Abstract
AbstractHow might frequent gamblers convince themselves to keep playing despite persistent losses or after a win that should be savored? The purpose of this research is to examine the unexplored question of how frequent gamblers’ use counterfactual thinking to motivate their desire to continue gambling. Using a sample of n = 69 high and n = 69 low frequency gamblers in a field setting, we found that infrequent gamblers tended to consider how the perceived outcome of losing “could have been better” (i.e., upward counterfactual thinking), and how a winning outcome “could have been worse” (i.e., downward counterfactual thinking). This pattern of counterfactual thinking is considered typical in many settings and may, in a gambling context, support a potentially more responsible approach by helping infrequent gamblers to learn from past mistakes to avoid significant future losses and to savor wins to protect returns gained. Alternatively, we found that frequent gamblers were more likely to generate ‘dual counterfactuals’ which include both upward and downward counterfactuals in response to losses and wins. We argue that this dual pattern of counterfactual thinking may allow frequent gamblers to more easily justify their desire to continue gambling. Findings suggest that challenging gamblers counterfactual thinking patterns could assist clinicians in moderating the potential for high-risk behaviors.
Funder
Australian Research Council
University of Sydney
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Sociology and Political Science
Reference70 articles.
1. Armstrong, T., Rockloff, M., Browne, M., & Blaszczynski, A. (2020). Encouraging gamblers to think critically using generalised analytical priming is ineffective at reducing gambling biases. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36(3), 851–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09910-8
2. Awo, L. O., Amazue, L. O., Eze, V. C., & Ekwe, C. N. (2023). Mediating role of impulsivity in the contributory roles of upward versus downward counterfactual thinking in youth gambling intention. Journal of Gambling Studies, 39(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-022-10112-y
3. Blaszczynski, A., MacCallum, F., & Joukhador, J. (2001). A comparative evaluation of imaginal desensitisation and group cognitive therapy in the treatment of pathological gambling. In G. Coman (Ed.), Lessons of the past: Proceedings of the 10th conference of the national association for gambling studies (pp. 29–39). National Association for Gambling Studies.
4. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97(5), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00015.x
5. Bless, H., Mackie, D. M., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Mood effects on encoding and judgmental processes in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.585