Welcome to the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre. If you are a member, you can use the form on the right to log in. Not a member? No problem. Just use the form on the far right to sign up for an account - free.
Please note: you MUST have cookies enabled in order to log in and use this site.
Sherry Stewart, Dalhousie University
Joel Katz, York University
Pamela Loba, Dalhousie University
Anne-Marie Wall, York University
Categories: · Psychological factors ·
| Type of Award | Amount Approved | Project Status |
|---|---|---|
| Level III | $176,880.00 | Completed |
ABSTRACT
Extending our prior work with a community-recruited sample of adult regular gamblers, this study was designed to examine whether regular university student gamblers’ positive gambling expectancies vary as a function of mood state and gambling motive subtypes. Specifically, we examined relief and reward gambling outcome expectancies as a function of mood state and individual differences in gambling motives. In Study 1, 180 undergraduate student gamblers (59% men; mean age = 20.1 yrs.) completed the Inventory of Gambling Situations (IGS; Turner & Littman-Sharp, 2006) to identify gambler’s affective motivations for gambling. Participants also completed the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI; Ferris & Wynne, 2001) and a set of gambling behavior criterion measures. Principal components analysis on the 10 IGS subscales revealed two gambling situation factors: negative (e.g., gambling in response to conflict with others and unpleasant emotions) and positive (e.g., gambling in response to pleasant emotions and need for excitement). Three clusters emerged from cluster analysis of the two IGS gambling factors: Low Emotion Regulation [LOW ER] (Low Negative/Low Positive factor scores; 45% of the sample); Enhancement [ENH] (Low Negative/High Positive; 42% of the sample); and Coping [COP] (very High Negative/High Positive; 13% of the sample). More COP than LOW ER gamblers, and more ENH than LOW ER gamblers scored in the high risk range for gambling problems on the PGSI. COP and ENH gamblers reported gambling more frequently, and spending a greater time gambling than LOW ER gamblers. A higher proportion of COP gamblers reported smoking when gambling relative to the other two groups. Finally, ENH gamblers reported spending more money on gambling than LOW ER gamblers. Results thus extend to undergraduate student gamblers, our previously validated scheme for subtyping gamblers in the community based on affective motivations for gambling (Stewart et al., 2004, 2008). In Study 2, the above sample was randomly assigned to one of three mood conditions (negative, positive, neutral control). Music was used to induce the target mood in the negative and positive mood conditions. The mood manipulations were both effective in inducing the target mood states. They worked equally well for the different subtypes of gamblers. Interestingly, COP gamblers entered the study with more negative mood than gamblers in the other two gambler subtypes. Analyses suggest little in the way of mood induction effects on explicit gambling expectancies. Specifically, contrary to hypothesis, negative mood induction did not selectively lead to an increase in relief expectancies for COP gamblers, and positive mood induction did not selectively lead to an increase in reward expectancies for ENH gamblers. In fact, the only significant change from pre- to post-mood induction was a significant increase in reward expectancies for the LOW ER gamblers assigned to the positive mood induction condition. Although hypotheses were not supported for mood effects in activating specific positive gambling expectancies across gambler subtypes, the subtypes did vary in expectancies overall. COP gamblers scored higher in both relief and reward expectancies than ENH gamblers who in turn scored higher in both relief and reward expectancies than LOW ER gamblers. Moreover, while all three groups scored higher in reward than relief expectancies, the magnitude of this difference was much greater in the ENH and LOW ER gamblers than in the COP gamblers, who scored nearly as high in relief as in reward expectancies. This pattern highlights the relative importance of relief expectancies for the COP gamblers and for reward expectancies in the ENH gamblers. Results of Study 2 suggest that gambling outcome expectancies are trait-like rather than state-like.
KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION ACTIVITIES
PUBLICATIONS:
Stuart, S., Stewart, S. H., Wall, A-M., & Katz, J. (2008). Gambling among university undergraduate students: an investigation of gambler subtypes varying in affective motivations for gambling. In F. Columbus (Ed.), The Psychology of Gambling.(83-110). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Stuart, S., Stewart, S. H., Collins, P., Wall, A. M. Kirsch, M., Mohan, M., & Katz, J. (2007). An examination of gambler subtypes in undergraduates. Canadian Psychology, 48(2a), 216.
PRESENTATIONS:
Stewart, S. H. (2007). Exciting new directions in psychological research on problem gambling. Invited address presented at Shaping the Future of the Nova Scotia Gaming Foundation: A Dialogue on Problem Gambling, Dartmouth, NS, May.
Stewart, S. H. (2007). Subtyping gamblers on the basis of underlying motivations for gambling: Implications for treatment matching. Invited address presented at the 2007 Alberta Gaming Research Institute Conference, Banff, Alberta, March.
Stewart, S. H. (2007). Sub-typing gamblers on the basis of affective motivations for gambling: Implications for treatment matching. Presented at Dalhousie University, Department of Psychiatry University Rounds, Halifax, NS, October.
| File Name | Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| Full Report | 259kb | |
| Research Summary | 182kb | |
| French Language | 190kb |