The subtyping of pathological gambling: A comprehensive review
Research highlights
►Pathological gamblers (PGs) have heterogeneous presentations ►Variability may support classification of PGs into distinct subtypes ►A literature review reveals three PG subtypes consistently emerge ►These subtypes parallel the three types of gamblers in the Pathways Model
Section snippets
Overview
Pathological gambling (PG) is characterized by a failure to resist the impulse to gamble despite serious personal and social consequences (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). It is a disorder typified by various comorbid psychiatric conditions and underlying maladaptive personality traits. For example, pathological gamblers (PGs) exhibit elevated rates of current and lifetime substance use (el-Guebaly et al., 2006, Petry et al., 2005), mood (Kim et al., 2006, Potenza et al., 2005), anxiety
Literature review
A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PsychINFO and MedLine databases for the period of 1900 to 2009. Key search terms were: type, subtype, subtyping, group, and pathway each in combination with the key words gambler, gamblers, or gambling. These key search terms were employed as they are the most consistently used terms in articles presenting PG subtyping schemes with which the current authors are familiar. Abstracts produced from the database search were reviewed to determine
Three pathological gambling subtypes
A review of the literature on PG subtyping demonstrates valid subtypes likely exist. While differences were found between studies in the operationalization and measurement of psychopathology and personality, the statistical methods employed to classify gamblers, and the gambling subtyping schemes that were produced, it appears that three relatively distinct subtypes of PGs consistently emerge (see Table 2). These subtypes are differentiated based on their motivations for gambling as well as
Future directions and implications
Blaszczynski and Nower (2002) present a comprehensive theoretical model of PG subtypes that appears to capture the distinct types of gamblers consistently reported by most investigators (as presented in the current review). While evidence is beginning to emerge that validates aspects of the pathways model (e.g., Ledgerwood & Petry, 2006, Stewart et al., 2008, Turner et al., 2008, Vachon & Bagby, 2009), no empirical work has directly validated the complete model, taking into full account the
Role of funding source
Joe Young Sr. funding through the State of Michigan (David M. Ledgerwood). The funding source played no direct role in the creation of this manuscript.
References (51)
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(2000)- et al.
Pathological gambling and the five-factor model of personality
Personality and Individual Differences
(2007) - et al.
Inventory for measuring depression
Archives of General Psychiatry
(1961) - et al.
Clinical features and psychiatric comorbidity of subjects with pathological gambling behavior
Psychiatric Services
(1998) Pathological gambling: An impulse control, addictive or obsessive–compulsive disorder?
Anuario de Psicologia
(1999)- et al.
Boredom proneness in pathological gambling
Psychological Reports
(1990) - et al.
A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling
Addiction
(2002) - et al.
Personality disorders among pathological gamblers
Journal of Gambling Studies
(1998) - et al.
Impulsivity in pathological gambling: The antisocial impulsivist
Addiction
(1997) - et al.
Subtypes of French pathological gamblers: Comparison of sensation seeking, alexithymia and depression scores
Journal of Gambling Studies
(2009)