Content uploaded by Paul Costa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Costa on Sep 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pathological gambling and the five-factor
model of personality I
R. Michael Bagby
a,*
, David D. Vachon
b
, Eric L. Bulmash
c
,
Tony Toneatto
a
, Lena C. Quilty
d
, Paul T. Costa
e
a
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Canada
b
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Department of Criminology, University of Toronto, Canada
c
Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Canada
d
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada
e
National Institute of Aging, Canada
Received 12 September 2006; received in revised form 18 January 2007; accepted 2 February 2007
Available online 18 April 2007
Abstract
The goal of this investigation was to examine the personality differences between non-treatment seeking
pathological gamblers (PGs) and non-pathological gamblers (NPGs) using the domain and facet traits of
the five-factor model of personality (FFM), as measured by the NEO PI-R. Compared to NPGs, PGs
scored significantly higher on the neuroticism domain and significantly lower on the conscientiousness
domain. Significant differences between PGs and NPGs also emerged for three of four FFM facet traits
associated with impulsivity, with PGs scoring higher on impulsiveness and lower on self-discipline and
deliberation facets. Both PGs and NPGs had equally high scores (relative to the norm) on excitement-seek-
ing, the fourth facet associated with impulsivity, suggesting that excitement-seeking characterizes gambling
behavior rather than pathological gambling. The present findings suggest that the overall personality profile
of the PG is one that combines high impulsivity with emotional vulnerability. Importantly, the results also
suggest that excitement-seeking, a personality construct akin to sensation-seeking, may not be a specific
marker of PG but rather a characteristic common to all those who gamble.
2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.011
q
This study was supported by a grant obtained from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
*
Corresponding author. Address: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, College Street Site, 250 College Street,
Suite 647A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1R8. Tel.: +1 416 535 8501x6939; fax: +1 416 260 4125.
E-mail address: michael_bagby@camh.net (R.M. Bagby).
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880
Keywords: Pathological gambling; Five-factor model of personality; Impulsivity
1. Introduction
In the past several years, there has been an increase in gambling accessibility in North America,
and the proliferation of internet gaming sites, video lottery terminals, and legalized gambling ven-
ues has afforded more opportunity to gamble and increased the likelihood for some to develop
pathological gambling (PG) (Petry, 2005). PG is categorized as an impulse-control disorder in
the 4th edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; APA,
1994) and is defined as a pattern of ‘‘maladaptive gambling behavior that disrupts personal, fam-
ily, or vocational pursuits’’ (p. 615). Recent estimates indicate that 70–90% of North Americans
have engaged in some form of gambling activity (Raylu & Oei, 2002), yet epidemiological studies
indicate that only 1–2% of the general population meet criteria for PG (Petry, Stinson, & Grant,
2005), suggesting that the majority of individuals who gamble do not develop this disorder. Indi-
vidual differences in personality may play an important role in explaining risk for the development
of PG.
A variety of dimensional personality models have been utilized to study personality in PG. Steel
and Blaszczynski (1996) employed Eysenck and Eysenck’s three-factor model of personality (Ey-
senck & Eysenck, 1975), which incorporates the personality domains of psychoticism, extraversion,
and neuroticism (PEN). Combining the PEN model with other psychological inventories, they
identified four constructs – psychological distress, sensation-seeking, criminal liveliness, and impul-
siveness – that explained 62% of the variance in gambling behavior. Nower, Derevensky, and Gup-
ta (2004) similarly reported PEN impulsivity and intensity-seeking as highly predictive of PG
behaviour in youth. An ‘‘alternative’’ five-factor model, developed by Zuckerman, Kuhlman,
Thornquist, and Kiers (1991) and composed of five personality factors – neuroticism-anxiety,
activity, sociability, impulsive sensation-seeking, aggression-hostility – has been popular in PG
research because of its focus on impulsivity and sensation-seeking. Investigations using this model
have reported mixed results: Although Breen and Zuckerman (1999) reported that impulsive sen-
sation-seeking predicted gamblers who ‘chased’ their losses, Langewisch and Frisch (1998) found
no evidence that this model could predict severity of PG symptomatology. Cloninger, Svrakic, and
Przybeck’s (1993) biopsychosocial seven-factor model, which differentiates between character (i.e.,
cooperativeness, self-directedness, and self-transcendence) and temperament (i.e., harm avoidance,
novelty-seeking, reward dependence, and persistence) dimensions, has also been utilized. Gerdner
and Svensson (2003), for example, employed this model and found no significant relationship be-
tween gambling behaviors and impulsivity, a lower-order facet trait located in the novelty-seeking
temperament. More recently, Slutske, Caspi, Moffitt, and Poulton (2005) used a modified version
of the multidimensional personality questionnaire (MPQ; Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002)ina
prospective investigation with a birth cohort of young adults to examine the relationship between
personality and PG, and found that PG at 21 years of age was associated with higher levels of neg-
ative emotionality and lower levels of constraint measured at 18 years of age. Although each of
these models offers a valuable and unique contribution to the framing of personality in relation
to pathological gambling, inconsistencies among outcomes that use differently defined traits makes
clear the need for a single, overarching model.
874 R.M. Bagby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880
In the current investigation we examine differences in five-factor model (FFM) personality
traits between non-treatment seeking PGs and a sample of individuals who report engaging
in gambling activities but do not meet criteria for PG, that is, non-pathological gamblers
(NPGs). The gambling literature uses various terms (e.g., pathological, problem, disordered,
at-risk, and compulsive gambling) and definitional criteria to operationalize problematic gam-
bling behavior. In this investigation, we used the DSM-IV criteria as five or more of the 10 cri-
teria. As PG is conceptualized as an impulse-control disorder, the use of the FFM, as measured
by the revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), seems partic-
ularly relevant for the examination of personality traits associated with PG. Four of the 30 facet
traits measured by the NEO PI-R – deliberation, excitement-seeking, impulsiveness, self-disci-
pline – account for two-thirds of the variance in the nine most commonly used measures of
impulsivity (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001), making the NEO PI-R an ideal platform to assess
the full range of impulsivity traits in PG. Moreover, each of the FFM domain traits demon-
strates a unique and substantial heritability coefficient (Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann,
& Livesley, 1998) and the FFM personality structure has been extracted in clinical samples
(Bagby et al., 1999) and across a variety of cultures, languages, and countries (McCrae & Costa,
1995).
We hypothesized that the PGs would have higher scores on the impulsivity and excitement-
seeking facet scales and lower scores on the self-discipline and deliberation facet scales compared
to the NPGs. As neuroticism is associated with and considered a vulnerability factor for psycho-
pathology in general (Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Shutte, 2005), we also hypothesized that PGs
would have higher scores on the neuroticism domain scale compared to NPGs.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants (N= 292) from two separate investigations conducted at the Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health were solicited via advertisement in local newspapers for a study on gambling
behavior with the general requirement that they had gambled some time in their lives, including
the past year.
1
PG was diagnosed according to the DSM-IV criteria and interviews were con-
ducted by research assistants trained in structured diagnostic assessments.
3. Measures
Personality traits were assessed using the five domain and 30 facet personality traits of the five-
factor model of personality (FFM), as measured by the revised NEO personality inventory (NEO
PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992).
1
Other data from some of the participants (n= 204) in the current report have been reported in an earlier
investigation (Bagby, Vachon, Bulmash, & Quilty, in press). A 2 (investigation) ·2 (PG/NPG) comparison revealed no
significant differences for any of the domain or facet traits.
R.M. Bagby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880 875
3.1. Procedure and participant group assignment
Participants completed the NEO PI-R and other tests as part of other, larger research proto-
cols. Those included in the PG group (n= 106; 56 men; 50 women) had to have met the DSM-
IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling of five or more symptoms in the last 12 months
(current) or in the period prior to the past 12 months (lifetime).
2
The NPG group (n= 177; 96
women; 81 men) was composed of participants who did not meet DSM-IV criteria for either cur-
rent or lifetime PG.
4. Results
Means and standard deviations for the NEO PI-R domain and facet trait scores for the PGs
and NPGs groups, as well as the results from the statistical tests for between-group differences,
are displayed in Table 1. There was no significant difference in the distribution of men and women
across the PG and NPG groups; PGs were significantly older than the NPGs, mean age = 43.11
(SD = 12.79) vs. 38.75 (SD = 12.88), respectively, t(291) = 2.83, p< 0.01. Between-group differ-
ences were assessed using MANCOVA, with age serving as the covariate. Significant differences
were found for three of four impulsivity traits, with PGs scoring higher on impulsiveness and low-
er on deliberation and self-discipline compared to the NPGs; no significant differences emerged
for the excitement-seeking facet. Compared to NPGs, PGs also scored significantly higher on
the neuroticism domain and significantly lower on the conscientiousness domain, with moderate
effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d= 0.50) associated with both of these differences. For the facets within
neuroticism excluding impulsivity, PGs scored higher on the facet traits of depression, self-con-
sciousness, and vulnerability. For the facets within the conscientiousness domain excluding self-
discipline and deliberation, PGs scored higher on the competence and dutifulness facet traits.
The facet trait Trust, which is located in the Agreeableness domain, was also significant, although
the overall effect for this domain was not significant.
5. Discussion
Three of four impulsivity-related facet traits – impulsiveness, self-discipline, and deliberation –
distinguished PGs from non-pathological gamblers. The PGs and NPGs were indistinguishable on
the facet trait of excitement-seeking, however, and both groups demonstrated elevated scores rel-
ative to the normative sample on this facet trait (about 0.5 SD higher). High scorers on excite-
ment-seeking typically seek thrill and are drawn to colorful, noisy environments. Although this
description seems intuitively linked with gambling problems, the current findings suggest that
excitement-seeking is associated with gambling behavior in general, rather than with pathological
gambling specifically. This outcome and interpretation is generally consistent with a past report
2
There were no significant differences among those with lifetime but no current PG (n= 67), current but no lifetime
PG (n= 10), and current and lifetime PG (n= 97) for any of the personality domain and facet traits.
876 R.M. Bagby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880
indicating that sensation seeking, a variable akin to excitement-seeking, is associated with gam-
bling but not severity of gambling problems (Langewisch & Frisch, 1998).
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, test of significance, and effect size differences for the NEO PI-R scores of pathological and
non-pathological gamblers
Domains and facets PGs (n= 106) NPGs (n= 177) F(1,272) d
MSD MSD
Neuroticism 60.71 10.89 54.87 11.61 16.77
*
0.54
N1 Anxiety 55.57 10.37 52.80 10.23 4.95 0.27
N2 Angry hostility 56.97 10.72 54.28 11.16 4.07 0.25
N3 Depression 61.21 11.67 55.10 12.10 14.95
*
0.52
N4 Self-consciousness 55.92 10.73 51.81 10.16 10.33
*
0.38
N5 Impulsiveness 58.90 10.05 54.15 10.19 15.11
*
0.47
N6 Vulnerability 59.37 12.62 53.36 12.72 14.09
*
0.48
Extraversion 49.69 11.79 52.02 10.23 1.52 0.20
E1 Warmth 45.58 12.92 48.43 10.88 2.52 0.22
E2 Gregariousness 49.76 11.45 51.87 10.93 1.12 0.18
E3 Assertiveness 50.45 10.34 50.67 10.00 0.00 0.02
E4 Activity 47.46 9.80 49.33 10.29 1.33 0.19
E5 Excitement-seeking 56.37 9.37 56.47 10.59 0.26 0.01
E6 Positive emotions 47.63 12.12 50.44 10.32 3.34 0.23
Openness 50.02 11.11 51.08 11.49 0.40 0.10
O1 Fantasy 53.83 10.18 53.01 9.64 0.32 0.08
O2 Aesthetics 48.73 10.75 49.31 11.30 0.13 0.05
O3 Feelings 51.34 10.87 51.27 10.45 0.03 0.1
O4 Actions 45.23 11.39 46.48 12.28 0.29 0.11
O5 Ideas 50.22 10.07 51.92 11.11 1.38 0.17
O6 Values 49.87 10.34 51.54 10.52 1.46 0.16
Agreeableness 42.17 12.51 45.43 12.76 4.95 0.26
A1 Trust 41.13 12.62 45.19 11.33 9.05
*
0.32
A2 Straightforwardness 43.06 11.83 45.91 11.69 3.93 0.24
A3 Altruism 45.18 13.13 48.83 12.40 4.62 0.28
A4 Compliance 41.47 11.68 43.89 12.15 3.77 0.21
A5 Modesty 47.91 12.00 48.03 11.70 0.09 0.01
A6 Tender-mindedness 52.63 11.39 51.33 12.68 0.48 0.11
Conscientiousness 38.57 11.15 45.01 11.92 20.89
*
0.58
C1 Competence 40.85 11.94 46.54 11.69 15.74
*
0.48
C2 Order 45.17 11.28 48.28 10.90 5.72 0.28
C3 Dutifulness 40.04 11.54 45.69 11.54 19.47
*
0.49
C4 Achievement striving 41.80 11.56 45.79 12.16 5.94 0.35
C5 Self-discipline 39.04 11.06 44.14 12.42 12.79
*
0.46
C6 Deliberation 42.44 12.03 47.63 11.65 12.72
*
0.43
*
Note: After Bonferroni correction: p< 0.01 for domains (0.05/5 domains), p< 0.008 for all facets (0.05/6 facets per
domain). All means and standard deviations are expressed as T-scores. PGs = pathological gamblers, NPG = non-
pathological gamblers.
R.M. Bagby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880 877
Impulsivity and impulse disorders may be partially explained by genetic abnormalities in risk-
reward pathways. Comings, Rosenthal, Lesieur, and Rugle (1996) demonstrated that PG is asso-
ciated with a reduction in dopamine D
2
receptor density, which has been implicated in other im-
pulse-related disorders (Blum et al., 1996). Twin studies have indicated that approximately 50% of
the variance for risk of developing PG can be accounted for by genetic factors (Slutske et al.,
2001). Taken together, it is possible that the inability to exercise control over gambling may be
linked to neurobiological correlates that lead to an increased focus on reward, a lesser response
to aversive consequences, and impairments in altering behavior based on risk-reward learning.
In the current investigation PGs also scored significantly higher on the neuroticism domain and
three of its facet traits excluding the impulsiveness facet. Neuroticism represents a predisposition
to develop psychopathology and to experience a wide range of negative affects (Costa & McCrae,
1992). Similarly, Roy, Custer, and Lorenz (1989) reported a strong association with neuroticism,
as measured by the Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), and Slut-
ske et al. (2005) also reported high levels of negative emotionality, as measured by a modified ver-
sion of the multidimensional personality questionnaire (MPQ; Patrick et al., 2002), in those with
disordered gambling behaviour compared to a sample of non-gambling controls.
The conscientiousness domain is the trait with the strongest conceptual links with impulse-con-
trol as it captures the capacity to resist impulses, manage desires, and apply guiding principles to
actively control behavior (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, it was not surprising that PGs scored
lower than the NPGs on four of six facet traits of this domain. This result is also consistent with
previous research in which PGs score significantly higher than normal controls on the psychoti-
cism dimension of the EPQ (Roy et al., 1989), a personality factor inversely correlated with the
conscientiousness personality domain (Costa & Widiger, 2001). Slutske et al. (2005) also reported
problem gambling to be significantly and negatively associated with the constraint personality
dimension of the MPQ.
In sum, results from the current study suggest the overall personality profile of the patholog-
ical gambler is one that combines high impulsivity with emotional vulnerability complemented
by a high level of excitement-seeking common to PGs and NPGs. Although speculative, one
possible interpretation for the development of pathological gambling is that it results from mal-
adaptive efforts to regulate affect or dampen the effects of high neuroticism. After gambling
behavior has been behaviorally conditioned and losses begin to accrue, high impulsivity may
render the PG unable to modify, control, or stop their gambling behavior. Alternatively, the
personality traits of the pathological gambler may be related solely to dysfunctional risk-reward
and biochemical pathways that cause mood disturbance, elevated impulsivity, and an inability
to regulate affect and/or behavior. Finally, PGs might not represent one homogenous popula-
tion, but rather qualitatively distinct subtypes that are influenced by different emotional and
biological factors but exhibit similar phenomenological features (Blaszczynski & Nower,
2002). Future investigations are needed to begin to examine and test these competing
explanations.
We believe this study has several methodological strengths, including the use of non-patholog-
ical gamblers (instead of non-gambling controls) as a comparison group and non-treatment seek-
ing PGs (instead of treatment seeking PGs). NPGs resemble pathological gamblers in their
attraction to gambling and engagement in gambling behavior, which decreases the probability
of conflating gambling behavior with personality and addresses directly potential differences in
878 R.M. Bagby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880
those who gamble with no gambling pathology from those who gamble with maladaptive and
debilitative patterns of gambling behavior. Treatment seeking PGs comprise less than 2% of
the PGs found in community samples and are therefore not representative of the population of
pathological gamblers (Wallisch, 1996); the use of non-treatment seeking PGs in this study en-
hances the generalization of our results.
There were also limitations associated with the current investigation. Due to the cross-sectional
nature of this study, the temporal relationships between personality and PG could not be assessed.
Whereas the use of non-treatment seeking PGs increases the overall generalizability of the results,
the personality traits that characterize the PGs in this study may not be applicable to treatment
seeking PGs. Several potential confounding factors related to social desirability, demographic dif-
ferences (e.g., socio-economic status, education, ethnicity), memory errors, and context effects
were not controlled for. Finally, we did not calculate inter-rater reliability estimates across the
interviewers who conferred the diagnosis of PG, as different raters were used in the two studies,
the participants from which were combined to maximize statistical power. We believe it unlikely
that systematic interviewer error influenced diagnosis, however, as the proportion of PGs to
NPGs across the two study samples did not differ and the interviewers were well trained and
bi-weekly consultation sessions were held in which diagnostic issues were discussed and cases
reviewed.
References
American Psychiatric Association (APA) (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., Livesley, W. J., Kennedy, S. H., Levitan, R. D., et al. (1999). Replicating
the five factor model of personality in a psychiatric sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(6), 1135–1139.
Bagby, R. M., Vachon, D. D., Bulmash, E., & Quilty, L. C. (in press). Pathological gambling and personality disorders:
a review and re-examination of prevalence rates. Journal of Personality Disorders.
Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97,
487–499.
Blum, K., Dherid, P. J., Wood, R. C., Braverman, E. R., Chen, T. J., Cull, J. G., et al. (1996). The D2 dopamine
receptor gene as a determinant of reward deficiency syndrome. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 89, 396–400.
Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). Chasing in gambling behaviour: personality and cognitive determinants.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1097–1111.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.
Comings, D. E., Rosenthal, R. J., Lesieur, H. R., & Rugle, L. (1996). A study of the dopamine D2 receptor gene in
pathological gambling. Pharmacogenetics, 6, 223–234.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory
(NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the EPQ (Eysenck personality questionnaire). San Diego, CA:
Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Gerdner, R., & Svensson, K. (2003). Predictors of gambling problems among male adolescents. International Journal of
Social Welfare, 12, 182–192.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, J. W. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a
cross-cultural twin sample: support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1556–1565.
R.M. Bagby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880 879
Langewisch, M. W. J., & Frisch, G. R. (1998). Gambling behaviour and pathology in relation to impulsivity, sensation
seeking, and risky behaviour in male college students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 245–262.
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Shutte, N. S. (2005). The relationship between the five-factor model of
personality and symptoms of clinical disorders: a meta-analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 27, 101–114.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (1995). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52,
509–516.
Nower, L., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2004). The relationship of impulsivity, sensation seeking, coping, and
substance use in youth gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 18, 49–55.
Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the multidimensional
personality questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14, 150–163.
Petry, N. M. (2005). Pathological gambling: etiology, comorbidity, and treatment. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Petry, N. M., Stinson, F. S., & Grant, B. F. (2005). Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other
psychiatric disorders: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Journal of
Clinical Psychiatry, 66, 564–574.
Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). Pathological gambling: a comprehensive review. Clinical Psychological Review, 22,
1009–1061.
Roy, A., Custer, R., & Lorenz, V. (1989). Personality factors in pathological gambling. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,
80, 37–39.
Slutske, W. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Poulton, R. (2005). Personality and problem gambling: a prospective study
of a birth cohort of young adults. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 769–775.
Slutske, W. S., True, W. R., Goldberg, J., Eisen, S., Xian, H., Lyons, M. J., et al. (2001). A twin study of the
association between pathological gambling and antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
110, 297–308.
Steel, Z., & Blaszczynski, A. (1996). The factorial structure of pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12,
3–20.
Wallisch, L. S. (1996). Gambling in Texas: 1995 surveys of adult and adolescent gambling behavior. Austin, TX: Texas
Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality
to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 669–689.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale
factors of personality without culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 929–941.
880 R.M. Bagby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 873–880
