Types of Emotion Regulation and Their Associations with Gambling: A Cross-Sectional Study with Disordered and Non-problem Ecuadorian Gamblers

Jara-Rizzo, María F.; Navas, Juan F.; Catena, Andrés; Perales, José C.

doi:10.1007/s10899-019-09868-7

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, results fit well in the Gambling Space Model formulated by Navas et al [ 45 ] (see also [ 42 , 46 ]). In this model, articulated as a development of the seminal Pathways Model [ 47 ], transition from recreational to disordered gambling is driven by the kind of reinforcement schedules that have been experimentally shown to also facilitate transition from goal-driven to compulsive behaviors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The instruments used were the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Adults-III (WAIS-III: vocabulary and matrices [ 38 ]), an impulsive behavior scale (UPPS-P [ 39 ]), the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ-20 [ 40 ]), the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS [ 38 ]), the MultiCAGE [ 41 ], and the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task (PRLT [ 28 ]). Some of these were however not relevant for the purposes of this study and will not be described here (see [ 42 ]; there is an overlap of 12.6% between samples of both studies).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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. 2020

BMC Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Decisions made by individuals with disordered gambling 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 feedback-driven decision-making inflexibility, which has been studied in the lab with the 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 learning deficits. Methods In the present study, we compared PRLT performance across two groups of 25 treatment-seeking patients diagnosed with an addictive disorder and who 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 problematic gambling symptoms’ severity was also assessed independently of group assignment. 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 did not significantly differ from patients in global PRLT performance nor showed specific signs of decision-making inflexibility; and (2) regardless of whether group affiliation was controlled for or not, gambling severity was specifically associated with more inefficient learning in phases with reversed contingencies. Conclusion Decision-making inflexibility, as revealed by difficulty to reacquire decisional preferences based on feedback after contingency reversals, seems to be 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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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. 2020

BMC Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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: 84%

“…participants. Some of the instruments were however not relevant for the purposes of this study and will not be described here (see [32]; there is an overlap of 12.6% between samples of both studies).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…losses) and enhance positive emotions that help them justify their excessive gambling. In line with this prediction, two recent studies by Navas and colleagues [25], and Jara-Rizzo et al [61] have shown that treatment-seeking IGD and community gamblers with stronger cognitive distortions are more prone to use putatively adaptive emotion regulation strategies (i.e. putting into perspective, from the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, CERQ [62], and reappraisal form the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, ERQ [63] than healthy controls.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

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

Types of Emotion Regulation and Their Associations with Gambling: A Cross-Sectional Study with Disordered and Non-problem Ecuadorian Gamblers

Abstract: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The funding agencies played no role in the design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the results of the present study.

Cited by 24 publications

References 56 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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About