好与坏:经常赌博的人使用双重反事实来为继续赌博辩护。

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Journal of Gambling Studies Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-05 DOI:10.1007/s10899-023-10221-2
Christina I Anthony, Elizabeth Cowley, Alex Blaszczynski
{"title":"好与坏:经常赌博的人使用双重反事实来为继续赌博辩护。","authors":"Christina I Anthony, Elizabeth Cowley, Alex Blaszczynski","doi":"10.1007/s10899-023-10221-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48155,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gambling Studies","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"For Better and For Worse: Frequent Gamblers Use Dual Counterfactuals to Justify Continued Gambling.\",\"authors\":\"Christina I Anthony, Elizabeth Cowley, Alex Blaszczynski\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10899-023-10221-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11272697/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-023-10221-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gambling Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-023-10221-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经常赌博的人如何说服自己在持续输钱的情况下继续赌博,或者在赢钱之后继续赌博?本研究的目的是探讨频繁赌博者如何利用反事实思维来激发他们继续赌博的欲望这一尚未探索的问题。通过对 n = 69 名高频率赌博者和 n = 69 名低频率赌博者进行实地抽样调查,我们发现,不经常赌博者倾向于考虑输钱的结果 "本可以更好"(即向上的反事实思维),以及赢钱的结果 "本可以更糟"(即向下的反事实思维)。在许多情况下,这种反事实思维模式被认为是一种典型的思维模式,在赌博中,这种思维模式可以帮助不常赌博的人从过去的错误中吸取教训,避免未来的重大损失,同时也可以帮助他们品味胜利的喜悦,保护所获得的回报,从而支持一种潜在的更负责任的方法。另外,我们还发现,经常赌博的人更有可能产生 "双重反事实",即在输钱和赢钱时同时产生向上和向下的反事实。我们认为,这种双重的反事实思维模式可能会让常赌者更容易为自己继续赌博的愿望进行辩解。研究结果表明,挑战赌徒的反事实思维模式可以帮助临床医生缓和高风险行为的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

For Better and For Worse: Frequent Gamblers Use Dual Counterfactuals to Justify Continued Gambling.

For Better and For Worse: Frequent Gamblers Use Dual Counterfactuals to Justify Continued Gambling.

How 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Journal of Gambling Studies is an interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination on the many aspects of gambling behavior, both controlled and pathological, as well as variety of problems attendant to, or resultant from, gambling behavior including alcoholism, suicide, crime, and a number of other mental health problems. Articles published in this journal are representative of a cross-section of disciplines including psychiatry, psychology, sociology, political science, criminology, and social work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信