Karteikarten
Gambling Studies
Karten in diesem Stapel (14)
- 1Black et al (2006)Found: 1st degree relatives of pathological gamblers were more likely to suffer from pathological gambling than more distant relatives.
Suggests: a strong genetic link - 2Paris et al (2010)Procedure: measured gamblers' cortisol levels before and after watching a video of their preferred gambling mode and a video of neutral stimuli (e.g: a rollercoaster ride).
Found: Recreational gamblers had higher
salivary cortisol levels after both videos. Pathological gamblers showed no increase in response to the videos. - 3Zuckerman (1979)Suggested: sensation-seekers look for
varied/novel experiences. High sensation-seekers have a lower appreciation of risk and anticipate arousal as more positive than low sensation-seekers so they're more likely to gamble. There are individual differences in the amount of need for
stimulation. - 4Blaszczynski et al (1990)Found: poor boredom tolerance may contribute to repetitive gambling behaviour. There were no significant differences in results between the type of gambling. Pathological gamblers had higher boredom proneness scores than the non-gambler control group.
- 5Griffiths (1994)Procedure: Compared regular and non-regular gamblers in terms of their verbalisations as they played a fruit slot machine.
Found: Regular gamblers justified their
continuation by seeing near misses
as near wins so they didn't see themselves as constantly losing, tended to personify the machine, believed they were more skilful than they were and were more likely to make irrational verbalisations during play. - 6Becona et al (1996)Suggested: A major depressive disorder is evident in the majority of pathological
gamblers. - 7Blanco et al (2000)Found: Pathological gamblers often suffer from a recall bias - the tendency to overestimate wins whilst underestimating, forgetting about or rationalising losses
- 8Griffiths (2009)Suggested: Gamblers playing slot machine may become addicted because of the physiological rewards (e.g: getting a buzz from winning), psychological rewards (e.g: the near miss), social rewards (e.g: peer praise) and the financial rewards if they win.
- 9Lambo et al (2007)Found: Peers and family of problem
gamblers were more likely to approve of gambling. Respondents who received this type of reinforcement gambled more than others and intended to continue doing so in the future. - 10Hollander et alProcedure: Evaluated the effectiveness of the SSRI fluvoaxamine (which increases serotonin) in treating pathological gambling.
Found: The drug was significantly more effective than a placebo condition. - 11Blanco et alSample: Gamblers
Procedure: compared placebos to SSRIs over a 6 month period.
Found: Failed to demonstrate any superiority for SSRI treatment over placebo. - 12Messerlian et al (2005)Suggested: Proposed a prevention model to deal with the young adult highest risk group for gambling problems. Includes early identification strategies.
- 13McCounaghy et al (1983)Procedure: Got gamblers to read out lists of words and each time a word associated with gambling was read, they got an electric shock.
Found: Success rate was around 50%. - 14Sylvain et alFound: CBT works well in the long-term.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A Levels Psychology (Addictive Behaviour) Karteikarten am Gambling Studies, erstellt von Hazel Meades am 13/01/2015.
- Erstellt von
- Hazel Meades
- Aufrufe
- 20
- Tags
- Bewertung