OBJECTIVE: A few personality traits are characteristic of pathologic gamblers (PGs), but it is not clear if and how their personality profile differs from that of non-pathologic gamblers (non-PGs). METHODS: Sixty-five non-clinical subjects, differentiated into non-PGs and PGs with the means of the South Oak Gambling Screen (SOGS) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria, were administered with the Temperament and Character Inventory; their values were compared with those of control subjects (CS). RESULTS: Novelty seeking (NS) and self-transcendence (ST) values were higher whereas self-directedness and cooperativeness values were lower in PGs with respect to both non-PGs and CS. A positive correlation was noted between SOGS score and NS (r = 0.40) and ST (r = 0.50) values, as well as a significant positive dependence between SOGS score and a family history of gambling (t = 2.816; P = .007). The subsamples of PGs reporting a parental involvement in gambling showed higher NS than the remaining PGs. CONCLUSIONS: Specific temperamental and character dimensions, especially NS and ST, differentiated PGs from both non-PGs and CS; the identification of a personality profile at risk for problem gambling may represent an important predictor of outcome and constitute a possible target for specific treatment approaches.
OBJECTIVE: A few personality traits are characteristic of pathologic gamblers (PGs), but it is not clear if and how their personality profile differs from that of non-pathologic gamblers (non-PGs). METHODS: Sixty-five non-clinical subjects, differentiated into non-PGs and PGs with the means of the South Oak Gambling Screen (SOGS) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria, were administered with the Temperament and Character Inventory; their values were compared with those of control subjects (CS). RESULTS: Novelty seeking (NS) and self-transcendence (ST) values were higher whereas self-directedness and cooperativeness values were lower in PGs with respect to both non-PGs and CS. A positive correlation was noted between SOGS score and NS (r = 0.40) and ST (r = 0.50) values, as well as a significant positive dependence between SOGS score and a family history of gambling (t = 2.816; P = .007). The subsamples of PGs reporting a parental involvement in gambling showed higher NS than the remaining PGs. CONCLUSIONS: Specific temperamental and character dimensions, especially NS and ST, differentiated PGs from both non-PGs and CS; the identification of a personality profile at risk for problem gambling may represent an important predictor of outcome and constitute a possible target for specific treatment approaches.
Authors: Christina R Di Iorio; Tristan J Watkins; Mary S Dietrich; Aize Cao; Jennifer U Blackford; Baxter Rogers; Mohammed S Ansari; Ronald M Baldwin; Rui Li; Robert M Kessler; Ronald M Salomon; Margaret Benningfield; Ronald L Cowan Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2011-12-05
Authors: Susana Jiménez-Murcia; Roser Granero; Salomé Tárrega; Ariadna Angulo; Fernando Fernández-Aranda; Jon Arcelus; Ana B Fagundo; Neus Aymamí; Laura Moragas; Anne Sauvaget; Marie Grall-Bronnec; Mónica Gómez-Peña; José M Menchón Journal: J Gambl Stud Date: 2016-03
Authors: Brian E Roe; Michael R Tilley; Howard H Gu; David Q Beversdorf; Wolfgang Sadee; Timothy C Haab; Audrey C Papp Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 3.240