4.4 Article

Behavioral assessment of impulsivity in pathological gamblers with and without substance use disorder histories versus healthy controls

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 105, Issue 1-2, Pages 89-96

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.06.011

Keywords

Pathological gambling; Substance use disorder; Impulsivity; Sensation seeking; Delay discounting

Funding

  1. National Center for Responsible Gaming
  2. [R01 MH60417-Cont]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pathological gamblers (PGs) may have high levels of impulsivity, and a correlation between substance use disorders (SUDS) and impulsivity is well established. However, only a handful of studies have attempted to assess impulsivity and other impulse-spectrum traits (e.g., sensation seeking) using a variety of behavioral and self-report measures in PGs and few examined the independent impact of SUDS. We compared 30 PGs without SUD histories, 31 PGs with SLID histories and 40 control participants on self-reported impulsivity, delayed discounting, attention/memory, response inhibition, risk taking, sensation seeking and distress tolerance measures. PGs, regardless of SLID history, discounted delayed rewards at greater rates than controls. PGs also reported acting on the spur of the moment, experienced trouble planning and thinking carefully, and noted greater attention difficulties than controls. PGs with SUD took greater risks on a risk-taking task than did PGs without SLID histories, but the two groups did not differ on any other measures of impulsivity. We conclude that PGs are more impulsive than non-problem gamblers in fairly specific ways, but PGs with and without SUD histories differ on few measures. More research should focus on specific ways in which PGs exhibit impulsivity to better address impulsive behaviors in treatment. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available