Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2018
Probability discounting and gambling: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kyonka Elizabeth G E, Schutte Nicola S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A number of studies have investigated connections between probability discounting and gambling. The aim of this research was to obtain a meta-analytical weighted effect size for the relationship between shallow probability discounting (the tendency to overvalue reinforcement with lower odds) and gambling intensity and to examine whether a gambling diagnosis moderated this effect size such that the relationship is stronger for diagnosed problem gamblers.
METHODS: A database search identified studies that (a) measured both probability discounting and gambling and (b) reported statistical results allowing calculation of an effect size for meta-analysis. The search resulted in 12 studies reporting statistical results for probability discounting and gambling. The studies comprised 1685 individuals from different cohorts and nations, and included gamblers and non-gamblers. The studies reported 18 effect sizes. Across studies, gambling severity was assessed through diagnosis and gambling intensity was assessed through self-report and performance. Comprehensive Meta Analysis software calculated the weighted effect size and moderating role of gambling diagnosis.
RESULTS: Shallower probability discounting was associated with greater gambling severity or intensity in all 12 studies. Throughout the studies, the weighted meta-analytical effect size for the connection between probability discounting and gambling was significant, with Hedges' g = 0.36 [standard error (SE) = 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.21, 0.50), P < 0.001]. Addressing the second aim of the study, individuals diagnosed with a gambling disorder or problem gambling compared with not diagnosed individuals showed an effect size of Hedges' g = 0.79 (SE = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.45, 1.14) and a moderation analysis indicated that this type of comparison showed significantly stronger effects than effect sizes based on associations between probability discounting and gambling (Q(1) = 7.80, P = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a positive association between problem gambling and shallow probability discounting (a cognitive bias that overvalues low probability gains and/or undervalues high probability losses).
METHODS: A database search identified studies that (a) measured both probability discounting and gambling and (b) reported statistical results allowing calculation of an effect size for meta-analysis. The search resulted in 12 studies reporting statistical results for probability discounting and gambling. The studies comprised 1685 individuals from different cohorts and nations, and included gamblers and non-gamblers. The studies reported 18 effect sizes. Across studies, gambling severity was assessed through diagnosis and gambling intensity was assessed through self-report and performance. Comprehensive Meta Analysis software calculated the weighted effect size and moderating role of gambling diagnosis.
RESULTS: Shallower probability discounting was associated with greater gambling severity or intensity in all 12 studies. Throughout the studies, the weighted meta-analytical effect size for the connection between probability discounting and gambling was significant, with Hedges' g = 0.36 [standard error (SE) = 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.21, 0.50), P < 0.001]. Addressing the second aim of the study, individuals diagnosed with a gambling disorder or problem gambling compared with not diagnosed individuals showed an effect size of Hedges' g = 0.79 (SE = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.45, 1.14) and a moderation analysis indicated that this type of comparison showed significantly stronger effects than effect sizes based on associations between probability discounting and gambling (Q(1) = 7.80, P = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a positive association between problem gambling and shallow probability discounting (a cognitive bias that overvalues low probability gains and/or undervalues high probability losses).