exploration of insensitivity to future consequences and reasoning in problem gamblers.
Read Online
Share

exploration of insensitivity to future consequences and reasoning in problem gamblers.

  • 703 Want to read
  • ·
  • 62 Currently reading

Published .
Written in English

Subjects:

  • Compulsive gambling -- Psychological aspects.,
  • Risk-taking (Psychology).,
  • Alexithymia.,
  • Impulsive personality.,
  • Motivation (Psychology).

Book details:

About the Edition

The evidence suggested that the high-risk selections made by gamblers with problems on the card task could reflect an insensitivity to future consequences. The ability of impulsivity and consideration of future consequences to significantly predict performance on the card task implicated the role of analytic processes in card choice as described by two-process theories of cognition. The role of alexithymia as a significant predictor of performance on the card task that was not unique from the variance explained by the impulsivity and consideration of future consequences scales. This result raised questions about the alexithymia construct, specifically whether it is best conceptualized as an indicator of affective, somatic cues or whether it is a dispositional, analytic process.Gambling behaviour is a risky behaviour that has been understood as a clinical disorder of disinhibition. In the current study, two-process theories of cognition (Stanovich, 2002) and the somatic marker hypothesis (Damasio, 1994) were employed as a framework for understanding gambling behaviour. According to these theories, pathological gambling may be explained by a lack of emotional wariness due to inadequate somatic markers (termed System 1) and inadequate analytic processes, such as cognitive abilities and dispositional tendencies (termed System 2). This research examined whether pathological gamblers performed worse than controls on a card task that was designed to assess risky behaviour, and to assess if performance on the card task can be explained by inadequate somatic markers and analytic processes. Participants were 24 pathological gamblers, 43 subclinical gamblers and 40 participants with no gambling problems. All participants completed the card task, the alexithymia scale (used as an index of somatic markers), and measures of analytic processes, including estimated full-scale IQ and questionnaires that assessed dispositional tendencies, like considerations of future consequences. The three groups differed on demographic variables such as amount of gambling, age and estimated full-scale IQ. The pathological gamblers and the subclinical group made high-risk selections on the card task compared to the no-problem group. Differences between the groups were also found on alexithymia and many of the thinking dispositions, including consideration of future consequences, impulsivity, the Matching Familiar Figures Test-total number of errors, flexibility, and belief in the paranormal. When age and estimated full-scale IQ were statistically controlled, performance on the card task was significantly positively correlated with consideration of future consequences and significantly negatively correlated with alexithymia and impulsivity. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that alexithymia, impulsivity and consideration of future consequences each explained a significant portion of variance above and beyond the influence of age and estimated full-scale IQ. Notably, alexithymia, impulsivity and consideration of future consequences shared a considerable amount of overlapping variance in explaining card task performance.

The Physical Object
Pagination119 leaves.
Number of Pages119
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL19475552M
ISBN 100494027932

Download exploration of insensitivity to future consequences and reasoning in problem gamblers.

PDF EPUB FB2 MOBI RTF

Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex Antoine Bechara, Antonio R. Damasio*, Hanna Damasio, Steven W. Anderson Department of Neurology, Division of Behavioral Neurology and Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA , USA Abstract. non-gamblers and non-problem gamblers, at-risk and problem gamblers showed higher levels of impulsivity, steeper delay discounting, shorter time horizon, and reported experiencing.   Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex Antoine Bechara, Antonio R. Damasio*, Hanna Damasio, Steven W. Anderson Department of Neurology, Division of Behavioral Neurology and Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA , USA Abstract Following damage to the Cited by: Pathological gamblers frequently endorse erroneous gambling beliefs leading to overconfidence in their bets and have demonstrated a short-term focus on rewards with insensitivity to future.

Methods: Non-problem gamblers (N = 26) and problem gamblers (N = 66) with the same demographic features (age and gender) were compared on the Consideration of Future Consequences and a.   Natalie Ulrich, Johannes Hewig, Electrophysiological correlates of near outcome and outcome sequence processing in problem gamblers and controls, International Journal of Psychophysiology, /ho, (). The purpose of this article is to discuss several key cognitive biases and their effects on decision making within strategic innovation management as well as how to minimize their effects so that team members can contribute optimally to the fuzzy innovation process. They are essential in understanding and managing appropriately to ensure your innovation outputs [ ]. A group of pathological gamblers and a group of problem gamblers (i.e., gamblers at risk of becoming pathological) were compared to healthy controls on their risk-taking propensity after prior losses.

  This study was designed to clarify whether a deficit in insight could be considered as a general “insensitivity to future consequences” in schizophrenia, leading patients to be guided by immediate prospects only, independently of the future consequences of their actions. Our hypothesis was that insight level would be associated with IGT.   In line with previous studies (e.g. refs 51 and 52), these were non-problem gamblers that scored 0–2 (n = ), gamblers at risk with a score equal to (n = 87), and problem gamblers . Abstract. Current research paints the picture of problem gambling as a multifaceted phenomenon, for which there is not one single explanation. A wealth of factors are implied in the development and maintenance of problem gambling, including biological mechanisms of rewardprocessing (e.g. Linnet et al., a), cognitive processes of attention (e.g. Brevers et al., ), implicit memory (e.g. gambling (typically fraud or embezzlement) occurs in a minority of problem gamblers (National Research Council, ; Williams, Rehm & Stevens, ). Upward of 33% of prison inmates have histories of problem gambling (Williams, Royston, & Hagen, ). Problem gamblers typically have conflicts with family and/or friends over their gambling.