Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Leonard, Carrie A.
dc.contributor.author Williams, Robert J.
dc.contributor.author Vokey, John
dc.date.accessioned 2016-12-20T18:18:12Z
dc.date.available 2016-12-20T18:18:12Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.citation Leonard, C. A., Williams, R. J., & Vokey, J. (2015). Gambling fallacies: what are they and how are they best measured? Journal of Research Therapy and Addiction, 6(4), 256. doi:10.4172/2155-6015.1000256 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10133/4750
dc.description Sherpa Romeo blue journal. Open access article. Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) applies. en_US
dc.description.abstract Objective: Gambling fallacies are believed to be etiologically related to the development of problem gambling. However, this evidence is tenuous due to the lack of consensus on which things constitute gambling fallacies and the adequacy of instruments that ostensibly measure them. The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively identify the main gambling fallacies and examine the reliability and validity of the instruments designed to measure them. Methods: All known gambling fallacies and instruments measuring them were identified via a keyword search of social science, medical, and gambling-specific databases. The reliability and validity of each assessment instrument was then examined. Results: Six primary gambling fallacies were consistently reported in the literature. Eighteen instruments were found to measure one or more of these fallacies, with 9 assessing specific fallacies and 9 intended to be comprehensive instruments. Most instruments were found to have good internal consistency as well as adequate convergent and external validity. Relatively few demonstrated test-retest reliability and/or discriminant validity. However, the main area of concern was content validity. While instruments focusing on a particular fallacy tended to have adequate content validity, this was not true of the comprehensive instruments. In addition to insufficient coverage of the fallacies, most comprehensive instruments included questions pertaining to motivations for gambling, attitudes about gambling, and/or problem gambling symptomatology (e.g. chasing losses), which likely inflates their statistical association with problem gambling. Many of these comprehensive instruments also wrongly assume that no skill is involved in any form of gambling. Conclusion: The inadequate content validity of most comprehensive gambling fallacy instruments draws into question the strong etiological relationship gambling fallacies are presumed to have with problem gambling. This concern is compounded by the fact that all research reporting this association has been cross-sectional and correlational in nature. Re-examination of this relationship using improved instrumentation in a longitudinal context is required. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher OMICS Publishing Group en_US
dc.subject Gambling fallacy en_US
dc.subject Cognitive error en_US
dc.subject Cognitive bias en_US
dc.subject Distortion en_US
dc.subject Superstition en_US
dc.subject Illusion of control en_US
dc.subject Compulsive gambling en_US
dc.title Gambling fallacies: what are they and how are they best measured? en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.publisher.faculty Health Sciences en_US
dc.description.peer-review Yes en_US
dc.publisher.institution University of Lethbridge en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record