Assessing the Impact of Cue Exposure on Craving to Gamble in University Students
- 384 Downloads
We recruited a sample of university student gamblers (n = 48) to complete a web-based battery of instruments in a study designed to assess the impact of imagery-based versus photographic cue exposure on acute craving to gamble using the multi-item Gambling Urge Scale (GUS; Raylu and Oei 2004). Although self-reported craving increased following both forms of cue exposure, the imagery script had a more pronounced impact than did examination of photographs of gambling-related stimuli. We also evaluated the association of the post-cue exposure GUS with other relevant measures, and found it correlated highly both with other questionnaires assessing craving to gamble and with other gambling-relevant characteristics (e.g., gambling-related problems, preoccupation with gambling, distorted gambling beliefs, gambling refusal self-efficacy, sensation seeking), but was not associated with social desirability bias. These findings support the use of the GUS—a brief multi-item scale that shows several key elements of construct, convergent, criterion and discriminant validity—to study the experience of craving in university student gamblers.
KeywordsProblem gambling Cue exposure Craving University students
- Ashrafioun, L., & Rosenberg, H. (2011). Assessment of the craving to gamble: A narrative review (under review).Google Scholar
- Costa, P., McCrae, R., & Psychological Assessment Resources, I. (1985). The NEO personality inventory: Manual form S and form R. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Frut, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
- MacLaren, V. V., Fugelsang, J. A., Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M. J. (2011). The personality of pathological gamblers: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1057–1067.Google Scholar