sub-typing gamblers on the basis of affective motivations for gambling: implications for treatment...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
Sub-typing Gamblers on the Basis of Affective Motivations for Gambling: Implications for Treatment Matching Dr. Sherry H. Stewart,
Departments of Psychiatry & Psychology,
Dalhousie University,
CIHR Investigator,
Killam Research Professor
Collaborators
Dr. Sean Barrett Dr. Joel Katz
Dr. Raymond Klein Dr. David Hodgins Dr. Anne-Marie Wall Dr. Martin Zack
Pamela (Loba) Collins Fofo Fragopoulos Adrienne Girling Meghan Kirsch Melissa Mohan Sarah Stuart
Background: Motivational Theories Motivational models of addiction argue that people
engage in addictive behaviors to obtain desired outcomes (e.g., Cooper, 1994)
Many such theories point to desires for mood alteration as motivating addictive behavior (e.g., Cox & Klinger, 1988)
Theories abound regarding contributions of motivations involving emotional self-regulation in etiology and maintenance of pathological gambling Desire for tension-/dysphoria-reducing effects (e.g.,
Beaudoin & Cox, 1999) Desire for euphoric consequences (e.g., Hickey et al.,
1986)
Background: DSM-IV-TR Background: DSM-IV-TR Criteria for Pathological Criteria for Pathological GamblingGambling
A. Persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior A. Persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior as indicated by five (or more) of the following:as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) is preoccupied with gambling(1) is preoccupied with gambling
*(2) needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in *(2) needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the order to achieve the desired excitementdesired excitement
(3) has repeated efforts to control, cut back, or stop (3) has repeated efforts to control, cut back, or stop gamblinggambling
(4) is restless or irritable when attempting to cut (4) is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gamblingdown or stop gambling
Background: DSM-IV-TR Background: DSM-IV-TR Criteria for Pathological Criteria for Pathological GamblingGambling
**(5) gambles as a way of escaping from problems or of (5) gambles as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dysphoric moodrelieving a dysphoric mood
(6) after losing money gambling, often returns another day to (6) after losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even ("chasing" one's losses)get even ("chasing" one's losses)
(7) lies to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the (7) lies to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with gamblingextent of involvement with gambling
(8) has committed illegal acts such as forgery, fraud, theft, or (8) has committed illegal acts such as forgery, fraud, theft, or embezzlement to finance gamblingembezzlement to finance gambling
(9) has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or (9) has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of gamblingeducational or career opportunity because of gambling
(10) relies on others to provide money to relieve a (10) relies on others to provide money to relieve a
desperate financial situation caused by gamblingdesperate financial situation caused by gambling
Background: Heterogeneity
Increasing recognition of the heterogeneity of gamblers (e.g., Ferris, & Wynne, 2001)
Cluster analytic studies suggest subtypes For example, Blaszczynski & Nower (2002)
suggest three clusters: Antisocial impulsivist gamblers Emotionally vulnerable gamblers Behaviorally-conditioned gamblers
Researchers Proposed SubtypesLesieur Impulsive Impulsive(2001) (2 of 3) Escape Seekers Action SeekersMcCormick Recurrently Chronically (1987) Depressed Under-StimulatedBlaszczynski et al. Depression- Boredom-(1990) Prone ProneBlaszczynski & Nower Emotionally Antisocial(2002) (2 of 3) Vulnerable Impulsivist Grant Anxious/ Pleasure/Urge &(2007 – yesterday’s Depressed/ General Impulsivity talk) Obsessional Need for Stimulation
Previous Sub-Typing Schemes
Background: Sub-typing Substance Abusers Our previous work in the alcohol/drug
abuse area involves sub-typing substance abusers according to underlying motives for substance use (Conrod et al., 2000a)
This sub-typing predicts: Substance use patterns/preferences Co-morbid psychopathology Response to “matched” interventions
(Conrod et al., 2000a,b, 2006; Watt et al., 2006)
Matching brief interventions to motivational profiles
Random assignment to 1 of 3 90-minute interventions:
(1) Motivation-matched cognitive-behavioral training (N=94)
(2) Motivation-mismatched cognitive-behavioral training (N=97)
(3) Film control (N=52)
(Conrod, Stewart et al., 2000; Psych of Addictive Behaviors)
Procedure: Follow-up
Assessment at 6-months post-treatment Telephone interview Interviewer blind to subtype and intervention Several substance-related outcomes assessed
0
1
2
3
4
5
Matched Mismatched Film
Re
du
cti
on
in
de
pe
nd
en
ce
sym
pto
ms
Reduction in Dependence Symptoms
0
5
10
15
20
25
Matched Mismatched Film
% r
ep
ort
ing
>6
0 d
ays
ab
sti
ne
nt
fro
m a
lco
ho
lLengthy Abstinence from Alcohol
Our New Proposal:
What about sub-typing gamblers according to motivations for emotional regulation?
Might be a theoretically- and clinically-useful way of understanding diversity among pathological gamblers and those at risk.
Background: Gambling and Alcohol High co-morbidity between pathological
gambling and alcohol use disorders (Ciarrocchi, 1993; Crockford & el-Guebaly, 1998; Griffiths, 1994; Stewart & Kushner, 2003).
Theories explaining co-morbidity include: Pathological Gambling Alcohol Abuse (Zack et al., 2005) Alcohol Abuse Pathological Gambling (Ellery et al., 2005) Common Third Variable
For example, common underlying motivations for gambling/drinking
Purposes
Test the validity of a gambler subtyping scheme that classifies gamblers on their primary emotion regulation motives for gambling
Test the degree of overlap in specific motives for gambling and for drinking among problem gamblers who drink when gambling Do those who use gambling to cope with negative emotions
also use drinking for the same reason? Do those who use gambling to enhance positive states also
use alcohol for the same reason?
Hypotheses
(1) At least two clusters or subtypes of pathological gamblers would emerge using gambling situations as indirect measure of motives those gambling in response to “negative” contexts (e.g.,
unpleasant emotional states) – COP gamblers. those gambling in response to “positive” contexts (e.g., pleasant
emotional states) – ENH gamblers. (2) Clusters of gamblers identified using the Inventory of
Gambling Situations (indirect) would be validated using Gambling Motives Questionnaire (direct).
(3) The ENH gamblers would evidence greater gambling behavior than other cluster(s)
(4) The COP gamblers would evidence greater gambling problems than other cluster(s)
Hypotheses (continued)
(5) We expected to observe associations between gambling motives and drinking motivations on the Drinking Motives Questionnaire
(6) We hypothesized that the ENH gamblers would show higher quantities of drinking, and more alcohol related problems on the Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test, than other cluster(s)
Method - Participants
A sample of 158 gamblers (77%M; mean (SD) age = 36.0 (10.7) years) was recruited from the community using newspaper and television advertisements.
All were probable pathological gamblers (scoring > 5 on the SOGS).
All reported consuming alcohol at least 50% of the times when they gamble.
All were 19 years of age or older
Results: Hypothesis 1aPattern Matrix from Principal Components Analysis of subscale scores from the Inventory of Gambling
Situations (IGS; Turner & Littman-Sharp, 2006) following Oblique Rotation (n = 158)
Factor 1 – Factor 2 – IGS Subscale Negative Situations Positive Situations CommunalityUnpleasant Emotions .976* -.029 .918Worried Over Debt .945* -.072 .812Conflict With Others .938* -.034 .840
Testing Personal Control .886* .032 .821Winning and Chasing Losses .764* .202 .821
Pleasant Emotions -.105 .930* .751 Social Pressure -.036 .899* .768Need for Excitement .246 .757* .872Confidence in Skills .173 .678* .639
Urges and Temptations .603* .423* .873
Note: A two-factor solution was selected based on Kaiser’s rule. Salient loadings (> .40) are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Results: H1b: Cluster Analysis 3 cluster solution Cluster 1 – high positive situation scores/low
negative situation scores – labeled Enhancement (ENH) gamblers (n = 94)
Cluster 2 – high negative/high positive situation scores, but particularly high negative scores – labeled Coping (COP) gamblers (n = 36)
Cluster 3 – low negative/low positive situation scores – labeled Low Emotion Regulation (Low ER) gamblers (n = 28)
Results: H2: Factor Scores on Gambling Motives Questionnaire (GMQ) by Subtype
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
ENH COP Low ER
coping motivesenhancement motives
cluster group x subscale interaction (F (2, 151) = 3.44, p < .05)
Results: H3: Number of Lifetime Gambling Activities (SOGS) by Subtype
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ENH COP Low ER
# activities
cluster group effect (F (2, 155) = 19.90, p < .001)
a a b
Results: H4: Gambling Problems on DSM-IV-Based Measure by Subtype
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
ENH COP Low ER
gambling problems
cluster group effect (F (2, 151) = 33.23, p < .001)
ab c
Results: H5: Factor Scores on Cooper’s (1994) Drinking Motives Questionnaire (DMQ) by Subtype
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
ENH COP Low ER
coping motivesenhancement motives
cluster group x subscale interaction (F (2, 151) = 7.42, p < .005)
Results: H6a: Drinking Quantity (drinks per occasion) by Subtype
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ENH COP Low ER
drinking quantity
cluster group effect (F (2, 150) = 7.57, p < .005)
aa b
Results: H6b: Drinking Problems by Subtype
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
ENH COP Low ER
B-MAST scores
cluster group effect (F (2, 147) = 13.13, p < .001)
ab b
Some Remaining Questions
Do the clusters represent trait-like subtypes or stages?
Do the clusters simply reflect correlates of gambling problem severity?
Are the sub-typing findings specific to pathological gamblers who drink when gambling?
Background: Expectancies
Expectancies = beliefs about consequences of engaging in a specific behavior
“If-then” statements making connections between behavior and expected outcome (Goldman et al., 1999)
Distinct from motives (Birch et al., 2004) Many domains, but two higher-order
Reward Relief
(Birch et al., 2004)
Background: Expectancies
In addictions field, expectancies exert powerful influence on addictive behavior e.g., expectancies about effects of alcohol strong
determinants of heavy and problem drinking (Goldman et al., 1999)
Surprisingly, little research on expectancies in gambling area
Purposes
Replicate typology of gamblers identified in Study 1, with sub-typing on the basis of gambling situations (inferred motives)
Determine if gambler subtypes differ in gambling outcome expectancies on a new mood-regulation Gambling Expectancies Questionnaire (GEQ) modeled after a similar alcohol outcome expectancies measure (Birch et al., 2004; Singleton et al., 1994)
Relief expectancies (e.g., “I would feel less irritable if I gambled now”)
Reward expectancies (e.g., “It would be great to gamble now”)
Hypotheses
(1) Three clusters or subtypes of regular gamblers would emerge on basis of IGS positive and negative situation factors: Pure enhancement gamblers (ENH) Primarily coping gamblers (COP) Low emotion-regulation gamblers (LOW ER)
(2) Gambler subtypes would differ in mood-regulation gambling outcome expectancies on the GEQ Reward expectancies: ENH = COP > LOW ER Relief expectancies: COP > ENH = LOW ER
Method - Participants
A sample of 181 regular gamblers (56% M; mean age = 37.7 years) was recruited from the community using newspaper and television advertisements.
Approximately half recruited in Halifax (n=84) and the other half in Toronto (n=97)
No restrictions regarding SOGS scores or alcohol consumption; M SOGS = 3.88 (4.23)
Results: Hypothesis 1aPattern Matrix from Principal Components Analysis of subscale scores from the IGS following Oblique Rotation (n = 179)
Factor 1 – Factor 2 – IGS Subscale Negative Situations Positive Situations CommunalityConflict With Others .938* -.093 .789Worried Over Debts .904* -.100 .724Testing Personal Control .794* .130 .766Unpleasant Emotions .786* .144 .768
Need To Be In Control .775* .141 .745
Pleasant Emotions -.201 .952* .727 Social Pressure .029 .750* .588Need for Excitement .192 .725* .720Confidence in Skills .205 .704* .702
Urges and Temptations .403* .580* .766Winning and Chasing Losses .448* .500* .707
Note: A two-factor solution was selected based on Kaiser’s rule. Salient loadings (> .40) are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Results: Hypothesis 1bGambling situation factor scores of the three clusters of regular gamblers
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Cluster 1 ENH(n=68)
Cluster 2 LOWER (n=63)
Cluster 3 COP(n=48)
Negative SituationsPositive Situations
Results: Hypothesis 2GEQ factor scores as a function of gambler subtype
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Cluster 1 ENH(n=67)
Cluster 2 LOWER (n=61)
Cluster 3 COP(n=46)
Relief ExpectanciesReward Expectancies
cluster group x expectancy domain interaction (F (2, 171) = 25.80, p < .001)
STUDY 2 Cluster 1 ENH
Cluster 2 LOW ER
Cluster 3 COP
Age (yrs) 33.57 (14.54)b
41.02 (14.02)a
39.88 (9.03)a
SOGS 2.99 (2.45)b
1.41 (2.12)c
8.48 (4.79)a
Gambling freq (per wk)
2.40 (1.96)a
1.57 (1.02)b
2.84 (1.96)a
B-MAST 4.28 (5.70)b
2.40 (3.97)c
7.58 (6.34)a
Drinking Onset (yrs)
14.91 (2.90)
15.42 (2.67)b
14.00 (2.62)a
Purposes
Test the validity of a gambler subtyping scheme that classifies gamblers on their primary emotion regulation motives for gambling, as applied to undergraduate gambling behavior
Does the three subtype scheme hold in undergraduate gamblers?
Do the subtypes vary as expected on gambling behaviors and gambling problems?
Method - Participants
A sample of 168 regular gamblers (58% M; mean age = 20.3 years) was recruited from the undergraduate student population
Approximately half recruited at Dalhousie University (n = 82) and the other half recruited at York University (n = 86)
No restrictions regarding gambling problems or alcohol consumption
Results: Hypothesis 1aPattern Matrix from Principal Components Analysis of subscale scores from the IGS following Oblique Rotation (n = 168 university student gamblers)
Factor 1 – Factor 2 – IGS Subscale Positive Situations Negative Situations
Pleasant Emotions 1.101* -.234Social Pressure .818* .025Confidence in Skills .796* .025
Need for Excitement .790* .146
Conflict with Others -.071 .982*Negative Emotions .044 .900*Worried about Debt -.027 .886*Testing Personal Control .241 .761*
Urges and Temptations .597* .456*Winning and Chasing Losses .580* .401*
Note: A two-factor solution was selected based on Kaiser’s rule. Salient loadings (> .40) are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Results: H1b: Gambling Situation Factor Scores of the 3 Clusters of Gamblers
1=cop/enh, 2=enh, 3=low er321
Mea
n
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Gambling Situation Factors Scores for the Three Clusters of Regular Undergraduate Gamblers
negative situationspositive situations
1 = COP (n=22); 2 = ENH (n=65); 3 = Low ER (n=81)
STUDY 3 Cluster 1 COP
Cluster 2 ENH
Cluster 3 Low ER
Age (yrs) 22.32 (4.93)a
19.88 (1.96)b
20.08 (2.38)b
Gender (% male)*
81.8% 61.5% 48.2%
Money Spent When Gambling ($)
50.20 (70.04)a
37.22 (46.86)a
17.82 (21.46)b
Hours per week Gambling
6.81 (6.95)a
3.06 (2.74)b
2.00 (1.78)c
Results: Percentage High Risk Gamblers (on CPGI) as a function of Subtype
1 = COP (n=22); 2 = ENH (n=65); 3 = Low ER (n=81)CPGI group
highlow
Per
cen
tag
e o
f ea
ch c
lust
er
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
321
1=cop/enh, 2=enh, 3=low er
Percent of Each Cluster Scoring Low and High on the CPGI
Cluster
Background: Heart Rate & Reward Alcohol intake leads to resting heart rate
increases (e.g., Conrod et al., 2001; Stewart et al., 1992)
Positively related to feeling energized in regular drinkers (Conrod et al., 2001)
Suggested marker for susceptibility to alcohol reward and reinforcement (e.g., Brunelle et al., 2003; Peterson et al., 1993)
Background: Heart Rate & Reward Heart rate increases may apply to a variety of
addictive behaviours Heart rate increases have also been seen in
gamblers when gambling (e.g., Coventry & Norman, 1997; Meyer et al., 2004)
Two prior studies show heart rateincreases to alcohol and gambling alone and in combination in regular gamblers (Stewart et al., 2005, 2006).
Experimental Design
2 x 3 x 3 mixed model
Between subjects factors: Beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo control Gambler subtype: COP vs. ENH vs. Low ER
Within subjects factor Testing time: pre-drink vs. post-drink vs. VLT play
(spinning reels)
Participants
72 regular VLT players Recruited from the community Mean age: 35 years old 38 males; 34 females 47 NPG; 25 PPG (SOGS) Play VLTs 1.9 times per week,
on average
IGS Cluster AnalysisIGS Cluster Analysis
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Negative Situations
Positive Situations
ENH(N=36)
LOW ER(N=31)
COP(N=5)
Characteristics of Subtypes
SOGS total scores 4.97 (3.84)* 2.03 (1.85)*
Gambling frequency (per week)Drinking frequency (per week)Number of drinks per week 11.98 (1.24)* 7.87 (1.34)*Number of drinks while gambling 4.60 (3.64)* 2.74 (2.61)*
2.36 (1.51)* 1.56 (.79)*
Enhancement (ENH)
Low Emotion Regulation (LOW ER)
2.26 (1.27)* 1.45 (.92)*
p < 0.02
Heart Rate Analyses
DV = % change from pre-drink (sober) baseline
ANOVA revealed hypothesized three-way interaction (p = .036)
Beverage Condition X Subtype X Testing Time
Follow-up simple effects analyses for heart rate response at Post-Drink and VLT play
VLT Play
p = .03
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
ENH LOW ER
He
art
Ra
te P
erc
en
t C
ha
ng
e f
rom
Pre
-d
rin
kin
g B
as
eli
ne
Placebo
Alcohol
p = .03
Studies 1-3: Conclusions Three subtypes of gamblers were consistently identified based on
cluster analyses of IGS scores and validated with the GMQ: a group that gambles purely for positive reinforcement (pure enhancement;
ENH) a group that gambles for both positive and negative reinforcement, but
mainly for negative reinforcement (coping; COP) a group that gambles for neither positive nor negative reinforcement (low
emotion-regulation; LOW ER) This subtyping scheme applies to
Pathological gamblers who drink when gambling Regular gamblers drawn from the community University student gamblers
Similarities to Blaszczynski & Nower’s (2002) and Lesieur’s (2001) subtypes (and to those mentioned by Grant, 2007): ENH antisocial, impulsivist gamblers; impulsive action seekers COP emotionally vulnerable gamblers; impulsive escape seekers LOW ER behaviorally-conditioned gamblers; normal gamblers
Researchers Proposed SubtypesStewart et al. Coping Enhancement(Studies 1-4) Gamblers GamblersLesieur Impulsive Impulsive(2001) (2 of 3) Escape Seekers Action SeekersMcCormick Recurrently Chronically (1987) Depressed Under-StimulatedBlaszczynski et al. Depression- Boredom-(1990) Prone ProneBlaszczynski & Nower Emotionally Antisocial(2002) (2 of 3) Vulnerable ImpulsivistGrant Anxious/ Pleasure/Urge &(2007 – yesterday’s Depressed/ General Impulsivity talk) Obsessional Need for Stimulation
Previous Sub-Typing Schemes
Studies 1-4: Conclusions Contrary to hypothesis, no ‘pure coping’ motivated
gambler was identified when coping-motivated gambling occurs, it occurs most often in
combination with enhancement-motivated gambling, although coping appears the primary motivation
Remains to be determined if therapy needs to focus on the primary motive, or both motives given both are elevated
Unexpectedly, a third group emerged which was characterized by low levels of both positive and negative situation gambling More research needs to focus on understanding the
underlying motives for gamblers in the Low Emotion-Regulation cluster; external vs. internal motives (Cooper, 1994)?
Studies 1-4: Conclusions Relations of Gambling Clusters to Motivations for
Drinking (Study 1) At least among problem gamblers who drink when gambling, the
underlying motivations for the two behaviors are similar Consistent with third variable interpretation of high co-morbidity
of alcohol – gambling disorders Possibility of motives as “traits”
Further evidence of utility of sub-types: Vary in expected ways in terms of reward vs. relief gambling
outcome expectancies (Study 2) Varying expectancies may be a function of differing sensitivities
to various reinforcing consequences of gambling (e.g., ENH gamblers more sensitive to reward consequences of alcohol plus gambling; Study 4)
Clinical Implications (Studies 1-4) Results may be useful in designing sub-type specific
interventions for pathological gamblers aimed at level of underlying motives (cf. Conrod et al., 2000b)
Study 1 results may also be useful in helping design interventions for co-morbid problem gamblers – problem drinkers Evidence for consistency of motives across gambling and alcohol
use suggests that the particular motives underlying both forms of addictive behavior should be a primary focus of treatment in a given co-morbid client. Gamblers in the Enhancement gambling cluster should have their
underlying enhancement motives for gambling/alcohol use be a primary target of therapy.
Gamblers in the Coping gambling cluster should have their primary coping motives for gambling/alcohol use be primary targets of therapy (at least).
Clinical Implications Study 2 results may also be useful in helping design
content of matched interventions for gambler subtypes Gamblers in the Enhancement gambling cluster should have their
reward gambling outcome expectancies be a focus of treatment using expectancy challenge techniques (Darkes & Goldman, 1993)
Gamblers in the Coping gambling cluster should have their relief gambling outcome expectancies (at least) be a focus of treatment using expectancy challenge techniques (Darkes & Goldman, 1993)
Need more information on the motivations for gambling in the Low Emotion-Regulation subtype before we can design effective interventions for their gambling; other types of gambling expectancies/other faulty cognitions in this group?
Clinical Implications Study 3 results
Suggest treatment matching may also be useful in prevention / early intervention since similar subtypes evident even among young, relatively less experienced gamblers (see Conrod et al., 2006; Watt et al., 2006)
Study 4 results Suggest the possible utility of naltrexone as a matched
treatment for ENH gamblers (O’Malley, 1996; Peterson et al., 2006) Consistent with suggestions by Grant (talk yesterday)
problem gamblers
TAU Tx TAU + ENH Tx TAU + COP Tx
TAU control Mismatched Matched
TAU control Mismatched Matched
TAU control Mismatched Matched
ENHCOP
Low ER
ENH COP
Low ER
ENH COP
Low ER
ENH
Low ER
COP
pre
post
F.U.
Expected Results 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
LER ENH COP LER ENH COP LER ENH COP
pre
post
follow-up
TAU + COP TxTAU + ENH Tx TAU ALONE
Gambler Subtype