Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:48:34.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gambling and decision-making: A dual process perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

Kenny R. Coventry
Kenny R. Coventry
Affiliation:
Cognition and Communication Research Centre, School of Psychology and Sport Sciences, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, NE1 8ST, United Kingdom. [email protected]://kenny.coventry.googlepages.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The consideration of gambling as a decision-making disorder may fail to explain why the majority of people gamble, yet only a small percentage of people lose control of their behaviour to the point where their gambling becomes problematic. The application of dual process theories to gambling addiction offers a means of explaining the differences between “normal” and “problem” gambling, augmenting the multiple vulnerabilities proposed by Redish et al.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 444 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D. & Damasio, A. R. (1997) Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275:1293–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulombe, A., Ladouceur, R., Desharnais, R. & Jobin, J. (1992) Erroneous perceptions and arousal among regular and occasional video poker players. Journal of Gambling Studies 8:235–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coventry, K. R. (2002) Rationality and decision making: The case of gambling and the development of gambling addiction. In: The downside. Problem and pathological gambling, ed. Marotta, J. J., Cornelius, J. A. & Eadington, W. R., pp 43–68. University of Nevada Press.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R. & Norman, A. C. (1998) Arousal, erroneous verbalisations, and the illusion of control during a computer-generated gambling task. British Journal of Psychology 69:629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diskin, K. M. & Hodgins, D. C. (1999) Narrowing of attention and dissociation in pathological video lottery gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies 15(1):17–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diskin, K. M. & Hodgins, D. C. (2001) Narrowed focus and dissociative experiences in a community sample of experienced video lottery gamblers. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 33(1):58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003) In two minds: Dual process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:454–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Coventry, K. (2006) A dual process approach to behavioral addiction: The case of gambling. In: Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction, ed. Wiers, R. W. & Stacy, A. W., pp. 29–43. Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuley, N. B. & Jacobs, D. E. (1987) The relationship between dissociative-like experiences and sensation seeking among social and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Behavior 4:197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, L. (2002) A reformulated cognitive-behavioral model of problem gambling: A biopsychosocial perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 22(1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenaar, W. A. (1988) Paradoxes of gambling behavior. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walker, M. B. (1992b) The psychology of gambling. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Wiers, R. W. & Stacy, A. W., eds (2006a) Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiers, R. W. & Stacy, A. W., eds (2006b) Implicit cognition and addiction. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15: 292–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar