2014Journal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologyRequires access

Self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control in problem gamblers

Felicity K. Lorains, Julie C. Stout, John L. Bradshaw, Nicki A. Dowling, Peter G. Enticott

Open publisher page 40 citations

Abstract

Impulsivity is considered a core feature of problem gambling; however, self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control may reflect disparate constructs. We examined self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control in 39 treatment-seeking problem gamblers and 41 matched controls using a range of self-report questionnaires and laboratory inhibitory control tasks. We also investigated differences between treatment-seeking problem gamblers who prefer strategic (e.g., sports betting) and nonstrategic (e.g., electronic gaming machines) gambling activities. Treatment-seeking problem gamblers demonstrated elevated self-reported impulsivity, more go errors on the Stop Signal Task, and a lower gap score on the Random Number Generation task than matched controls. However, overall we did not find strong evidence that treatment-seeking problem gamblers are more impulsive on laboratory inhibitory control measures. Furthermore, strategic and nonstrategic problem gamblers did not differ from their respective controls on either self-reported impulsivity questionnaires or laboratory inhibitory control measures. Contrary to expectations, our results suggest that inhibitory dyscontrol may not be a key component for some treatment-seeking problem gamblers.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Impulsivity is considered a core feature of problem gambling; however, self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control may reflect disparate constructs. We examined self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control in 39 treatment-seeking problem gamblers and 41 matched controls using a range of self-report questionnaires and laboratory inhibitory control tasks. We also investigated differences between treatment-seeking problem gamblers who prefer strategic (e.g., sports betting) and nonstrategic (e.g., electronic gaming machines) gambling activities. Treatment-seeking problem gamblers demonstrated elevated self-reported impulsivity, more go errors on the Stop Signal Task, and a lower gap score on the Random Number Generation task than matched controls. However, overall we did not find strong evidence that treatment-seeking problem gamblers are more impulsive on laboratory inhibitory control measures. Furthermore, strategic and nonstrategic problem gamblers did not differ from their respective controls on either self-reported impulsivity questionnaires or laboratory inhibitory control measures. Contrary to expectations, our results suggest that inhibitory dyscontrol may not be a key component for some treatment-seeking problem gamblers.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 40 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Impulsivity is considered a core feature of problem gambling; however, self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control may reflect disparate constructs. We examined self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control in 39 treatment-seeking problem gamblers and 41 matched controls using a range of self-report questionnaires and laboratory inhibitory control tasks. We also investigated differences between treatment-seeking problem gamblers who prefer strategic (e.g., sports betting) and nonstrategic (e.g., electronic gaming machines) gambling activities. Treatment-seeking problem gamblers demonstrated elevated self-reported impulsivity, more go errors on the Stop Signal Task, and a lower gap score on the Random Number Generation task than matched controls. However, overall we did not find strong evidence that treatment-seeking problem gamblers are more impulsive on laboratory inhibitory control measures. Furthermore, strategic and nonstrategic problem gamblers did not differ from their respective controls on either self-reported impulsivity questionnaires or laboratory inhibitory control measures. Contrary to expectations, our results suggest that inhibitory dyscontrol may not be a key component for some treatment-seeking problem gamblers.

Key concepts: Impulsivity, Psychology, Inhibitory control, Self-control, Task (project management), Stop signal, Inhibitory postsynaptic potential, Impulse control disorder

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Self-reported impulsivity and inhibitory control in problem gamblers — Research Paper | ScholarLens