4.7 Article

Impulsivity, implicit attitudes and explicit cognitions, and alcohol dependence as predictors of pathological gambling

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 245, 期 -, 页码 392-397

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.08.039

关键词

Gambling disorder; Implicit cognition; Cognitive distortion; Alcoholism

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Centro de Investigation Biomedica en Red de Salud Mental, CIBERSAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impulsivity, implicit attitudes and explicit cognitions regarding gambling, and alcohol abuse have been pointed out by past research as significant contributors to the development and maintenance of gambling disorders. In this study, we tested the relationship among these contributors and pathological gambling. Forty-four pathological gamblers (DSM-5 criteria), of whom 23 were active gamblers and 17 were alcohol dependent, were compared with 100 controls, consisting of patients with a lifetime history of alcohol use disorder in remission for at least 2 years. The following protocol was used for the comparison: National Opinion Research Center Diagnostic Screen for Gambling Disorders, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11), Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS), Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, and Gambling Implicit Association Test (IAT). Impulsivity (BIS-11) and changes in implicit attitudes (IAT) were able to discriminate between pathological gamblers and controls, the latter being less impulsive and having fewer implicit attitudes towards gambling. Cognitive impulsivity (BIS-11), explicit gambling cognitions (GRCS), and alcohol dependence were able to discriminate between active and non-active pathological gamblers, the latter having less cognitive impulsivity and less explicit gambling cognitions and alcohol dependence. Using these simple tools can help clinicians in the assessment of pathological gambling. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据