Over the past decade behavior analysts have paid increasing attention to the clin-ical phenomena of pathological gambling. Explorations have varied from ani-mal models to therapeutic interventions. Perhaps no topic has received greater attention in the behavioral gambling literature than the discounting of delayed consequences. Delay discounting has been noted as both a conceptual frame-work to understand problem gambling as well as a dependent variable by which to deduce level of pathology. Regardless of hypothesized process, discounting appears to be a topic of great interest to those within the behavioral community. This special section of the Analysis of Gambling Behavior brings together a theoretical account of problem gambling from Fantino and Stolarz-Fantino as well as fourteen commentaries from an impressive list of authors within and beyond the traditional bounds of behavior analysis. Together these articles high-light the wide range of perspectives on the causes of pathological gambling, as well as how delay discounting fits within such causal mechanisms

Dixon, Mark R.

English

St. Cloud State University

Analysis of Gambling Behavior Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 1 2008 Delay Discounting and Pathological Gambling Mark R. Dixon Southern Illinois University, mdixon@siu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb  Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, Clinical Psychology Commons, Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons, and the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Dixon, Mark R. (2008) "Delay Discounting and Pathological Gambling," Analysis of Gambling Behavior: Vol. 2 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb/vol2/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Analysis of Gambling Behavior by an authorized editor of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact tdsteman@stcloudstate.edu. Analysis of Gambling Behavior 2008, 2, 57-59 Number 2 (Winter 2008) 57  DELAY DISCOUNTING AND PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING  Mark R. Dixon Southern Illinois University  Over the past decade behavior analysts have paid increasing attention to the clin-ical phenomena of pathological gambling.  Explorations have varied from ani-mal models to therapeutic interventions.  Perhaps no topic has received greater attention in the behavioral gambling literature than the discounting of delayed consequences.   Delay discounting has been noted as both a conceptual frame-work to understand problem gambling as well as a dependent variable by which to deduce level of pathology.  Regardless of hypothesized process, discounting appears to be a topic of great interest to those within the behavioral community.   This special section of the Analysis of Gambling Behavior brings together a theoretical account of problem gambling from Fantino and Stolarz-Fantino as well as fourteen commentaries from an impressive list of authors within and beyond the traditional bounds of behavior analysis.  Together these articles high-light the wide range of perspectives on the causes of pathological gambling, as well as how delay discounting fits within such causal mechanisms.     Keywords: Pathological gambling, discounting, addiction, choice making ____________________  OVERVIEW OF DELAY DISCOUNTING When given the opportunity to select be-tween two alternatives of equal value yet de-livered at different intervals in time, the choices made by most of us appear rational.  Everything else being equal, we would rather have the same outcome delivered sooner ra-ther than later.  Take for example 1000 dol-lars.  If offered either today or next week, it is safe to assume that most of us would rather have it now than later.  If the week was de-layed even further in time, to say, 1 year, odds are still good that most of us would continue to prefer the immediate alternative.  However, when both the amount of the alternative varies as well as the delay to delivery, our behavior tends to not be so predictable.  If we are faced with 500 dollars now or 1000 in a week, all __________ Address Correspondence to: Mark R. Dixon Behavior Analysis and Therapy Program Rehabilitation Institute Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 E-mail: mdixon@siu.edu  bets are off.  Perhaps we need to get our car fixed, pay rent, or buy groceries today.  Even though we know that 1000 dollars are more than 500 dollars, time and the activities found within may dictate which outcome is critical for us to choose.   For the past 20 years, many researchers have explored the choices we make under similar conditions to those described above.  Varying amounts of money are posed against each other, often at varying delays.  Interes-tingly, what appears to remain clear across the myriad of studies that have been published on delay discounting is that as time to gain access to an outcome/reward increases, we appear to prefer smaller sooner rewards.  While disadvantageous to select smaller im-mediate rewards, increased delays produce increased “discounting.”  Populations that have been investigated range from children with brain injuries (Dixon et al., 2005), smokers (Reynolds, Richards, Horn, & Kar-raker, 2003), drug users (Heal, Johnson, Hig-gins, & Bickel, 2005), over-eaters (Weller, Cook, Avsar, & Cox, 2008), and pathological gamblers (Dixon, Marley, & Jacobs, 2003).  1Dixon: Delay Discounting and Pathological GamblingPublished by theRepository at St. Cloud State, 200858 MARK R. DIXON   Interestingly, most clinical populations appear to “discount” at greater rates than matched control (i.e. non-clinical) populations.     DISCOUNTING AS A  CONTRIBUTING FACTOR FOR GAMBLING  It has been noted by some in behavior analysis that individuals who discount de-layed rewards, may in fact be more prone to gambling (Weatherly, Derenne, & Chase, 2008; Weatherly & Dixon, 2007; Madden, this issue).  Here a relationship is assumed to some degree that if an individual possesses a behavioral repertoire of making choices for smaller immediate reinforcers, then in fact, they may display such impulsive choice mak-ing when it comes to gambling.  They may gamble longer, may risk more money, or both.  Preliminary data attempting to correlate discounting with various risk-factors for pa-thological gambling have failed to find a rela-tionship (e.g. Weatherly, Derenne, & Chase, 2008).  However, direct comparisons of gam-bling activity between high and low discount-ing persons have yet to be conducted.    Conceptualizing delay discounting as a participating factor that modulates problem gambling suggests at least a degree of belief that discounting is a static trait of an individu-al, rather than a transient state.  Researchers study various clinical “groups” and compare them to non-clinical comparisons.  Such an approach, and assumption of the stable nature of discounting, should be questioned.  Recent evidence suggests that discounting of patho-logical gamblers can be increased or de-creased via psychological conditioning (Di-xon & Holton, in press) as well as be sensitive to changes in context alone (Dixon, Jacobs, & Sanders, 2006).   In short, the debate on the stability of a pattern or degree of discounting within an individual remains open to further exploration.    DISCOUNTING AS A DEPENDENT MEASURE OF GAMBLING  SEVERITY In contrast to the position that a person’s history of discounting may in fact be a cause for their problems with gambling, it is also possible that one’s severity of problems with gambling could be measured by their degree of delay discounting.  While the difference in perspectives may initially seem trivial, it should not be.  Widespread gambling severity and screening assessments are plagued with problems ranging from minimal or no psy-chometric properties to high levels of social desirability.  If asking someone that is not in-terested in seeking treatment “Have you ever worried that you spend too much money on gambling?” a negative response is sure to emerge.  However, ask that same question to someone seeking treatment, and a response “Yes” is quite predictable.  When the two people are clearly spending a large proportion of their time and money on gambling, and such activity is yielding no positive financial return, objectively the two people are equal.  Yet, they answer differently to a question de-signed to screen them for pathological gam-bling.  Maybe some of our popular screening tools are more accurately depicting remorse about gambling than actual behavior.  Perhaps it would be better to evaluate severity in more discrete ways that do not assume evaluations of the behavior but in fact simply measure the behavior itself.  Choice making among finan-cial alternatives, and the rates of discounting that emerge, may be a possible alternative strategy to evaluate gambling severity.  To date, initial explorations appear positive (Alessi & Petry, 2003), and more research is clearly warranted.   WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? The paper by Fantino and Stolarz-Fantino presents a behavioral conceptualization of the causes of pathological gambling and how the basic processes of gamblers, and the decisions 2Analysis of Gambling Behavior, Vol. 2 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/agb/vol2/iss2/1 DISCOUNTING AND GAMBLING 59  that they make, can be approached from a functional perspective.  The authors review a number of foundational laboratory research investigations that have shaped their view on pathological gambling.  They conclude with a position that delay discounting plays an im-portant role in understanding why someone might be prone to gambling more than they should.  However, discounting alone is not where they believe we find the answer.  In-stead a dynamic interaction of direct contin-gencies, verbal behavior, and social influ-ences participate in the eventual act of gam-bling according to the authors.  It is only in such complexity that the true answer to the mystery of gambling addiction shall emerge.   The fourteen commentaries that follow Fantino and Stolarz-Fantino’s paper are as rich in content as they are diverse.  Ranging from enthusiastic support to considerable doubt, these authors present fascinating inter-pretations of the most critical features for in-vestigating pathological gambling.  It is the intention that this special section of the Anal-ysis of Gambling Behavior will serve as a stimulus for future research, hypothesis test-ing, and collaborative investigations at all le-vels of inquiry related to pathological gam-bling.  From animal models and neuroscience to basic operant experimentation and clinical intervention, much work needs to be done.  Thus, I present to you the special section on Delay Discounting in this issue of the Analy-sis of Gambling Behavior.  REFERENCES Alessi, S. M., & Petry, N. M.  (2003).  Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure.   Behavioural Processes, 64, 345-354. Dixon, M. R., Jacobs, E. A., Sanders, S., Guercio, J., Soldner, J., Parker-Singler, S., Robinson, A., Small, S. L., & Dillon, J.  (2005).  Impulsivity, self-control, and delay discounting in persons with acquired brain injury.  Behavioral Interven-tions, 20, 101-120. Dixon, M. R. & Holton, B.  (in press).  Altering the magnitude of delay discounting by pathological gamblers.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Dixon, M. R., Jacobs, E. A., & Sanders, S.  (2006).  Contextually controlled delay discounting of pa-thological gamblers.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 413-422. Dixon, M. R., Marley, J., & Jacobs, E.  (2003).  Delay discounting of pathological gamblers.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 449-458. Heal, S. H., Johnson, M. W., Higgins, S. T., & Bickel, W. K.  (2005).  Delay discounting in currently us-ing and currently abstinent cocaine-dependent outpatients and non-drug-using matched controls.  Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1290-1294. Madden, (2008).  Discounting within the gambling context.  Analysis of Gambling Behavior, … Reynolds, B., Richards, J. B., Horn, K., & Karraker, K.  (2003).  Delay and probability discounting as re-lated to cigarette smoking status in adults.  Beha-vioural Processes, 65, 35-42. Weller, R. E., Cook, E. W., Avsar, K. B., & Cox, J. E.  (2008).  Obese women show greater delay dis-counting than health-weight women.  Appetite, 51, 563-569.       3Dixon: Delay Discounting and Pathological GamblingPublished by theRepository at St. Cloud State, 2008

Delay Discounting and Pathological Gambling

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&amp;context=agb

Delay Discounting and Pathological Gambling

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

St. Cloud State University