Sensitivity to reward and punishment: Horse race and EGM gamblers compared☆
Introduction
Given the popularity of gambling and its potential to result in problems for some people, it is important to understand psychological processes that drive this activity. Many studies have examined personality factors associated with problem gambling (MacLaren, Fugelsang, Harrigan, & Dixon, 2011), but few take the approach of the current study, to question whether these factors differ among those attracted to different gambling forms. This paper focuses on two different types of gambling; electronic gaming machine (EGM) and horse racing betting. Both are popular and associated with heightened risk for gambling problems (Binde, 2009, Productivity Commission, 2010). However, it has been argued that fundamental differences in the games and their environments mean that players attracted to these games are differentially motivated (Thomas et al., 2009, Wood and Griffiths, 2007).
One promising approach to examining individual differences in gambling motivation comes from Gray’s (Gray, 1982, Gray and McNaughton, 2000) Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST). The key tenet of this theory is that two separate neurological mechanisms underlie individual differences in sensitivity to reward and punishment. The Behavioural Approach System (BAS), is an appetitive system responsible for motivating ‘approach’ behaviour and active pursuit of reward in the presence of stimuli signalling reward, excitement or positive affect. The BAS underpins sensation-seeking, with those high on BAS sensitivities seen as at-risk for addictions because of their strong desires for the positive reinforcements associated with many addictive behaviours (Eitle & Taylor, 2010). Nevertheless, recent literature is divided on whether sensation seeking is elevated for pathological gamblers. Support for this relationship is ambiguous, some studies showing positive or limited relationships (e.g. Bonnaire et al., 2006, Bonnaire et al., 2009, Coventry and Constable, 1999, Moore and Ohtsuka, 1997) while others have not supported this link (e.g. Blanco et al., 1996, MacLaren et al., 2011). Differences have been attributed to variations in measures used (Parke, Griffiths, & Irwing, 2004) and type of gambling population studied (Bonnaire et al., 2006, Bonnaire et al., 2009, Coventry and Brown, 1993).
The second neurological mechanism proposed by Gray (1982), the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS), is an aversive system, described as responsible for controlling and inhibiting behaviour. It functions through regulating one’s actions to avoid states of conflict, and is highly sensitive to stimuli associated with outcomes of threat, frustrative non-reward or punishment (Torrubia, Ávila, Moltó, & Caseras, 2001). In Gray’s revised theory (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), another biological system, the flight-fright-freezing system (FFFS), provides the basis for behavioural responses to aversive stimuli such as threat of punishment. It might be assumed that those high on BIS would avoid gambling altogether (flight) because of the high likelihood of loss, but several studies have shown that gambling may satisfy needs other than the desire to win, for example individuals may gamble as an escape from anxiety and stress (Thomas et al., 2009, Weatherly, 2013). The BIS may underpin attempts to avoid unpleasant outcomes or emotional states in ways similar to those ascribed to an overlapping concept, ‘escapist motivation’, that is, through avoidant strategies such as getting drunk, or ‘switching off’ by engaging in so-called mindless activities as distraction from stress. Thus the ‘flight’ may be from anxiety and stress rather than gambling losses in the case of BIS dominated gamblers.
To date, few studies have applied Gray’s RST framework to directly examine gambling behaviour. There is equivocal support for BAS as a motivator of gambling. Studies by Brunborg, Johnsen, Mentzoni, Molde, and Pallesen (2011) and Demaree, DeDonno, Burns, and Everhart (2008) both found that BAS scores correlated with average wager on simulated slot machine games. MacLaren, Fugelsang, Harrigan, and Dixon (2012) showed three out of four BAS subscales correlated with problem gambling among Canadian slot machine players. Eitle and Taylor (2010) also found BAS scores correlated positively with self-reported ‘largest gambling loss per day’ among young males, however, problem gambling scores and largest loss per year were not correlated with BAS. O’Connor, Stewart and Watt (2009) found no relationship between BAS scores and self-reported gambling behaviour among their sizeable sample of undergraduates. Gambling literature relating to BIS is even more inconsistent. While Demaree et al. (2008) study found a negative relationship between BIS and average wager on simulated slots, Brunborg et al., 2011, Eitle and Taylor, 2010 and O’Connor et al. (2009) found no relationships between BIS and any of their gambling measures.
In short, research using the RST framework to examine gambling behaviours has had inconsistent results. One explanation may be that different gambling forms are attractive to those with different patterns of reinforcement sensitivity. Gambling activities vary markedly in terms of their environmental contexts, and level of risk and reward. The RST model is intended to be reflective of specific behavioural cues and conditions, so its application to ‘gambling in general’ may lead to conflicting results depending on samples selected and their preferred gambling activities. A small study by Blaszczynski, Winter, and McConaghy (1986) demonstrated that horse race gambling addicts had significantly lower baseline (pre-gamble) levels of beta endorphins than EGM players and controls, suggesting the possibility of different reward pathways in the brain underpinning different types of gambling preference, an idea consistent with BIS/BAS theory. The speculation that, for horse race gamblers, betting on and watching a race would raise their endorphin levels was not supported by the Blaszczynski et al. study, however the authors postulated that this could be due to the relatively small bet size failing to raise excitement levels.
The Pathways Model of Problem and Pathological Gambling (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002) is a theoretical framework that encapsulates the notion that all gamblers are not alike. Problem gamblers are depicted as driven to gamble by differing biological, social and environmental needs, the satisfaction of which is likely to vary depending on the form of gambling chosen. To date, research has supported the existence of two of the subtypes proposed by Blaszczynski and Nower; the Emotionally Vulnerable Gambler and Antisocial Impulsivist Gambler (Bonnaire et al., 2009, Ledgerwood and Petry, 2006).
The Antisocial Impulsivist Gambler prefers active games and participates in gambling primarily to generate excitement and maintain heightened states of arousal (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002). Horse race gamblers appear to fit this type, with research consistently showing they have higher sensation seeking scores than other types of gamblers (Bonnaire et al., 2006, Coventry and Brown, 1993, Parke et al., 2004, Slowo, 1997). It is possible that the gradual build up in excitement during a horse race is particularly rewarding for those seeking increased arousal. It has been suggested that high sensation seekers will run the risk of monetary loss for the positive reinforcement of highly arousing states experienced through uncertainty and novelty of a potential win (Demaree et al., 2008). Individuals high in sensation seeking may be driven to gamble for reinforcement by these rewards because of a strong BAS. Impulsivity is another defining dimension of the Antisocial Impulsivist Gambler, reflecting their needs for immediate gratification of rewards. This personality trait relates to frequent and problem gambling (e.g., Clarke, 2005). We suggest therefore that frequent horse race gamblers are more likely to be BAS driven and fit the profile of the Antisocial Impulsivist Gambler, thus scoring highly on impulsivity and sensation seeking in comparison with less active types of gamblers.
The Emotionally Vulnerable Gambler (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002) is characterised as choosing passive gaming forms such as EGMs, and primarily gambles for cognitive distraction to avoid negative emotional experiences, rather than to generate excitement. For example, more frequent EGM gambling has been associated with lower sensation seeking (Bonnaire et al., 2004, Coventry and Constable, 1999), while frequent and problem EGM gamblers often score higher on avoidance coping scales (e.g., Getty et al., 2000, Thomas and Moore, 2003) and are more likely to have experienced recent or serious life stressors (Thomas et al., 2009, Wood and Griffiths, 2007). Specifically, recent research shows that frequent and problem EGM gamblers have a greater tendency to gamble as a way of escaping from their problems (Thomas, Allen, Phillips, & Karantzas, 2011). Gamblers who experience escapism and dissociative states through their avoidance coping behaviours may be further drawn, through negative reinforcement (avoidance of punishment), towards these non-conflict states by high levels of BIS. We therefore suggest that frequent EGM gamblers will be BIS dominated and tend to fit the profile of the Emotionally Vulnerable Gambler, with heightened levels of escapist motivation directing their gambling.
The aim of the current research is to test relationships between personality factors (BAS, BIS, sensation seeking, escapist motivation, and impulsivity) and frequency of gambling on horse races and EGMs. These two different types of gambling were compared because of their different game characteristics and social contexts, the expectation being that frequent gamblers in each mode would show significantly different personality profiles. On this basis, it was predicted that horse race gambling frequency would be positively related to sensitivity to reward (BAS), sensation seeking and impulsivity, and that EGM gambling frequency would be positively related to sensitivity to punishment (BIS) and escapist motivation, and negatively related to sensation seeking.
Section snippets
Participants
Participants were 76 men and 41 women, aged 18–72 years (M = 26.93, SD = 9.99); 92% were born in Australia. Recruitment was via advertisements on social media, community notice boards and through Swinburne University portals, requesting those who gambled at least twice a year on horse races or EGMs. In the final sample of 118, 99 had gambled on horse racing (72 male, 27 female, Mage = 25.6 years, SD = 7.5) and 66 on EGMs (38 male, 28 female, Mage = 27.8 years, SD = 11.6), including 47 who had gambled on both
Results
As shown in Table 1, frequency of horse race and EGM gambling were negatively correlated, suggesting that these activities tend to be preferred by different people. The types of gambling also showed different correlational profiles. Horse race betting frequency displayed significant positive correlations with sensitivity to reward (BAS), sensation seeking, and gender (male), and significant negative correlations with escapist motivation, sensitivity to punishment (BIS) and (younger) age. In
Discussion
Horse race gamblers showed a different profile altogether from EGM gamblers. The former were more likely to be younger males, high on sensation seeking and low on escapist motivation. They were BAS driven, exhibiting behaviours directed toward seeking positive affect and reinforcement, with low scores on sensitivity to punishment (BIS). Consistent with Gray, 1982, Gray and McNaughton, 2000, their motivation to gamble related to being drawn toward the excitement of a possible win. They did not,
Conclusion
This study found distinct personality profiles for horse race and EGM gamblers; the former high on sensitivity to reward and sensation seeking, the latter high on escapist motivation and sensitivity to punishment. The importance, in research, of differentiating samples of gamblers according to gambling preferences was underlined. The models of both Blaszczynski and Nower (2002) regarding the heterogeneity of motivations, and of Gray, 1982, Gray and McNaughton, 2000 regarding individual
References (35)
Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale
Personality and Individual Differences
(1994)- et al.
Individual differences in evaluative conditioning and reinforcement sensitivity affect bet sizes during gambling
Personality and Individual Differences
(2011) - et al.
You bet: How personality differences affect risk-taking preferences
Personality and Individual Differences
(2008) - et al.
Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults
Personality and Individual Differences
(1985) - et al.
Psychological experience of gambling and subtypes of pathological gamblers
Psychiatry Research
(2006) - et al.
The personality of pathological gamblers: A meta-analysis
Clinical Psychology Review
(2011) - et al.
Effects of impulsivity, reinforcement sensitivity, and cognitive style on pathological gambling symptoms among frequent slot machine players
Personality and Individual Differences
(2012) - et al.
Distinguishing BAS risk for university students’ drinking, smoking, and gambling behaviours
Personality and Individual Differences
(2009) - et al.
The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions
Personality and Individual Differences
(2001) Gambling motivation and involvement: A review of social science research
(2009)
Pathological gambling and platelet MAO activity: A psychobiological study
American Journal of Psychiatry
A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling
Addiction
Plasma endorphin levels in pathological gamblers
Journal of Gambling Behavior
Pathological gambling and sensation seeking-how do gamblers playing games of chance in cafes differ from those who bet on horses at the racetrack?
Addiction Research and Theory
Subtypes of French pathological gamblers: Comparison of sensation seeking, alexithymia and depression scores
Journal of Gambling Studies
Sensation seeking in a French population of problem gamblers: Comparison with regular and nongamblers
Psychological Reports
Motivational differences between slot machine and lottery players
Psychological Reports
Cited by (40)
Impulsivity and loot box engagement
2023, Telematics and InformaticsImpulsivity profiles in pathological slot machine gamblers
2018, Comprehensive PsychiatryGender differences in temporal relationships between gambling urge and cognitions in treatment-seeking adults
2018, Psychiatry ResearchCitation Excerpt :These are assessed with cognition specific measures for gambling, such as Gambling Attitudes and Beliefs Survey-23 (Bouju et al., 2014) and the Gambling Related Cognition Scale (GRCS; Raylu and Oei, 2004b). Gambling-related cognitions, including gambling expectancies (GE; e.g., “Having a gamble helps reduce tension and stress”; Raylu and Oei, 2004b) appear to be mediated by ‘escapist motivation’ (Balodis et al., 2014; Bonnaire et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2009), an effect found to be stronger in women. Further, interpretive bias (IB; e.g., “Relating my winnings to my skill and ability makes me continue gambling”) varies between men and women in the general community (Raylu and Oei, 2004b).
Sensitivity to reward and risky driving, risky decision making, and risky health behaviour: A literature review
2017, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and BehaviourCitation Excerpt :To demonstrate, greater reward sensitivity was found to be related to greater perceived risk for risky driving behaviour; however it appears that this influence is via the BAS-fun seeking construct (that is, there is a trade-off between the risk associated with the behaviour for the anticipated fun that will be experienced as a result of performing the behaviour) (Harbeck & Glendon, 2013). The literature regarding the relationship between reward sensitivity and risky decision making was also reviewed, with greater reward sensitivity consistently related to more risky decisions in activities like horse race gambling (Balodis et al., 2014) and computer-based card selections (Buelow & Suhr, 2013; Weston & Hellier, 2015). In one study up to 40.8% of the variance in risky decision making was found to be attributed to male gender and reward sensitivity (Balodis et al., 2014).
Reasons for Gambling and Problem Gambling Among Norwegian Horse Bettors: A Real-World Study Utilizing Combining Survey Data and Behavioral Player Data
2023, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction
- ☆
This paper was adapted from a thesis that formed part of the Post Graduate Diploma in Psychology (Swinburne University) by the first author. The thesis was supervised by the second and third authors, who also contributed to writing the paper.