Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00944.x
Myrseth, H., Tver, R., Hagatun, S. & Lindgren, C. (2012). A comparison of impulsivity and sensation seeking in pathological gamblers and skydivers.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
The aim of this study was to compare pathological gamblers and skydivers in relation to measures of impulsivity and sensation seeking. The Eysenck
Impulsivity Scale Narrow Impulsiveness Subscale and the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking were administered to pathological gamblers (n = 29),
skydivers (n = 93), and a control group (n = 43). A two-way multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to explore differences in impulsivity and
sensation seeking between the groups and possible group by gender and group by age interaction effects. The significant effects were further investigated
using follow-up univariate analysis of variance. The results showed significant main effects of Group, Gender and Age, and a significant Group by Gender
interaction effect. The results showed no statistically significant differences in impulsivity between pathological gamblers and skydivers; however, both
groups scored higher than the controls. The skydivers scored higher compared to the pathological gamblers and controls on both sensation seeking
subscales. Pathological gamblers scored higher than the controls on the subscale Need for Stimulus Intensity, although lower than the controls on the subscale Need for Novelty. We conclude that skydivers and pathological gamblers do not seem to differ in terms of impulsivity, but that the two groups differ
in terms of sensation seeking. Skydivers are hence characterized by more sensation seeking compared to pathological gamblers. Skydiving, as opposed to
pathological gambling, is not considered a psychiatric disorder, and skydiving may represent a more non-pathological way to fulfill the need for stimulus
intensity.
Key words: Impulsivity, sensation seeking, pathological gambling, skydiving.
Helga Myrseth, Department of Education, Chr. gt 13, P.B. 7807, N-5020 Bergen, Norway. Tel: + 47 55 58 88 78; fax: + 47 55 58 98 79; e-mail:
helga.myrseth@iuh.uib.no
INTRODUCTION
Jumping out of an airplane may seem like a crazy and scary thing
to do, but for a skydiver it is a fun and exciting experience.
Similarly, spending more than you can afford on gambling is
something most people would not do, while some people get a
kick out of gambling and continue to gamble despite the severe
negative consequences. Researchers have asked the question as to
why some people are more attracted to these types of sensationseeking behaviors than others, and personality factors such as
impulsivity and sensation seeking have been suggested to play a
role.
Pathological gambling is classified as an impulse control disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association,
2000). The DSM-IV-TR defines impulse control disorders as the
failure to resist an impulse, drive, or temptation to perform an act
that is harmful to the person or to others (p. 663American Psychiatric Association, 2000); hence, impulsivity is seen as one of
the core features of pathological gambling. However, studies have
varied in how they define and measure impulsivity which has
hampered the studies on impulsivity and its correlates (Nower &
Blaszczynski, 2006). Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, Schmitz and
Swann (2001) suggest that a definition of impulsivity should
include the following elements: 1) decreased sensitivity to negative consequences of behaviour; 2) rapid, unplanned reactions to
stimuli before complete processing of information; and 3) lack of
regard for long-term consequences (Moeller et al., 2001, p. 1784).
2 H. Myrseth et al.
that gambling provides a higher level of stimulation and arousal
because of the monetary risk and uncertainty involved in the
activity. Therefore, individuals scoring high on sensation seeking
may seek activities which produce higher levels of stimulation/
arousal (Zuckerman, 1994). In accordance with this, it has been
suggested that gamblers scoring high on sensation seeking continue to play in order to maintain the arousal because of its
rewarding effects, despite the possible punishing effects of losing
money (Breen & Zuckerman, 1999).
Research has documented that gamblers often score higher on
sensation seeking compared to controls (e.g. Anderson & Brown,
1984; Zuckerman et al., 1980). Nevertheless, some studies have
not supported this notion (e.g. Blaszczynski, Wilson & McConaghy, 1986; Hammelstein, 2004; Langewisch & Frisch, 1998).
According to Breen and Zuckerman (1999), the failure of some
studies to find an association between pathological gambling and
sensation seeking may be attributed to methodological weaknesses
such as a failure to control for variables such as gender, age, type
of gambling involved or differences between treatment seeking
and non-treatment seeking gamblers. Furthermore, there may be
individual differences in sensation seeking among pathological
gamblers, and the choice of the preferred type of gambling has
been found to vary with the level of sensation seeking (Coventry
& Brown, 1993). Betting on horses at the racetrack has been associated with significantly higher scores on sensation seeking in
comparison to playing off-course games (Bonnaire, Bungener &
Varescon, 2006, 2009; Coventry & Brown, 1993).
The assessment of sensation seeking has previously relied heavily on Zuckermans Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS), which has
been criticized and its validity questioned (Arnett, 1994; Hammelstein, 2004). According to Coventry and Brown (1993), it is
possible that gamblers concentrate all their sensation-seeking outlets in just one channel, that is, gambling. As a result, Zuckermans sensation-seeking scale, which simply totals the
commitment to a variety of sensation seeking activities, may fail
to capture the true extent of gamblers commitment to sensation
seeking. Fortune and Goodie (2010) also underscore the importance of the subscale scores in the SSS and suggest that the failure
of some previous studies to show a positive relationship between
sensation seeking and gambling activity may be due to the use of
the total score of the SSS as opposed to subscale scores.
Arnett (1994) suggested a new conception of sensation seeking
in which the Need for Novelty and Need for Stimulus Intensity
are included as components. He also developed a scale known as
the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS) to measure this
conception of sensation seeking. The AISS does not include any
items concerning norm breaking and antisocial behavior such as
the SSS does. Arnett emphasizes that sensation seeking can be
expressed in many areas of a persons life, thus accordingly, sensation seeking may be viewed as a predisposition to behave in
many different ways. The determining factor for how it will be
expressed is the individuals socialization environment throughout
ones lifetime.
Some studies have proposed that gamblers are not characterized
by high levels of sensation seeking in general, but rather a higher
Need for Stimulus Intensity. Nower, Derevensky and Gupta
(2004) found that pathological gamblers scored higher on intensity seeking compared to controls, though there were no differ-
METHOD
no). The Kuder-Richardson-20 value for the EIS-nI was 0.74 in the
present study.
The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS; Arnett, 1994) is a
20-item measure of sensation seeking using a four-point Likert scale, in
which each response category indicates how well the statement fits. The
AISS consists of two subscales: the Need for Novelty and the Need for
Stimulus Intensity. Cronbachs alpha for the AISS was 0.70, and 0.50
and 0.68 for the two subscales Need for Novelty and Need for Stimulus
Intensity, respectively.
Statistics
The data were coded and analyzed using the SPSS version 15. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity,
univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance
matrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious violations noted. A
two-way factorial MANOVA was conducted in order to explore possible
differences in impulsivity and sensation seeking among the three groups
and possible group by gender and group by age interaction effects. Three
dependent variables were used: Impulsivity, Need for Novelty, and Need
for Stimulus Intensity. The independent variables were group (Pathological gamblers, Control group, Skydivers), gender, and age. The variable
Age was dichotomized at the median. Correlations between age and the
dependent variables are presented in Table 1. The significant effects were
further investigated using follow-up ANOVAs.
Participants
The present study is based on three subsamples: a sample of pathological
gamblers (n = 29), a control group of non-pathological gamblers
(n = 43), and a sample of skydivers (n = 93). The first two subsamples
were part of a study conducted by Myrseth et al. (2009). The sample of
pathological gamblers was comprised of 26 men and 4 women (the mean
age was 32.8 years, SD = 9.9). The control group was comprised of 43
non-pathological gamblers matched on sex and age ( 5 years; the mean
age 39.5 years, SD = 12.3). The skydiver sample was comprised of 77
men and 16 women (the mean age was 33.4 years, SD = 10.2).
Procedure
The pathological gamblers were treatment seeking gamblers recruited
through advertisements in regional newspapers, referrals from the
national helpline for gamblers and through referrals from general practitioners. To be included in the study the pathological gamblers had to fulfill the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000) satisfying five or more symptoms
(M = 7.8, SD = 1.6). The contrast group was recruited through advertisements in newspapers and in order to be included in the contrast group
the participants had to receive a score of 3 or less in the South Oaks
Gambling Screen Revised (SOGS-R; Lesieur & Blume, 1993). See
Myrseth et al. (2009) for more details. All the participants had to sign an
informed consent before they were included in the study. The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Regional
Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Western Norway
and the Norwegian Social Science Data Service. The sample of skydivers
was recruited from three different skydiving clubs in Norway, and an
e-mail with an invitation to complete an anonymous web-based questionnaire was sent to all members of the three skydiving clubs. Of the
skydivers, 75% regarded themselves as active skydivers whereas 25%
were regarded as non-active (e.g., jumped occasionally).
Instruments
The Eysenck Impulsivity Scale, Narrow Impulsiveness Subscale (EIS-nI;
Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977), which is a measure of pathological impulsivity, consists of 13 questions in regard to the ability to plan, delay and
think before acting. The answer categories are dichotomous (yes or
RESULTS
There was a statistically significant main effect of Group on the
combined dependent variables, F(6, 298) = 11.29, p < 0.001;
Wilks Lambda = 0.66. A significant main effect of Gender
was found, F(3, 149) = 6.12, p < 0.001; Wilks Lambda = 0.89.
A significant main effect of Age was found, F(3, 149) = 4.97,
p < 0.001; Wilks Lambda = 0.91. In addition, a significant overall Group by Gender interaction effect was found, F(6,
298) = 2.23, p < 0.05; Wilks Lambda = 0.92. When the results
for the dependent variables were considered separately, using a
Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.017, there was a significant
effect of Group on all dependent variables: Impulsivity,
F(2,151) = 3.37, p < 0.01, Need for Novelty, F(2,151) = 24.86,
p < 0.001, and Need for Stimulus Intensity, F(2,150) = 14.23,
p < 0.001. There was also a significant main effect of Gender on
Need for Stimulus Intensity, F(1,151) = 17.07, p < 0.001, and a
significant main effect of Age on Need for Stimulus Intensity,
F(1,151) = 13.25, p < 0.001. In addition there was a significant
Gender by Age interaction effect on Impulsivity, F(1,
150) = 6.63, p < 0.01.
To further investigate the impact of Age on Impulsivity, a
follow-up 2 3 ANOVA (Age Group) was conducted. There
was a statistically significant main effect for Group,
F(2,160) = 5.92, p < 0.01. No significant interaction effect was
found. To investigate the impact of Gender on Impulsivity, a
follow-up 2 3 ANOVA (Gender Group) was also conducted. There was a statistically significant main effect for
Group, F(2,160) = 4.45, p < 0.05. Bonferroni post-hoc tests
indicated that the mean score for pathological gamblers,
M = 5.74, SD = 3.55, was significantly different from that of
the control group, M = 3.36, SD = 2.25, p < 0.001, but not
from the skydivers, M = 4.90, SD = 2.59, p = 0.44, while the
mean score for the skydivers was significantly different from
the mean score for the control group, p < 0.01.
4 H. Myrseth et al.
Total sample
1. Age
2. Impulsivity
3. Need for novelty
4. Need for stimulus
PGs
1. Age
2. Impulsivity
3. Need for novelty
4. Need for stimulus
NPGs
1. Age
2. Impulsivity
3. Need for novelty
4. Need for stimulus
Skydivers
1. Age
2. Impulsivity
3. Need for novelty
4. Need for stimulus
Mean
SD
intensity
166
166
163
163
34.99
4.64
28.67
26.12
11.04
2.81
4.96
5.54
)0.29*
)0.25**
)0.43**
0.27**
0.30**
0.46**
intensity
29
29
29
29
32.62
5.74
24.58
25.66
10.04
3.55
3.72
4.45
)0.03ns
)0.17 ns
)0.34 ns
0.49**
0.41*
0.32
intensity
44
44
44
44
39.82
3.36
26.64
21.82
12.12
2.25
4.02
5.26
)0.13 ns
)0.36*
)0.34*
0.23 ns
0.09ns
0.54**
intensity
93
93
90
90
33.44
4.90
30.99
28.38
10.19
2.59
4.43
4.67
)0.38*
)0.21*
)0.41**
0.31**
0.24*
0.28**
ns
In order to follow up the results for the Need for Novelty variable, a 2 3 (Age Group) ANOVA was conducted. There was
a significant main effect for Group, F(2, 157) = 26.35, p < 0.001,
and Age, F(1, 157) = 4.71, p < 0.05. To investigate the impact of
Gender on Need for Novelty, a follow-up 2 3 ANOVA (Gender
Group) was also conducted. There was a significant main effect
of Group, F(2,157) = 30.25, p < 0.001. There was also a significant Group by Gender interaction effect, F(2,157) = 4.31,
p < 0.05 (see Fig. 1). Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated that the
mean score for pathological gamblers, M = 24.58, SD = 3.72,
was significantly different from the skydivers, M = 30.98,
SD = 4.43, p < 0.001, but not from the control group, M = 26.64,
SD = 4.02, p = 0.12. The mean score for the skydivers was also
significantly different from the mean score for the control group,
p < 0.001.
To further investigate the impact of Age on Need for Stimulus
Intensity, a follow-up 2 3 ANOVA (Age Group) was conducted. There was a statistically significant main effect for Group,
F(2, 157) = 21.80, p < 0.001, and for Age, F(1, 157) = 17.27,
p < 0.001. To investigate the impact of Gender on Need for Stimulus Intensity, a follow-up 2 3 ANOVA (Gender Group) was
also conducted. There was a statistically significant main effect
for Group, F(2, 157) = 19.22, p < 0.001, and for Gender, F(1,
157) = 18.38, p < 0.001. Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated that
the mean score for pathological gamblers, M = 25.66, SD = 4.45,
was significantly different from the skydivers, M = 28.38,
SD = 4.67, p < 0.05, and from the control group, M = 21.81,
SD = 5.26, p < 0.01. The mean score for skydivers was also significantly different from the mean score for the control group,
p < 0.001.
DISCUSSION
Fig. 1. Mean scores on need for novelty for the groups divided by gender.
In line with previous findings, the present study revealed that both
pathological gamblers and skydivers scored higher on impulsivity
in comparison to the control group, although no differences in
impulsivity between skydivers and gamblers were observed. Previous studies have also indicated that people involved in extreme
sports score higher on sensation seeking compared to controls. In
the present study, we found that the skydivers scored higher on
both sensation seeking subscales, the Need for Novelty and the
Need for Stimulus Intensity, when compared to both pathological
gamblers and the control group. No significant differences
between pathological gamblers and the controls were found on
the subscale Need for Novelty, but the pathological gamblers
scored higher than the controls on the subscale Need for Stimulus
Intensity.
The finding that pathological gamblers scored high on impulsivity is in line with previous research (e.g. Blaszczynski et al.,
1997; Myrseth et al., 2009). Previous findings have also indicated
that impulsivity can be a significant predictor for pathological
gambling (Myrseth et al., 2009). Myrseth et al. (2009) further
suggest that high levels of impulsivity may explain why gamblers
continue to engage in gambling behavior despite severe negative
consequences. Because gamblers are often more preoccupied with
the immediate rewards of their behavior, they often overlook the
long-term negative consequences. The preference for small immediate rewards over the preference of a larger delayed reward is an
indicator of impulsivity that has been associated with the severity
of the gambling problem (Alessi & Petry, 2003). Alessi and Petry
(2003) found that the severity of gambling problems was a predictor for impulsive choices in a delay discounting task. Even so, the
question of whether an increased impulsivity precedes the development of excessive gambling or the levels of impulsivity
increase subsequent to the development of gambling problems
still remains an open question.
Since some forms of risk taking such as gambling have been
linked to impulsivity (Clarke, 2004), it is likely that extreme sport,
which is also considered to be a risk taking activity, is positively
correlated with impulsivity. In the present study, the skydivers
scored higher on impulsivity compared to the control group,
thereby supporting this assumption. However, a previous study
examining the link between impulsivity and extreme sport has
failed to confirm associations between engaging in extreme sport
and high levels of impulsivity. Llewellyn and Sanchez (2008)
found that rock climbers were not significantly higher risk takers
and impulsive compared to controls. One possible explanation for
this finding is that impulsive individuals may lack some of the
skills that are regarded as being of importance in rock climbing
such as the ability to plan effectively and have effective risk management skills (Llewellyn & Sanchez, 2008). The discrepancy of
findings between the present study and the study by Llewellyn
and Sanchez (2008) may be attributed to differences in sample
characteristics (skydivers versus rock climbers), whereas one may
speculate that the skydivers scored higher on impulsivity since
skydiving does not necessarily involve the same skills as rock
climbing.
Another study found that levels of impulsivity were different in
amateurs compared to professional risk takers. Cazenave et al.
(2007) found that women who performed extreme sports for leisure purposes were more impulsive than woman who made a living from practicing an extreme sport. This finding indicates that
individuals who are involved in extreme sports at the professional
level may be characterized as more controlled (i.e. less impulsive)
than those engaged in such activities for leisure purposes. The
authors also examined whether the various groups differed in their
degree of alexithymia, that is, the ability to recognize and
acknowledge ones emotional state. The results indicated that the
amateur risk-taking women exhibited a tendency to be more alexithymic than both the professional risk-taking group and the control group. Based on this finding, the authors speculated that the
amateur women engaged in extreme sports in order to experience
psychological relief. They also concluded that since the amateur
and professional women had different psychological profiles
despite practicing the same extreme sports, this may indicate that
6 H. Myrseth et al.
the present samples were not large enough to obtain a potential
significant difference; thus, future large-scaled studies should
investigate this in more detail.
The scores on sensation seeking differed significantly between
the two groups. While the skydivers scored highest on both subscales, the pathological gamblers also scored high on the Need for
Stimulus Intensity (although lower than the skydivers), but scored
low on the Need for Novelty. Since skydiving is a potentially
more life-threatening activity than pathological gambling, this
may explain why skydivers experience a greater kick when
performing the activity, therefore scoring higher on the Need for
Stimulus Intensity. Skydiving is also a relatively short-lasting
activity, while gambling can last for hours. Hence, the intensity of
the gambling activity may be lower in comparison to skydiving.
This time dimension can also possibly explain the differences in
Need for Novelty. For the pathological gamblers who perform the
same gambling activity for hours after hours every day, or several
times a week, the activity may lose the aspect of novelty. Since
skydivers do not usually engage in their risk-taking behavior as
often, they may experience a higher sense of novelty and salience
each time.
It is important to recognize that while the pathological gamblers
in this study suffered from a psychiatric disorder, the skydivers did
not. Merely fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling is indicative of a range of negative consequences of the behavior (e.g., disturbed relationships, economic problems). The
skydivers impulsivity and sensation seeking may be regarded as a
healthier way to express these needs compared to the behavior of a
gambler. The negative consequences of skydiving occur less often,
and most skydivers do not experience any negative consequences
from their behavior. Consequently, high levels of impulsivity and
sensation seeking may not necessarily be related to negative consequences. A possible implication for treatment of pathological gamblers is that gamblers may learn to find other less harmful ways of
channelling their impulsivity and sensation-seeking tendencies.
Since both skydivers and pathological gamblers in this study were
similar in their levels of impulsivity, but still seek distinctive behaviors, further research should attempt to investigate other personality
factors associated with extreme sports and pathological gambling
that may explain the different choice of activities.
CONCLUSIONS
The skydivers scored high on both impulsivity and sensation
seeking. The pathological gamblers also obtained high scores on
impulsivity and Need for Stimulus Intensity, but low scores on
Need for Novelty. The results indicated that skydivers and
pathological gamblers did not seem to differ in terms of impulsivity, but that the two groups differed in terms of sensation
seeking. The similarities in impulsivity may be explained by the
fact that both gambling and skydiving involve elements of risk
taking, whereas the differences in scores on sensation seeking
may be related to differences in frequency of the behavior and
in the amount of time spent engaging in the behavior, in addition to the potential severity of the consequences involved in
these activities.
REFERENCES
Alessi, S. M. & Petry, N. M. (2003). Pathological gambling severity is
asssociated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure.
Behavioural Processes, 64, 345354.
Allcock, C. C. & Grace, D. M. (1988). Pathological gamblers are neither
impulsive nor sensation-seekers. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 22, 307311.