Jogos a Dinheiro – Rede de Responsabilidade Social

Using the Multiple-Choice Procedure to Measure the Relative Reinforcing Efficacy of Gambling: Initial Validity Evidence Among College Student

Título: Using the Multiple-Choice Procedure to Measure the Relative Reinforcing Efficacy of Gambling: Initial Validity Evidence Among College Students
Autores: Leon H. Butler, Jessica G. Irons, Drew T. Bassett, Christopher J. Correia
Ano: 2017


The multiple choice procedure (MCP) is used to assess the relative reinforcing value of concurrently available stimuli. The MCP was originally developed to assess the reinforcing value of drugs; the current within-subjects study employed the MCP to assess the reinforcing value of gambling behavior. Participants (N = 323) completed six versions of the MCP that presented hypothetical choices between money to be used while gambling ($10 or $25) versus escalating amounts of guaranteed money available immediately or after delays of either 1 week or 1 month. Results suggest that choices on the MCP are correlated with other measures of gambling behavior, thus providing concurrent validity data for using the MCP to quantify the relative reinforcing value of gambling. The MCP for gambling also displayed sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude and delay effects, which provides evidence of criterion validity. The results are consistent with a behavioral economic model of addiction and suggest that the MCP could be a valid tool for future research on gambling behavior.


  1. Beaudoin, C. M., & Cox, B. J. (1999). Characteristics of problem gambling in a Canadian context: A preliminary study using a DSM-IV-based questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,44, 483–487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson, T. A., Little, C. S., Henslee, A. M., & Correia, C. J. (2009). Effects of reinforcer magnitude and alternative reinforcer delay on preference for alcohol during a multiple-choice procedure. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,100, 161–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Betz, C., Mihalic, D., Pinto, M. E., & Raffa, R. B. (2000). Could a common biochemical mechanism underlie addictions? Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics,25, 11–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickel, W. K., Johnson, M. W., Koffarnus, M. N., MacKillop, J., & Murphy, J. G. (2014). The behavioral economics of substance use disorders: Reinforcement pathologies and their repair. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,10, 641–677.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, W. B., & Moyer, T. (1998). Clinical features and psychiatric comorbidity of subjects with pathological gambling. Psychiatric Services,49, 1434–1439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Breiter, H. C., Aharon, I., Kahneman, D., Dale, A., & Shizgal, P. (2001). Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains and losses. Neuron,30, 619–639.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Caetano, R., John, S., & Cunrandi, C. (2001). Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcohol Research & Health,25, 58–65.Google Scholar
  8. Chamberlain, L. (2004). Understanding and diagnosing compuslive gambling. In R. H. Coombs (Ed.), Handbook of addictive disorders: A practical guide to diagnosis and treatment (pp. 129–160). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Chutuape, M. A. D., Silverman, K., & Stitzer, M. L. (1998). Survey assessment of methadone treatment services as reinforcers. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,24, 1–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Correia, C. J., Carey, K. B., & Borsari, B. (2002). Measuring substance-free and substance-related reinforcement in the natural environment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,16,28–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Michaud, V. (2004). Comparisons between the south oaks gambling screen and a DSM-IV-based interview in a community survey of problem gambling. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,49, 258–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Engwall, D., Hunter, R., & Steinberg, M. (2004). Gambling and other risk behaviors on university campuses. Journal of American College Health,52, 245–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrett, B. E., & Griffiths, R. R. (1998). Physical dependence increases the relative reinforcing effects of caffeine versus placebo. Psychopharmacology (Berl),139, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant, J. E., & Potenza, N. M. (2005). Pathological gambling and other behavioral addictions. In R. J. Frances, S. I. Miller, & A. H. Mack (Eds.), Clinical textbook of addictive disorders (3rd ed., pp. 303–320). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Greenwald, M. K., & Hursh, S. R. (2006). Behavioral economic analysis of opioid consumption in heroin-dependent individuals: Effects of unit price and presession drug supply. Drug and Alcohol Dependence85, 35–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, R. R., Rush, C. R., & Puhala, K. A. (1996). Validation of the multiple-choice procedure for investigating drug reinforcement in humans. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,4(1), 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffiths, R. R., Troisi, J. R., Silverman, K., & Mumford, G. K. (1993). Multiple-choice procedure: An efficient approach for investigating drug reinforcement in humans. Behavioral Pharmacology,4, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytical review. Value in Health,11, 322–333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins, S. T., & Silverman, K. (Eds.). (1999). Motivating behavior change among illicit abusers: Research on contingency management interventions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, H. E., Garrett, B. E., & Griffiths, R. R. (1999). Subjective and physiological effects of intravenous nicotine and cocaine in cigarette smoking cocaine abusers. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics,288, 188–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ladouceur, R., Dube, D., & Bujold, A. (1994). Prevalence of pathological gambling and related problems among college students in the Quebec metropolitan area. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,39, 289–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, H. P., Chae, P. K., Lee, H. S., & Kim, Y. K. (2007). The five-factor gambling motivation model. Psychiatry Research,150, 21–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry,144, 1184–1188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lesieur, H. R., Cross, J., Frank, M., Welch, M., White, C. M., Rubenstein, G., et al. (1991). Gambling and pathological gambling among university students. Addictive Behaviors,16,517–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Little, C., & Correia, C. J. (2006). Use of a multiple choice procedure with college student drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,20, 445–454.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, G., Hauffa, B. P., Schedlowski, M., Pawluk, C., Stadler, M. A., & Exton, M. S. (2000). Casino gambling increases heart rate and salivary cortisol in regular gamblers. Biological Psychiatry,48, 948–953.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer, G., Schwertfeger, J., Exton, M. S., Janssen, O. E., Knapp, W., Stadler, M. A. S., et al. (2004). Neuroendocrine response to casino gambling in problem gamblers. Psychoneuroendocrinology,29, 1272–1280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy, J. G., Correia, C. J., & Barnett, N. P. (2007). Behavioral economic approaches to reducing college student drinking. Addictive Behaviors,32, 2573–2585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Murphy, J. G., Correia, C. J., Colby, S. M., & Vuchinich, R. E. (2005). Using behavioral theories of choice to predict drinking outcomes following a brief intervention. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,13, 93–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy, J. G., Dennhardt, A. A., Skidmore, J. R., Borsari, B., Barnett, N. P., Colby, S. M., et al. (2012). A randomized controlled trial of a behavioral economic supplement to brief motivational interventions for college drinking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,80(5), 876–886.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T. W., Cronce, J. M., & Larimer, M. E. (2002a). Exploring college student gambling motivation. Journal of Gambling Studies,18, 361–370.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T. W., Larimer, M. E., & Takushi, R. Y. (2002b). Measuring gambling outcomes among college students. Journal of Gambling Studies,18, 339–359.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Nowak, D. E., & Aloe, A. M. (2014). The prevalence of pathological gambling among college students: A meta-analytic synthesis, 2005–2013. Journal of Gambling Studies,30,819–843.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Potenza, M. N. (2006). Should addictive disorders include non-substance-related conditions? Addiction,101, 142–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rousseau, G. S., Irons, J. G., & Correia, C. J. (2011). The reinforcing value of alcohol in a drinking to cope paradigm. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,118, 1–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stinchfield, T. (2003). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of a measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry,160, 180–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Ladouceur, R., & Tremblay, R. (2001). Gambling, delinquency, and drug use during adolescence” Mutual influences and common risk factors. Journal of Gambling Studies,17, 171–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1988). Contributions from behavioral theories of choice to an analysis of alcohol abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,97(2), 181–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Weinstock, J., Whelan, J. P., Meyers, A. W., & McCausland, C. (2007). The performance of two pathological gambling screens in college students. Assessment,14, 399–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar


Fonte: Springer
Rede de Responsabilidade Social (RRS)

Related Posts

Leave A Response