Luck, come here! Automatic approach tendencies toward gambling cues in moderate‐ to high‐risk gamblers

Boffo, Marilisa; Smits, Ruby; Salmon, Joshua P.; Cowie, Megan; Jong, David T. H. A. de; Salemink, Elske; Collins, Pam; Stewart, Sherry H.

doi:10.1111/add.14071

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other possible sources of self-report biases among gamblers could be positive memory bias (not thinking about or reporting losses) (Boffo et al, 2018), or not fully understanding instructions on how to estimate theoretical constructs such as net expenditure or net losses. These issues, related to reporting gambling expenditures, were emphasized by several participants in the "think aloud" interviews and by many Delphi stakeholders.…”

Section: Preliminary Testing and Final Draft Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test: Results from an international Delphi and consensus process

Molander

Volberg

Månsson

et al. 2020

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Diverse instruments are used to measure problem gambling and Gambling Disorder intervention outcomes. The 2004 Banff consensus agreement proposed necessary features for reporting gambling treatment efficacy. To address the challenge of including these features in a single instrument, a process was initiated to develop the Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT), as an instrument analogous to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test.Methods: Gambling experts from 10 countries participated in an international tworound Delphi (n = 61; n = 30), rating 30 items proposed for inclusion in the GDIT.Gambling researchers and clinicians from several countries participated in three consensus meetings (n = 10; n = 4; n = 3). User feedback was obtained from individuals with experience of problem gambling (n = 12) and from treatment-seekers with Gambling Disorder (n = 8).Results: Ten items fulfilled Delphi consensus criteria for inclusion in the GDIT (M ≥ 7 on a scale of 1-9 in the second round). Item-related issues were addressed, and four more items were added to conform to the Banff agreement recommendations, yielding a final draft version of the GDIT with 14 items in three domains: gambling behavior, gambling symptoms and negative consequences. Conclusions:This study established preliminary construct and face validity for the GDIT.

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Testing and Final Draft Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test: Results from an international Delphi and consensus process

Molander

Volberg

Månsson

et al. 2020

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A first set of studies has been recently conducted to examine the role of gamblingrelated approach bias in Canadian and Dutch problem and non-problem gamblers, using an adapted version of the AAT with gambling stimuli tailored to participants' gambling preferences [100,101]. Results demonstrated the presence of approach bias toward gambling cues among Dutch gamblers with moderate-to-high severity of gambling problems, compared to non-problem gamblers [101], but not for Canadian problem gamblers [100]. Moreover, gambling approach bias predicted frequency and duration of prospective gambling episodes, over and above baseline neutral approach bias and gambling frequency and duration, respectively [101].…”

Section: Approach Bias Modificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovative Treatment Approaches in Gambling Disorder

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Applying this hypothesis to gambling disorder, craving, acting in tandem with attentional bias, increases the gambling-related stimuli's salience, which, in turn, steers attention and its biases. The automatic processing of these stimuli hampers the detection of others (Kastnern et al, 1998) and drives gambling behaviors (Boffo et al, 2018), contributing to the severity of addiction Berridge, 1993, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitated attention for gambling cues in adolescent problem gamblers: An experimental study

Ciccarelli

Cosenza

Griffiths

et al. 2019

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies investigating attentional biases in gambling have observed that problem gamblers' attention is biased toward gambling cues. Despite the increase of gambling among adolescents, to date, no study has ever examined the role of attentional bias in adolescent gambling, as well as the relationships between adolescent gambling severity, craving, and alcohol use. Methods The present study comprised 87 adolescent participants. Based on South Oaks Gambling Screen Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA) scores, participants were assigned to non-problem or problem gamblers groups. Participants performed a modified Posner Task (with cue presentation times at 100 and 500 ms) to assess attentional biases. Following the experiment, participants completed the Gambling Craving Scale (GACS) and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Results Compared to non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers displayed facilitation bias for gambling cues at 500 ms and reported higher levels of craving and alcohol consumption. Results also indicated that alcohol use correlated with facilitation bias. Limitations The recruitment of a predominantly male sample and the use of an indirect measure of attentional bias may have affected the findings concerning attentional processes. Conclusions The present study provides the first empirical evidence of attentional processes in adolescent gambling, and confirms the role of attentional biases, craving, and alcohol use being associated factors in adolescent problem gambling. The results of the present study stress the importance of attentional biases in the initial stages of problem gambling and suggest the need for clinical interventions aimed at reducing attentional bias before they became automatic. Overall, the present study stressed the role of attentional bias as both facilitator and a consequence of gambling involvement.

show abstract

Luck, come here! Automatic approach tendencies toward gambling cues in moderate‐ to high‐risk gamblers

Cited by 27 publications

References 47 publications

Development of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test: Results from an international Delphi and consensus process

Development of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test: Results from an international Delphi and consensus process

Innovative Treatment Approaches in Gambling Disorder

Facilitated attention for gambling cues in adolescent problem gamblers: An experimental study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About