Dysfunctional decision-making in pathological gambling: Pattern specificity and the role of impulsivity
Introduction
While it is well known, that individuals diagnosed with pathological gambling (PGs) display impaired performance in neuropsychological decision-making tasks (e.g. Petry, 2001b, Cavedini et al., 2002, Brand et al., 2005, Goudriaan et al., 2005, Linnet et al., 2006, Labudda et al., 2007, Forbush et al., 2008, Roca et al., 2008, Lawrence et al., 2009, Kertzman et al., 2011) and heightened impulsivity (Goudriaan et al., 2004, Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2008, van Holst et al., 2010), the relation of both constructs in PGs remains unclear. Findings from previous studies on this issue in non-gambling samples were inconsistent (e.g. Monterosso et al., 2001, Jollant et al., 2005, Zermatten et al., 2005, Suhr and Tsanadis, 2007, Dolan et al., 2008, Franken et al., 2008, Sweitzer et al., 2008, Janis and Nock, 2009, Perales et al., 2009, Xiao et al., 2009, Billieux et al., 2010) which may result from a neglected consideration of the lower-order sub-components, for either or both constructs. Thus, the present study aims to assess the relation of impaired decision-making and impulsivity in PGs taking a multidimensional perspective.
In line with recent models on pathways of addictions (Bechara, 2005, Bühringer et al., 2008, Redish et al., 2008b, Goldstein and Volkow, 2011) and specifically of pathological gambling (Bechara, 2003, Evans and Coventry, 2006, van Holst et al., 2010), we assume an important role of an – either antecedent or resultant – imbalance of (more automatic) motivational and valuation brain networks and (more reflective) cognitive control networks. According to these models, the motivational and valuation systems in PGs may overestimate the value of immediate short-term rewards. This would explain, on the one hand, the heightened impulsivity found in PGs, because the tendency towards immediate rewards while disregarding negative consequences is frequently considered a central aspect of impulsivity (Moeller et al., 2001, Bechara, 2005, Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2008). On the other hand, this imbalance may result in disadvantageous gambling-related decisions, as dominating reward-driven processes were found to be strongly related to impaired decision-making (Krawczyk, 2002, Fellows, 2004, Yechiam et al., 2005, Dunn et al., 2006, Rangel et al., 2008). Due to the lack of a consensus model of decision-making, a broad variety of tasks has been used to measure the construct (Fellows, 2004). However, a fractionating of lower-order decision-making components may be an advantageous approach to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of underlying processing mechanisms (see e.g. Busemeyer and Stout, 2002, Krawczyk, 2002, Clark et al., 2004, Brand et al., 2005, Fellows and Farah, 2005, Yechiam et al., 2005, Diekhof et al., 2008). Following this approach, it can be expected that PGs will show specific impairments in decision-making sub-components associated with reward and valuation. These decision-components have often been related to processes in the ventromedial regions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) (e.g. Brand et al., 2006, Lawrence et al., 2008, Clark, 2010). Indeed, PGs display functional changes in these brain areas in tasks of reward processing and decision-making (Potenza et al., 2003, Reuter et al., 2005, Potenza, 2008, Clark, 2010). In contrast, decision-making components like reasoning or strategic planning – often related to processes in the dorsolateral PFC – may be unchanged in PGs (Lawrence et al., 2009, Clark, 2010). A neuropsychological task which differentiates between different components of decision-making behavior is the Cambridge Gambling Task (CGT) (Rogers et al., 1999). The CGT assesses parameters related to risk seeking (e.g. ‘risk taking’), an immediate reward focus (e.g. ‘delay aversion’) or strategic planning (e.g. ‘percentage of rational choices’). First studies using the CGT in gamblers and PGs revealed disorder-specific deficits in risk seeking rather than in strategic planning (Lawrence et al., 2008, Grant et al., 2011). Crucially, both studies did not explicitly report on other parameters related to reward-driven processes like delay aversion or chasing behavior within a task (i.e. betting larger sums of money or taking greater risks with an intention to recover prior losses immediately) (O’Connor and Dickerson, 2003, Linnet et al., 2006).
According to our present hypothesis, the impaired reward- and valuation-related components of decision-making are positively related to impulsivity, in contrast to the strategic components of decision-making (Lawrence et al., 2008). To our best knowledge, to date, there are no studies on the relation of impaired decision-making components and impulsivity in PGs. Studies on this relation in non-gambling samples have mainly been conducted without considering the aforementioned multidimensional nature of decision-making and of impulsivity itself (e.g. Reynolds et al., 2006, Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2008, Broos et al., 2012). Especially, the behaviorally assessed impulsivity dimension delay discounting (Bechara, 2003, Franken et al., 2008) as well as self-reported dimensions concerning the tendency to act rashly in an emotional context (urgency) and the lack of forethought (Whiteside and Lynam, 2001) may be relevant mechanisms underlying impaired decision-making (Enticott and Ogloff, 2006). Hitherto, studies with non-gambling samples assessing the relation of delay discounting and decision-making yielded inconsistent results (Monterosso et al., 2001, Janis and Nock, 2009), whereas studies on urgency and premeditation underpin our hypothesis (Zermatten et al., 2005, Billieux et al., 2010).
In summary, we expected a specific pattern of impaired decision-making components in PGs which is related to an imbalance of reward- and valuation-related and reflection-related brain networks, as indicated by increased risk seeking and an immediate reward focus. Further, we hypothesized that impulsivity is an important indicator of this imbalance. Thus, we expect that the impaired decision-making components are specifically related to the impulsivity dimensions delay discounting, urgency and premeditation. As impaired decision-making is important in the development (e.g. starting to gamble regularly), maintenance (e.g. chasing behavior) and cessation (as well as relapse) of pathological gambling, it is of central importance to understand its components and underlying mechanisms. If a dominating reward- and valuation-system, indicated by an elevated impulsivity, turns out to be the core mechanism rather than problems in reasoning or strategic planning, this would be an important result for the adaptation of etiological models as well as therapeutic strategies.
Section snippets
Design
We used a cross-sectional design with matched-pairs to compare a pathological gambling group (PGG) and a paired control group (CG). In detail, we matched for each member of PGG a corresponding member of the control group. The matching was realized according to age (±2 years), gender and smoking status (daily smoking or not), because these variables were found to be associated with different decision-making and impulsivity measures (Mitchell, 2004, Reynolds et al., 2007, Fields et al., 2009).
Decision-making
Mean scores, standard deviation and test statistic of group differences between the PGG and CG on the decision-making parameters are displayed in Table 2. Regarding our hypotheses of specific decision-making differences, we found the following results:
Significant group differences as expected were found for risk taking (F(1,16)=5.71, p=0.03) and delay aversion (F(1,16)=5.74, p=0.03). These results and the interaction of group and condition in risk taking (F(1,16)=7.10, p=0.02) indicate, on the
Discussion
In the current study, we investigated the specificity of impaired decision-making sub-components in PGs and the relation of these impairments to multidimensionally assessed impulsivity. Our results showed that PGs displayed specific impairments of decision-components which are presumably related to dominating reward- and valuation-systems tuned to immediate short-term rewards. This was further supported by the finding that heightened impulsivity was specifically related to these decision-making
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this article was supported by the German Research Foundation (Grant GO-720/8-1 and SFB 940/1 2013). The authors wish to thank Andrea Horn for her assistance to carry out the assessments and her contribution to the data entry.
References (91)
- et al.
Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure
Behavioural Processes
(2003) - et al.
The role of urgency and its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours
Behaviour Research and Therapy
(2010) - et al.
Investigation of impulsivity in a sample of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers: a multidimensional perspective
Psychiatry Research
(2012) - et al.
Decision-making impairments in patients with pathological gambling
Psychiatry Research
(2005) - et al.
Neuropsychological correlates of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations
Neural Networks
(2006) - et al.
Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients
Biological Psychiatry
(2002) - et al.
The neuropsychology of ventral prefrontal cortex: decision-making and reversal learning
Brain and Cognition
(2004) - et al.
The contributions of lesion laterality and lesion volume to decision-making impairment following frontal lobe damage
Neuropsychologia
(2003) - et al.
Functional neuroimaging of reward processing and decision-making: a review of aberrant motivational and affective processing in addiction and mood disorders
Brain Research Reviews
(2008) - et al.
The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
(2006)
Impulsivity is associated with behavioral decision-making deficits
Psychiatry Research
Heterogeneous inhibition processes involved in different facets of self-reported impulsivity: evidence from a community sample
Acta Psychologica
Pathological gambling: a comprehensive review of biobehavioral findings
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Decision making in pathological gambling: a comparison between pathological gamblers, alcohol dependents, persons with Tourette syndrome, and normal controls
Cognitive Brain Research
Selective decision-making deficits in at-risk gamblers
Psychiatry Research
Is discounting impulsive? Evidence from temporal and probability discounting in gambling and non-gambling college students
Behavioural Processes
Resisting temptation: decreasing alcohol-related affect and drinking behavior by training response inhibition
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Are self-injurers impulsive? Results from two behavioral laboratory studies
Psychiatry Research
Risk-taking decisions in pathological gamblers is not a result of their impaired inhibition ability
Psychiatry Research
Contributions of the prefrontal cortex to the neural basis of human decision making
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
Decision-making and neuroendocrine responses in pathological gamblers
Psychiatry Research
Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards: III. Steady-state assessments, forced-choice trials, and all real rewards
Behavioural Processes
Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsiveness
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Decision making and neuropsychiatry
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Dimensions of impulsive behavior: personality and behavioral measures
Personality and Individual Differences
Dissociable deficits in the decision-making cognition of chronic amphetamine abusers, opiate abusers, patients with focal damage to prefrontal cortex, and tryptophan-depleted normal volunteers: evidence for monoaminergic mechanisms
Neuropsychopharmacology
Affect and personality correlates of the Iowa Gambling Task
Personality and Individual Differences
Why gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Impulsivity as a vulnerability marker for substance-use disorders: review of findings from high-risk research, problem gamblers and genetic association studies
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity
Personality and Individual Differences
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR
Risky business: emotion, decision-making, and addiction
Journal of Gambling Studies
Decision-making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective
Nature Neuroscience
Are executive function and impulsivity antipodes? A conceptual reconstruction with special reference to addiction
Psychopharmacology
A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling
Addiction
The relationship between impulsive choice and impulsive action: a cross-species translational study
PLoS ONE
Universal characteristics and consequences of the addiction syndrome
Why people change? The role of cognitive control processes in the onset and cessation of substance abuse disorders
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
A contribution of cognitive decision models to clinical assessment: decomposing performance on the Bechara gambling task
Psychological Assessment
Decision-making during gambling: an integration of cognitive and psychobiological approaches
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Social and emotional decision-making following frontal lobe injury
Neurocase
Risk taking during decision-making in normal volunteers changes with age
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Delay discounting by pathological gamblers
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Executive dysfunction as a risk marker for substance abuse: the role of impulsive personality traits
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Cited by (64)
Neuropsychology in GD: old and new directions
2020, Current Opinion in Behavioral SciencesCitation Excerpt :Nevertheless, not all GD studies report altered cognitive control on the Stroop [20–22], suggesting the existence of important GD subgroups, in which interference control is not the central feature. On risk-taking tasks, GD groups show riskier performance through greater bet proportions, higher chasing behaviour, and greater choices of high-loss probabilities, including staking more points following losses, suggesting a deficiency in using negative feedback [10,23–25]. Additionally, the greatest risk-taking is evident in those GD individuals with comorbid alcohol and nicotine use disorders, with heightened impulsivity in these individuals linked with more aggressive betting [26–28].
A computational model of the Cambridge gambling task with applications to substance use disorders
2020, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :However, unlike QDM and IMP, Risk is often operationalized in different ways across studies. For example, some studies define Risk as the average betting ratio only on those trials where participants choose the optimal color (Risk+; e.g. Kräplin et al., 2014; Zois et al., 2014); others as the average betting ratio across all trials (Risk-Avg or Overall Proportion Bet; e.g. Bowden-Jones et al., 2005; Lawrence et al., 2009); and still others as the average betting ratio for trials in which participants choose the less optimal color (Risk-, e.g. Baldacchino et al., 2015). Based on our literature review, we chose to operationalize risk-taking as the Risk + definition above due to its more widespread use (which is typically called ‘Risk Taking’).
Long-term deficits in risky decision-making after traumatic brain injury on a rat analog of the Iowa gambling task
2019, Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :Some of the most long-term, difficult to manage, and pervasive deficits associated with TBI are impairments revolving around cognition and executive function, including various memory deficits, poor impulse control, and reduced decision-making capacity. Often, impairments can result in symptoms resembling those found in psychiatric disorders such as gambling disorder or bipolar disorder (Kräplin et al., 2014; Zgaljardic et al., 2015). In particular, impairments in decision-making and impulsivity, are likely to contribute to poor quality of life, and may result in significant issues for both patients with TBI, and their caregivers (Marsh et al., 1998).