders in the DSM-5, which has further catalyzed a debate over the contribution of personality traits (rather than just personality disorders) to the manifestation and maintenance of psychiatric conditions such as Gambling Disorder. This selective review considers relationships between gambling and personality traits. The possible existence of distinct subtypes of Gambling Disorder, defined via personality traits, is highlighted, along with consideration of whether objective neurocognitive markers could serve as proxy markers of 'personality' more amenable to scientific dissection rather than relying on questionnaire-based measures alone. The clinical utility of subtyping and future areas of research are discussed.

show abstract

“…In a large-scale study of pathological gamblers, Ma Alvarez-Moya et al (2010) identified four subtypes: Type I, (disorganized and emotionally unstable) showed schizotypic traits, high levels of impulsiveness, substance and alcohol abuse, and early age of onset, as well as other psychopathological disturbances;Type II (schizoid) showed high harm avoidance, social aloofness, and alcohol abuse; Type III (reward sensitive) showed high levels of sensation-seeking and impulsiveness but did not express psychopathological impairments; Type IV (high functioning)demonstrated a globally-adaptive personality profile, low levels of substance and alcohol abuse or smoking, without psychopathological disturbances but rather good general functioning. Thus, even among a broad population of pathological gamblers there exists a wide spectrum of cognitive and executive variability that requires the pathophysiological analysis of structure and function that magnetic resonance imaging may provide.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%