a new instrument to measure cognitive distortions in video lottery terminal users: the informational...

Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 2003 (� 2003)

387

1050-5350/03/1200-0387/0 � 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

A New Instrument to Measure Cognitive Distortionsin Video Lottery Terminal Users:

The Informational Biases Scale (IBS)

Steven JeffersonRichard Nicki

University of New Brunswick

This paper reports on the development of a new scale, the Informational Biases Scale(IBS), to measure cognitive distortions such as the illusion of control, gambler’s fallacy,illusory correlations, and the availability heuristic in video lottery terminal (VLT) play-ers. Ninety-six VLT players recruited from bars in New Brunswick took part in the study.Their average (lifetime) South Oaks Gambling Screen score was in the probable patholog-ical gambler range. The 25-item IBS was shown to have good internal consistency re-liability. An exploratory principal components/factor analysis revealed the variability ofthe IBS to be accounted for by mainly one factor. The construct validity of the instru-ment was supported by the finding that IBS scores were uniquely determined by mea-sures of gambling addiction and negative affect. The IBS should prove useful in bothresearch and clinical settings involving VLT gamblers.

KEY WORDS: VLT; cognitive distortions; scale development.

According to Griffiths (1999), video lottery terminals (i.e., elec-tronic gambling machines also known as fruit machines and slot ma-chines) are a predominant form of gaming activity among adolescentand adult pathological gamblers throughout the world. Such activitymay be maintained by a number of factors that have been investigated

Please address all correspondence to Steven Jefferson, Department of Psychology, University ofNew Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 6E4, Canada; e-mail: b9bui�unb.ca.

388 JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES

in the research literature relating to physiological arousal induction orexcitement (Anderson & Brown, 1984; Griffiths, 1995a), negative rein-forcement or escape from anxiety and depression (Beaudoin & Cox,1999; Griffiths, 1995b; Jacobs, 1988), and cognitive distortions includ-ing the illusion of control, gambler’s fallacy, illusory correlations, andthe availability heuristic (Griffiths, 1994; Ladouceur & Walker, 1996).

In her reformulated cognitive-behavioural model of problem gam-bling, Sharpe (2002) has viewed irrational cognitions as being funda-mental to the instigation and maintenance of gambling. The presenceof cognitive distortions in VLT players has been verified by a numberof researchers using the thinking aloud method (Gaboury & Lad-ouceur, 1989; Griffiths, 1994; Walker, 1992). Toneatto, Blitz-Miller, Cal-derwood, Dragonetti, and Tsanos (1997) through the use of an in-depth interview, found a high incidence of cognitive distortions in 38“regular and heavy gamblers.” Furthermore, the clinical literature con-tains a substantial number of reports of the successful application ofcognitive restructuring treatment approaches aimed at changing oreliminating cognitive distortions of pathological gamblers. For exam-ple, in a case report (Toneatto & Sobell, 1990), cognitive restructuringof cognitive distortions in a pathological (DSM-III-R) gambler addictedto betting on horses was found to be successful at outcome and over a6-month follow-up period. Ladouceur, Boisvert, and Dumont (1994)successfully treated four adolescent male video poker players who metthe DSM-III-R criteria for pathological gambling using cognitive re-structuring combined with providing basic information about gambling,and training in problem solving, social skills, and relapse prevention.All participants were abstinent post-test and at 6-month follow-up. Sim-ilarly, Sylvain, Ladouceur, and Boisvert (1997) conducted a controlledgroup study (N � 29) in which cognitive restructuring was one com-ponent of a treatment package directed at changing the irrational cog-nitions of pathological gamblers (who were primarily video pokerplayers). They reported that the combined treatment package was suc-cessful over a 12-month follow-up period. Furthermore, a number ofother therapeutic interventions for pathological gambling in whichcognitive restructuring was an important treatment component aresummarised by Lopez Viets and Miller (1997). Lastly, with a fairly largesample of 64 (mainly) VLT gamblers who met the DSM-IV criteria forpathological gambling, Ladouceur et al. (2001) found in a controlledgroup study that a combined treatment package of cognitive restruc-

STEVEN JEFFERSON AND RICHARD NICKI 389

turing and relapse prevention training resulted in clinically meaning-ful changes at post-test and at 12-month follow-up. These develop-ments underscore the need for the construction of a reliable and validinstrument for assessing cognitive distortions in problem and patho-logical VLT gamblers. The use of such an instrument would allow clini-cians and researchers to assess changes in cognitive distortions duringthe course of treatment and follow-up and permit the identification ofprocess variables purported to underlie successful cognitive restructur-ing interventions.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to construct a new instru-ment, the Informational Biases Scale (IBS), to assess gambling cogni-tive distortions in VLT players. The decision to restrict the instrumentto VLT players was influenced by the fact that VLT gambling is a majorworld-wide form of gambling which leads readily to the developmentof pathological gambling (Breen & Zimmerman, 2002; Doiron & Nicki,2001; Morgan, Kofoed, Buchkoski, & Carr, 1996). The items of thescale were based on cognitive distortions reported in the research liter-ature (Coulombe, Ladouceur, Desharnais, & Jobin, 1992; Gaboury &Ladouceur,1989; Griffiths, 1994; Walker, 1992) to be uttered by regu-lar electronic gaming machine users. In order to investigate its psycho-metric properties (e.g., internal consistency reliability, factor/compo-nent structure), the IBS was administered to a large sample of VLTplayers in bars in three major cities in the province of New Brunswick.In order to establish its construct validity, two measures of gamblingaddiction (one based on DSM-III criteria and another based on DSM-IV criteria), and a measure of negative affect (i.e., depression, anxiety,and stress) were used.

Since construct validity refers to the theoretical relationship of avariable (i.e., IBS scores) to established measures of other variables(DeVellis, 1991), higher scores on the IBS were expected to be associ-ated with (a) greater gambling addiction and (b) negative affect. Thebasis for the former prediction was that theoretical and empirical linksbetween cognitive distortions and gambling addiction have been estab-lished in the literature (see above). With respect to the latter predic-tion, according to Jacobs’ (1986) General Theory of Addictions, com-pulsive gambling behaviour is negatively reinforced by escape from“painful reality” (e.g., negative affect associated with depression, anxi-ety, and stress). In addition, irrational cognitions are viewed by cogni-tive behavior therapists as being fundamental to the experience of de-


pression, anxiety, stress, and cognitive restructuring of these irrationalcognitions is regarded as a critical component of successful therapy(Spiegler & Guevremont, 1998).

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 96 VLT players recruited from bars in Frederic-ton, Saint John, and Moncton, New Brunswick—each with a popula-tion of between 50,000–75,000 people.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire. A short personal information ques-tionnaire was constructed by the authors that required participants toindicate their sex, age, highest level of education obtained, and occu-pation.

The Informational Biases Scale (IBS) (see Appendix). The IBS initiallyconsisted of 48 items were derived in two ways. Firstly, hour-long, semi-structured interviews were conducted with four regular VLT playersfrom the Fredericton area. These interviews focused on the identifica-tion of distorted VLT gambling cognitions in the participants. Sec-ondly, items were based on research literature (Coulombe, Ladouceur,Desharnais, & Jobin, 1992; Gaboury & Ladouceur, 1989; Griffiths, 1994;Walker, 1992) pertaining to the use of the thinking aloud method withelectronic gaming machine users. All items were followed by a 7-pointLikert scale that was anchored at each end from “Don’t Agree at All,”to “Strongly Agree.” After its administration to a sample of 96 partici-pants, an item evaluation in accordance with guidelines specified byDeVellis (1991) was undertaken. These guidelines state that individualitems should have means close to the center of their range, have rela-tively high variance, and be correlated with the aggregate of the rest ofthe items. This resulted in 23 items with low inter-item correlations,low variances, and highly skewed distributions being eliminated. Theinternal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) of theremaining 25-item scale was .92. In order to determine the dimen-


Table 1Percent of Variance Accounted for by Each Factor

Component Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

1 9.17 36.672 1.69 6.743 1.52 6.094 1.37 5.495 1.29 5.166 1.07 4.28

sionality of the scale, an exploratory principal components/factoranalysis was undertaken. Conditioning of the data set resulted in theelimination of four multivariate outliers; the data from 92 participantswere retained for the principal components/factor analysis. A screetest strongly suggested that a one-component/factor solution was mostappropriate. This was supported by an examination of the percent ofvariance accounted for by each factor (see Table 1). A one-factor solu-tion accounted for approximately 37% of the total variance. Factorloadings for each item (see Table 2) were found to range in valuefrom .41 to .80 and suggest that all 25 items are adequately related toone general factor (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). At the same time itshould be noted that the sample size in this exploratory principal com-ponents/factor analysis was marginal (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989)which would reduce the likelihood of replicating this factor structure.

South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). The SOGS (Lesieur & Blume,1987) is a well-known, 20-item scale that is concerned with gamblingactivities over one’s lifetime and is based on DSM-III criteria for patho-logical gambling. Scored items pertain to hiding evidence of gam-bling, arguing with family members about gambling, and borrowingmoney to pay gambling debts. A person who scores 1 to 4 would havesome problem with gambling; scores of 5 or higher would be indica-tive of probable pathological gambling. Very good reliability was exem-plified by a high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value of .97 and a test-retest correlation (r � .71). The SOGS is a validated instrument withhigh sensitivity; its ability to correctly detect pathological gamblers hasbeen found to be equal to 99.5%. Its level of specificity (i.e., not falsely


Table 2Factor Loadings of IBS Items

IBS Item Item Loading

1 0.512 0.433 0.474 0.555 0.416 0.497 0.588 0.629 0.57

10 0.6311 0.6512 0.5113 0.6814 0.7215 0.5516 0.6417 0.7318 0.5519 0.7620 0.7721 0.5022 0.8023 0.5824 0.7825 0.60

detecting pathological gamblers) has been found to be 99% (Volberg& Banks, 1990). At the same time, criticism has been leveled at theSOGS for rendering high levels of both false positives and negatives(Culleton, 1989; Dickerson & Hinchy, 1988; Gerstein, Volberg, Har-wood, & Christiansen, 1999; Lesieur & Blume, 1993). For example, in ageneral population survey, the SOGS produced a false positive rate of.50 and a false negative rate of .001. Furthermore, in a gambling treat-


ment sample, the false positive rate was .003 and the false negative ratewas .14 (Stinchfield, 2002).

National Opinion Research Center DSM-IV Screen for Gambling Problems(NODS). The NODS (Gerstein et al., 1999) is based on DSM-IV crite-ria for pathological gambling and is composed of two sections: thelifetime scale, which assesses problem gambling over the course ofone’s life, and the past-year scale which examines problem gamblingover the course of the past twelve months. Both are comprised of 17items to which the respondent answers yes or no. The maximum scoreon either scale is ten. Cut-off scores on the NODS are the same forboth scales. A score of zero is indicative of a non-problem gambler, ascore of 1–2 signifies an at-risk gambler, a score of 3–4 categorizes therespondent as a problem gambler, and a person who scores 5 or greateris classified as a pathological gambler. Gerstein et al. (1999) reportthat both NODS scales have high test-retest reliability (lifetime, r �.99; past year, r � .98). With respect to sensitivity, for the lifetimeNODS, 95% of persons sampled from outpatient problem treatmentprograms were correctly identified as pathological gamblers, and forpast-year NODS, 75% of persons sampled from the same programswere correctly identified (Gerstein et al., 1999). The NODS was de-signed to be administered as a telephone interview, but was adapted toserve as a paper-and-pencil self-report inventory. A brief communica-tion with one of its authors (Dr. Volberg) confirmed that this was ap-propriate.

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS). The DASS (Lovibond &Lovibond, 1995) comprises three 14-item subscales: DASS-Depression,which is characterized by loss of self-esteem and motivation and lowpositive affect; DASS-Anxiety, marked by physiological hyper-arousaland fearfulness; and DASS-Stress, which assesses muscle tension, irri-tability, and feeling on edge. Scores from these three subscales can besummed to yield a general negative affect score. All items are followedby a 4-point Likert scale on which the respondents indicate the degreeto which each of the items applied to them over the past week. Usinglarge clinical samples, Brown et al. (1997) found the DASS to be psy-chometrically very strong; internal consistency reliability (Cronbach al-pha) values of the subscales were .96, .89, and .93 for the depression,anxiety, and stress subscales, respectively. Test-retest correlations of the


three subscales varied from .71 to .81. Both exploratory and confirma-tory factor analyses suggested a stable three-factor structure. Supportfor the discriminant validity of the DASS was shown by its ability todifferentiate various anxiety and mood disorder groups in the pre-dicted directions. Finally, Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) reported ahigh correlation between the DASS anxiety subscale and the BeckAnxiety Inventory (r � .81) and the depression subscale and the BeckDepression Inventory (r � .74). The normal range for subscale scoresare 0–9 for depression, 0–7 for anxiety, and 0–14 for stress (Lovibond& Lovibond, 1995).

Procedure

Persons playing VLT machines were approached, at various timesof the day and evening in a variety of bars, either by the experimenter(first author) or a paid research assistant, given a brief description ofthe study, and asked if they would like to participate. If they agreed todo so, they were given a self-addressed envelope that contained a briefset of instructions, an informed consent form, a demographic ques-tionnaire, and the IBS, DASS, NODS, and SOGS (in that order). Theywere asked to complete the inventories at their earliest convenienceand to return them by mail to the experimenter. All participants werepaid $15 CDN by mail upon receipt of the envelope.

RESULTS

A total of 300 questionnaire packages were distributed and 96were returned, which yielded a relatively low return rate of 32%. Forty-five females and fifty-one males responded. Participants’ ages rangedfrom 19 to 61, with a mean age of 38.9 years (SD � 13.1). Fifty per-cent of the participants indicated that high school was their highestlevel of education attained, 19% were university educated, 17% hadcompleted community college, and 7% responded that they completedtheir formal education after junior high school. The remaining 7%had completed certified courses in various areas (e.g., sales and com-puter repair). Descriptive statistics for the various instruments are shownin Table 3. It should be pointed out that the average (lifetime) SOGSscore was greater than 5, the cut-off value for “probable pathological


Table 3Descriptive Statistics for InventoriesAdministered for the Total Sample

Instrument N M SD

SOGS 96 5.67 4.71Lifetime NODS 96 3.51 3.24Past-year NODS 96 2.40 2.78DASS-Stress 96 11.10 9.63DASS-Anxiety 96 5.64 7.57DASS-Depression 96 8.46 9.63DASS-Total 96 25.21 24.97IBS Total 96 149.05 47.32

gambler.” Furthermore, the average value of the lifetime NODS scorewas greater than 3, the cut-off score for “problem gambler.” Fifty-fourpercent of the participants exhibited serious gambling problems inaccord with both DSM-III and DSM-IV criteria. The average subscalescores for the DASS were all within the normal ranges(as indicatedabove).

Table 4Intercorrelations Among the Instruments

SOGS Life Year Stress Dep Anx Total IBS

SOGS — .74* .82* .53* .49* .36* .50* .48*Life — .74* .40* .36* .34* .40* .38*Year — .45* .46* .37* .46* .47*Stress — .84* .78* .95* .47*Dep — .78* .94* .38*Anx — .90* .33*Total — .43*IBS —

Note. SOGS � (Lifetime) South Oaks Gambling Screen; Life � Lifetime NODS; Year � Past-yearNODS; Stress � DASS Stress subscale; Dep � DASS Depression subscale; Anx � DASS Anxietysubscale; Total � DASS total score (General negative affect); IBS � Informational Biases Scale.*p � .01.


Table 5Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting

IBS Scores from the SOGS and DASS (N � 96)

Variable � sr2

Step 1SOGS Scores .48* .093*

Step 2DASS Total Score .25* .048*

Note. � � Standardized regression coefficient; sr2 � Squared semi-partial correlation.R2 � .23 for Step 1; �R2 � .048 for Step 2.*p � .05.

As predicted (see Table 4), the IBS was found to be significantly(p � .01) correlated with the SOGS (r � .48), past year NODS(r � .47), lifetime NODS (r � .38), the DASS subscale for depression(r � .38), the DASS subscale for anxiety (r � .33), the DASS subscalefor stress (r � .47), and the DASS total score (r � .43). In order todetermine the amount of variability in IBS scores that could be uniquelyaccounted for by measures of problem gambling severity and negativeaffect, three separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted.The analyses were conducted separately because of the high inter-cor-relations among the SOGS, past year NODS, and lifetime NODS. Inthe first regression analysis (Table 5), the SOGS was a significant pre-dictor of IBS scores (� � .48, p � .05), and accounted for approx-imately 10% of its variance. The DASS total score, which was enteredon the second step, was also a significant predictor (� � .25, p � .05),and accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in IBS scores. Inthe second regression analysis (Table 6), the past-year NODS was asignificant predictor of IBS scores (� � .47, p � .05), and accountedfor approximately 10% of its variance. The DASS total score, whichwas entered on the second step, was also a significant predictor� � .27), and accounted for an additional 6% of the variance in IBSscores. Lastly, in the third regression analysis (Table 7), the lifetimeNODS was a significant predictor (� � .38, p � .05) of IBS scores,and accounted for approximately 5% of its variance. The DASS totalscore, entered in on the second step, was also a significant predic-tor(� � .33, p � .05), and accounted for an additional 9% of the vari-ance in IBS scores.



IBS Scores from the Past-year NODS and DASS (N � 96)

Variable � sr2

Step 1Past-year NODS .47* .096*



DISCUSSION

In this study, we have constructed a self-report instrument, theIBS, to assess the magnitude of gambling cognitive distortions com-monly reported in VLT players. Support for its internal consistencyreliability was exemplified by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value of.92 judged by DeVellis (1991) to be “perfectly adequate” for compar-ing groups with respect to the construct being measured, and veryclose to the mid-.90s range recommended for individual clinical assess-ment. An exploratory principal components analysis revealed the vari-ability in the IBS to be accounted for by mainly one factor. In accord


IBS Scores from the Lifetime NODS and DASS (N � 96)

Variable � sr2

Step 1Lifetime NODS .38* .053*




with Ladouceur and Walker’s (1996) viewpoint, this one factor seemsto reflect the “misconception of the nature of randomness”—a funda-mental cognitive error made by gamblers which denies the indepen-dence of trials that applies to VLT outcomes.

The construct validity of the IBS was supported by moderate cor-relations (r � .30) with previously established measures of gamblingaddiction and negative affect. That is, on the basis of both theoreticalgrounds (Jacobs, 1986; Sharpe, 2002) and research findings (e.g.,Gaboury & Ladouceur, 1989; Griffiths, 1994; Walker, 1992) one wouldexpect more cognitive distortions/informational biases to be associ-ated with a higher degree of problem gambling and greater depres-sion, anxiety, and stress. Furthermore, all three measures of gamblingaddiction and the total DASS measure of negative affect were shown tobe uniquely related to scores on the IBS. One would expect this to bethe case if gambling addiction and negative affect were each indepen-dently influenced by cognitive distortions in problem gamblers. Thefact that collectively, measures of addiction and negative affect ac-counted for only approximately 15% of the unique variance in IBSscores may suggest that addiction and negative affect encompass otherfactors, (e.g., antisocial behaviour, avoidance behaviour) that are notdirectly related to cognitive distortions.

In this study, two measures of gambling addiction were used: the(lifetime) SOGS and the past-year and lifetime NODS. As previouslynoted, the SOGS is a widely used measure, and is based on DSM-IIIcriteria which emphasize the impulsive nature of pathological gam-bling. On the other hand, the NODS is based on the more currentcriteria which stress characteristics likening it to other addictive behav-iours such as alcohol and drug dependence (Gerstein et al., 1999).Furthermore, the NODS was designed to be more restrictive and strin-gent than the SOGS (Gerstein et al., 1999) which may account for thefinding in this study that the average score of the lifetime NODS wasindicative of only problem gambling but the average (lifetime) SOGSscore, probable pathological gambling. However, in spite of their con-ceptual differences, all three measures of pathological gambling wereindeed found to be highly inter-correlated, and separate regressionanalyses were run involving each of these predictors in order not toconfound their effects on the criterion IBS variable (i.e., to avoid mul-ticollinearity).

The IBS has good content validity (Kerlinger, 1986) because its 25


items appear to sample the domain of cognitive distortions frequentlyattributed to gamblers in the thinking aloud method VLT literature(Gaboury & Ladouceur; 1989; Griffiths, 1994; Walker, 1992). A strengthof this study is that its participants were sampled from bars with VLTmachines as opposed to using participants from Introductory Psychol-ogy courses. Therefore, it is likely that the participants were represen-tative of typical VLT players. At the same time, a procedural weaknesswas that participants may not have been completely scrupulous in com-pleting the questionnaire package at home.

The questionnaire package return rate of 32% was relatively lowand less than that (43%) obtained by Doiron and Nicki (2001) in arecent telephone survey of gambling prevalence using the SOGS, NODS,and other instruments in the region. Relative to a telephone survey,the additional requirements of completing and returning the ques-tionnaire package may have substantially reduced the return rate. Thatis, participants who initially had agreed to complete the questionnairepackage in the bar setting could easily have changed their minds be-cause they might feel uncomfortable about answering items pertainingto their mood and gambling behaviour, or they may have just mis-placed or lost the questionnaire package.

In conclusion, internal consistency reliability and validity data forthe IBS appear promising. This scale should prove useful for bothresearch and clinical purposes involving VLT gambling which is a pre-dominant form of gambling activity among probable pathologicalgamblers (Griffiths, 1999). The restriction of such a measure as theIBS to the assessment of cognitive distortions of VLT gamblers shouldenhance its external validity (Bordens & Abbot, 1988), because itsitems specifically pertain to utterances reported to be made by VLTgamblers, which may differ from those made by other kinds of gam-blers. Plans for further development of the IBS include administeringit to a larger sample of VLT gamblers in order to confirm its factorstructure and test-retest reliability. In addition, assessment relating toits criterion-related validity (DeVellis, 1991) will be undertaken withthe use of the newly developed Gambling Attitudes and Beliefs Survey(GABS; Breen & Zuckerman, 1999), a scale constructed to measure awide range of cognitive biases, irrational beliefs, and positively valueditems pertaining to gambling in general. Recently, Breen, Kruedel-bach, and Walker (2001) showed significant pre- to post-treatmentchanges in the GABS to occur as a result of a cognitive restructuring


program with pathological gamblers in a Veterans Affairs Medical Cen-ter. Scale development is an ongoing process and the development ofthe IBS is at a preliminary stage of this process.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Hospital Corporation (Region 3)of New Brunswick for its generous funding of this project.

APPENDIXIBS

The following is a list of statements about VLT use. Please read each statement care-fully and indicate how much you agree or disagree with it by circling the appropriatenumber. Please do not take too much time in responding to the items.

1. I believe that some machines keep me from winning because they are programmedto produce fewer wins than normal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree2. In some establishments, the VLTs are more likely to pay out than others.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree

3. I would rather use a VLT that I am familiar with than one that I have never used before.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree4. The longer a VLT has gone without paying out a large sum of money, the more

likely are the chances that it will pay out in the very near future.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree5. I have purposely avoided playing on VLTs that have recently paid out a lot of money.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree6. I know some VLT users who are just plain lucky.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree7. I have a favourite VLT that I use.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree8. One’s chances of winning are better if he or she gambles on a machine that has

not paid out in a long time.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree


9. People win large amounts of money on VLTs on a fairly frequent basis.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree10. Hearing about other people winning on VLTs encourages me to keep on playing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree11. When I see others winning on VLTs, I feel that my turn is coming, too.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree12. There are certain strategies (for example, betting all of your credits at once) thatone can use with VLTs to help him or her win.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree13. It makes me upset when I almost win on VLTs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree14. If I win on a certain machine, I am more likely to use that machine again at a laterdate.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree15. After a long string of wins on a VLT, the chances of losing become greater.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree16. If I experience a long string of losses on a VLT, a big win must be coming justaround the corner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree17. If I’m experiencing a losing streak, the thought that a win has to be coming soonkeeps me gambling.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree18. I know some people who gamble who are just plain unlucky with VLTs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree19. Thinking about times that I have won on VLTs encourages me to keep playing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree20. I sometimes find myself trying to win back money that I have lost on VLTs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree21. Winning on VLTs makes me feel skillful.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree22. Sometimes, I’ll keep on playing VLTs because I get a strong feeling that I’m aboutto win.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree


23. I sometimes talk to the machine in order to make it do what I want. For example, Iwill sometimes mutter, “Come on! Come on!” under my breath.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree24. Winning on VLTs encourages me to keep playing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree25. I tend to think more often about my wins than my losses on VLTs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Don’t agree at all Partially agree Strongly agree

REFERENCES

Anderson, G., & Brown, R. I. F. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling: Sensation seeking andarousal. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 401–410.

Beaudoin, C. M., & Cox, B. J. (1999). Characteristics of problem gambling in a Canadian context:A preliminary study using a DSM-IV-based questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44,483–487.

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (1988). Research design and methods: A process approach. MountainView, California: Mayfield.

Breen, R. B., Kruedelbach, N. G., & Walker, H. I. (2001). Cognitive changes in pathological gam-blers following a 28-day inpatient program. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 15, 246–248.

Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gam-blers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 31–43.

Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). ‘Chasing’ in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitivedeterminants. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1097–1111.

Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., Korotitsch, W., & Barlow, D. (1997). Psychometric properties of thedepression anxiety stress scales (DASS) in clinical samples. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35,79–89.

Coulombe, M., Ladouceur, R., Desharnais, R., & Jobin, J. (1992). Erroneous perceptions andarousal among regular and occasional video poker players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 235–244.

Culleton, R. P. (1989). The prevalence rates of pathological gambling: A look at methods. Journal ofGambling Behavior, 4, 22–41.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. London: Sage Publications.Dickerson, M., & Hinchey, J. (1988). The prevalence of excessive and pathological gambling in

Australia. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 135–151.Doiron, J., & Nicki, R. (2001). Epidemiology of problem gambling in Prince Edward Island: A

Canadian microcosm? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 413–417.Gaboury, A., & Ladouceur, R. (1989). Erroneous perceptions and gambling. Journal of Social Behav-

ior and Personality, 4, 411–420.Gerstein, D. R., Volberg, R. A., Harwood, R., & Christiansen, E. M. (1999). Gambling impact and

behaviour study: Report to the national gambling impact study commission. Chicago, Ill: NationalOpinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

Griffiths, M., (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journalof Psychology, 85, 351–369.

Griffiths, M. (1995a). Adolescent gambling. New York: Routledge.Griffiths, M. (1995b). The role of subjective mood states in the maintenance of fruit machine

gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 123–135.Griffiths, M. (1999). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling

Studies, 15, 265–283.


Jacobs, D. F. (1986). A general theory of addictions: A new theoretical model. Journal of GamblingStudies, 2, 15–31.

Jacobs, D. F. (1988). Evidence for a common dissociative-like reaction among addicts. Journal ofGambling Behavior, 4, 27–37.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J., & Dumont, J. (1994). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for adolescent

pathological gamblers. Behavior Modification, 18, 230–241.Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., LaChance, S., Doucet, C., Leblond, J., & Jacques, C. (2001).

Cognitive treatment of pathological gambling. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189,774–780.

Ladouceur, R., & Walker, M. (1996). A cognitive perspective on gambling. In P. M. Salkovskis(Ed.), Trends in behavioural therapies (pp. 89–120). New York: Wiley.

Lesieur, H. R. & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instru-ment for the identification of problem gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.

Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1993). Revising the South Oaks Gambling Screen in differentsettings. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 213–223.

Lopez Viets, V. C., & Miller, W. R. (1997). Treatment approaches for pathological gamblers. ClinicalPsychology Review, 17, 689–702.

Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.).Sydney: Psychological Foundation.

Morgan, T., Kofoed, M., Buchkoski, J., & Carr. R. D. (1996). Video lottery gambling: Effects on patho-logical gamblers seeking treatment in South Dakota. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 451–460.

Sharpe, L. (2002). A reformulated cognitive-behavioral model of problem gambling: A biop-sychosocial perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1–25.

Spiegler, M., & Guevremont, D. (1998). Contemporary behavior therapy. Toronto: Brooks-Cole.Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and the classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gam-

bling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.Sylvain, C., Ladouceur, R., & Boisvert, J. (1997). Cognitive and behavioural treatment of patholog-

ical gambling: A controlled study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 727–732.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. Northbridge: Harper-Collins.Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T. B., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, A. (1997). Cognitive

distortions in heavy gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 253–266.Toneatto, T., & Sobell, L. C. (1990). Psychological gambling treated with cognitive behavior ther-

apy: A case report. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 497–501.Volberg, R. A., & Banks, S. M. (1990). A review of two measures of pathological gambling in the

United States. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 153–163.Walker, M. B. (1992). Irrational thinking among slot machine players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8,

245–261.

Received August 29, 2001; final revision October 5, 2002.

a new instrument to measure cognitive distortions in video lottery terminal users: the informational...

Documents