The specificity of attentional biases by type of gambling: An eye-tracking study

Daniel S McGrath, Amadeus Meitner, Christopher R Sears, Daniel S McGrath, Amadeus Meitner, Christopher R Sears

Abstract

A growing body of research indicates that gamblers develop an attentional bias for gambling-related stimuli. Compared to research on substance use, however, few studies have examined attentional biases in gamblers using eye-gaze tracking, which has many advantages over other measures of attention. In addition, previous studies of attentional biases in gamblers have not directly matched type of gambler with personally-relevant gambling cues. The present study investigated the specificity of attentional biases for individual types of gambling using an eye-gaze tracking paradigm. Three groups of participants (poker players, video lottery terminal/slot machine players, and non-gambling controls) took part in one test session in which they viewed 25 sets of four images (poker, VLTs/slot machines, bingo, and board games). Participants' eye fixations were recorded throughout each 8-second presentation of the four images. The results indicated that, as predicted, the two gambling groups preferentially attended to their primary form of gambling, whereas control participants attended to board games more than gambling images. The findings have clinical implications for the treatment of individuals with gambling disorder. Understanding the importance of personally-salient gambling cues will inform the development of effective attentional bias modification treatments for problem gamblers.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Sample experimental trial.
Fig 1. Sample experimental trial.
Sample experimental trial containing 4 images (bingo, poker, VLT/slots, board games). Each trial was displayed for 8 seconds and contained novel images for each category (i.e., each image shown only once). There were a total of 25 experimental trials plus 2 practice trials.
Fig 2. First fixation mean times.
Fig 2. First fixation mean times.
Estimated marginal means and standard errors (error bars represent SE) for Mean Time to First Fixation. There was a significant main effect for Image Type. Board games were attended to faster than bingo. The interaction of Gambling Group X Image Type was significant. The interaction revealed that poker players attended significantly faster to poker images than VLT/slots players or non-gambling controls. *p < .05.
Fig 3. Dwell time means.
Fig 3. Dwell time means.
Estimated marginal means and standard errors (error bars represent SE) for First Dwell Time. There was a significant main effect for Image Type. Board games received the longest dwell time and bingo the least. The interaction of Gambling Group X Image Type was also significant. The interaction revealed that poker players attended significantly longer to poker images as well as board games and VLT/slots players attended longer to VLT/slots images and board games than bingo or poker. *p < .05.
Fig 4. Total fixation time means.
Fig 4. Total fixation time means.
Estimated marginal means and standard errors (error bars represent SE) for Total Fixation Time. There was a significant main effect for Image Type. Board games received the greatest amount of average fixation time and bingo images the least. The interaction of Gambling Group X Image Type was significant. Poker players attended significantly longer to poker images and board games. VLT/slots players attended longer to VLT/slots images and board games while controls attended longer to board games over all other images. *p < .05.

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: Author; 2013.
    1. Ladouceur R, Boisvert JM, Pépin M, Loranger M, Sylvain C. Social cost of pathological gambling. Journal of gambling studies. 1994;10(4): 399–409. doi:
    1. Petry NM. Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity, and treatment. American Psychological Association; 2005.
    1. Field M, Cox WM. Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: a review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2008;97(1): 1–20. doi:
    1. Field M, Munafò MR, Franken IH. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between attentional bias and subjective craving in substance abuse. Psychological bulletin. 2009;135(4): 589–607. doi:
    1. Hønsi A, Mentzoni RA, Molde H, Pallesen S. Attentional bias in problem gambling: A systematic review. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2013;29(3): 359–375. doi:
    1. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain research reviews. 1993;18(3): 247–291. doi:
    1. Berridge KC, Robinson TE. Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist. 2016; 71(8): 670–679. doi:
    1. Stacy AW, Wiers RW. Implicit cognition and addiction: a tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annual review of clinical psychology. 2010;6: 551–575. doi:
    1. Brevers D, Noël X. Pathological gambling and the loss of willpower: a neurocognitive perspective. Socioaffective neuroscience & psychology. 2013;3(1): 21592 doi:
    1. Linnet J. (2014). Neurobiological underpinnings of reward anticipation and outcome evaluation in gambling disorder. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8 doi:
    1. Robinson MJ, Fischer AM, Ahuja A, Lesser EN, Maniates H. Roles of “wanting” and “liking” in motivating behavior: gambling, food, and drug addictions. Current Topics in Behavorial Neurosciences. 2016:27: 106–136. doi:
    1. Boyer M, Dickerson M. Attentional bias and addictive behaviour: automaticity in a gambling‐specific modified Stroop task. Addiction. 2003;98(1): 61–70. doi:
    1. Brevers D, Cleeremans A, Tibboel H, Bechara A, Kornreich C, Verbanck P, Noël X. Reduced attentional blink for gambling-related stimuli in problem gamblers. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry. 2011. a;42(3): 265–269. doi:
    1. McCusker CG, Gettings B. Automaticity of cognitive biases in addictive behaviours: Further evidence with gamblers. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1997;36(4): 543–554. doi:
    1. Diskin KM, Hodgins DC. Narrowing of attention and dissociation in pathological video lottery gamblers. Journal of gambling studies. 1999;15(1): 17–28. doi:
    1. Vizcaino EJ, Fernandez-Navarro P, Blanco C, Ponce G, Navio M, Moratti S, Rubio G. Maintenance of attention and pathological gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2013;27(3): 861–867. doi:
    1. Atkins G, Sharpe L. Cognitive biases in problem gambling. Gambling Research: Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia). 2003;15(2): 35–43. doi:
    1. Diskin KM, Hodgins DC. Narrowed focus and dissociative experiences in a community sample of experienced video lottery gamblers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2001;33(1): 58–64. doi:
    1. Zack M, Poulos CX. Amphetamine primes motivation to gamble and gambling-related semantic networks in problem gamblers. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29(1): 195–207. doi:
    1. Zack M, Poulos CX. A D2 antagonist enhances the rewarding and priming effects of a gambling episode in pathological gamblers. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32(8): 1678–1686. doi:
    1. Ciccarelli M, Nigro G, Griffiths MD, Cosenza M, D'Olimpio F. Attentional bias in non-problem gamblers, problem gamblers, and abstinent pathological gamblers: An experimental study. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2016. a;206: 9–16. doi:
    1. Ciccarelli M, Nigro G, Griffiths MD, Cosenza M, D'Olimpio F. Attentional biases in problem and non-problem gamblers. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2016. b;198: 135–141. doi:
    1. Field M, Christiansen P. Commentary on, ‘Internal reliability of measures of substance-related cognitive bias’. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2012;124(3): 189–190. doi:
    1. Brevers D, Cleeremans A, Bechara A, Laloyaux C, Kornreich C, Verbanck P, Noël X. Time course of attentional bias for gambling information in problem gambling. Psychology of addictive behaviors. 2011. b;25(4): 675–682. doi:
    1. Grant LD, Bowling AC. Gambling attitudes and beliefs predict attentional bias in non-problem gamblers. Journal of gambling studies. 2015;31(4): 1487–1503. doi:
    1. Petry NM. A comparison of treatment‐seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activity. Addiction. 2003;98(5): 645–655. doi:
    1. Moragas L, Granero R, Stinchfield R, Fernández-Aranda F, Fröberg F, Aymamí N, et al. Comparative analysis of distinct phenotypes in gambling disorder based on gambling preferences. BMC psychiatry. 2015;15(1): 86 doi:
    1. Grant JE, Odlaug BL, Chamberlain SR, Schreiber LR. Neurocognitive dysfunction in strategic and non-strategic gamblers. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 2012;38(2): 336–340. doi:
    1. Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American journal of Psychiatry. 1987;144(9): 1184–1188. doi:
    1. Ferris JA, Wynne HJ. The Canadian problem gambling index: User manual. Toronto, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2001.
    1. Nowak DE, Aloe AM. The prevalence of pathological gambling among college students: A meta-analytic synthesis, 2005–2013. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2014;30(4): 819–843. doi:
    1. Welte JW, Barnes GM, Tidwell MC, Hoffman JH, Wieczorek WF. Gambling and problem gambling in the United States: Changes between 1999 and 2013. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2015;31(3): 695–715. doi:
    1. Bjerg O. Problem gambling in poker: Money, rationality and control in a skill-based social game. International Gambling Studies. 2010;10(3): 239–254. doi:
    1. Lorains FK, Dowling NA, Enticott PG, Bradshaw JL, Trueblood JS, Stout JC . Strategic and non‐strategic problem gamblers differ on decision‐making under risk and ambiguity. Addiction. 2014;109(7): 1128–1137. doi:
    1. Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Casey DM. Validity of the problem gambling severity index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2013;29(2): 311–327. doi:
    1. Orford J, Wardle H, Griffiths M, Sproston K, Erens B. PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey: Reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement. International Gambling Studies. 2010;10(1): 31–44. doi:
    1. Thomas CL, Goegan LD, Newman KR, Arndt JE, Sears CR. Attention to threat images in individuals with clinical and subthreshold symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of anxiety disorders. 2013;27(5): 447–455. doi:
    1. Newman KR, Sears CR. Eye gaze tracking reveals different effects of a sad mood induction on the attention of previously depressed and never depressed women. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2015;39(3): 292–306. doi:
    1. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle J, Saunders J, Monteiro M. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Guidelines for use in. Primary Care (2nd Ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
    1. Skinner HA. The drug abuse screening test. Addictive behaviors. 1982;7(4): 363–371. doi:
    1. Rash CL, McGrath DS. Self-Generated Motives for Not Gambling Among Young Adult Non-gamblers. Journal of gambling studies. 2017;33(3): 825–839. doi:
    1. Cox WM, Klinger E, Fadardi JS. Free will in addictive behaviors: A matter of definition. Addictive Behaviors Reports. 2017;5: 94–103. doi:
    1. Cox WM, Fadardi JS, Intriligator JM, Klinger E. Attentional bias modification for addictive behaviors: clinical implications. CNS spectrums. 2014;19(3): 215–224. doi:
    1. Goudriaan AE, Yücel M, van Holst RJ. Getting a grip on problem gambling: what can neuroscience tell us? Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2014;8: 141 doi:
    1. Boffo M, Willemen R, Pronk T, Wiers RW, Dom G. Effectiveness of two web-based cognitive bias modification interventions targeting approach and attentional bias in gambling problems: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1): 452 doi:
    1. Gladwin TE. Attentional bias variability and cued attentional bias for alcohol stimuli. Addiction Research & Theory. 2017;25(1): 32–38. doi:
    1. Roy-Charland A, Plamondon A, Homeniuk AS, Flesch CA, Klein RM, Stewart SH. Attentional bias toward alcohol-related stimuli in heavy drinkers: evidence from dynamic eye movement recording. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse. 2017;43(3): 332–340. doi:

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera