Faulty Decisional Style is Associated with Problem Behaviours

1
Faulty Decisional Style is Associated with
Problem Behaviours

• J.G. Phillips1, R.P. Ogeil1, L. Mann2
• 1Monash University
• 2University of Melbourne

2
Aim

• To apply a recognised model of decision making to
  problem drinking and problem gambling
• Can the symptoms of faulty decision making be
  found in problem drinkers or problem gamblers?

3
Faulty Decision Making

• Ad campaigns
• Only a little bit over
• Think of what youre gambling with

4
Faulty Decision Making

• Failure to properly weigh the pros and cons
• Why are decisions faulty?

5
Janis Mann (1977)

• Model derived from literature on human response
  to threat and warnings
• Identified 5 patterns of coping
• Inaction (Unconflicted inertia)
• Buck Passing / Knee jerking (Unconflicted change)
  
• Procrastination (Defensive avoidance)
• Panic (Hypervigilance)
• Vigilance (weighing pros and cons)

6
Janis Manns model of decision making

• Decisions are likely to be faulty when pros and
  cons arent considered
• USA foreign policy Herek, Janis Huth (1987)
• Gifted are better decision makers Ball, Mann
  Stamm (1999)
• Depression associated with poor decision making
  Radford, Mann Kalucy (1986)
• Weighing pros and cons Vigilance

7
Janis Mann

• Causes of poor decision making
• Poor priorities
• Defensive avoidance
• Procrastination
• Buck passing
• Inadequate resources
• Hypervigilance (panic)
• Not consider alternatives
• Repeatedly revisit alternatives

8
Interventions

• Decision balance sheets
• Listing the pros and cons

9
Implications

• Problem gamblers and problem drinkers may be
  biassed and focus upon the pros
• How would this apply to reasons for going to a
  gaming venue?
• Will there be indications of shopping around in
  the problem drinkers and problem gamblers?

10
Sample

• 1059 first year undergraduate psychology students
  (2006, 2007, 2008)
• Mean age 20.65, SD 4.91
• Male 33.6 Female 66.4

11
Questionnaires

• Melbourne Decision Making Scale
• Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test
• South Oaks Gambling Screen
• Plus
• I am male/female
• I am _____ years old
• I visit this gaming venue ____ times in a month
• I visit _____ other gaming venues
• I visit this gaming venue
• for entertainment
• to socialise
• to gamble
• to drink alcohol

12
Melbourne Decision Making ScaleMann, Burnett,
Radford Ford (1997)

• Vigilance (a0.80)
• Procrastination (a0.81)
• Buck-passing (a0.87)
• Hypervigilance (a0.74)
• Decisional Self Esteem (a0.72)

13
Vigilance

• I like to consider all of the alternatives
• I try to find out the disadvantages of all
  alternatives
• I consider how best to carry out a decision
• When making decisions I like to collect a lot of
  information
• I try to be clear about my objectives before
  choosing
• I take a lot of care before choosing

14
Procrastination

• I waste a lot of time on trivial matters before
  getting to the final decision
• Even after I have made a decision I delay acting
  upon it
• When I have to make a decision I wait a long time
  before starting to think about it
• I delay making decisions until it is too late
• I put off making decisions

15
Buck-passing

• I prefer to leave decisions to others
• I avoid making decisions
• I do not like to take responsibility for making
  decisions
• If a decision can be made by me or another person
  I let the other person make it
• I do not make decisions unless I really have to
• I prefer that people who are better informed
  decide for me

16
Hypervigilance

• I feel as if I am under tremendous time pressure
  when making decisions
• The possibility that some small thing might go
  wrong causes me to swing abruptly in my
  preference
• Whenever I face a difficult decision I feel
  pessimistic about finding a good solution
• After a decision is made I spend a lot of time
  convincing myself it was correct
• I cannot think straight if I have to make a
  decision in a hurry

17
Decisional Self Esteem

• I feel confident about my ability to make
  decisions
• I feel inferior to most people in making
  decisions
• I think that I am a good decision maker
• I feel so discouraged that I give up trying to
  make decisions
• The decisions I make turn out well
• It is easy for other people to convince me that
  their decision rather than mine is the correct one

18
Problem Drinking

• Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT)
• AUDIT TOTAL SCORE (/40)
• 8-15 Moderate Risk of Harm
• 16-19 High Risk of Harm
• 20 Definite Harm
• DEPENDENCE SUBSCALE (/12)
• 4 suggests dependence, and more intense
  intervention
• CONSUMPTION SUBSCALE (/12)
• 6-7 consumption gt recommended weekly intake,
  drinking may take place in dangerous situations
  e.g. driving, potential harm for at risk groups
  e.g. those on other medication, elderly, young
  people

19
Problem Gambling

• South Oaks Gambling Screen
• Total Score (/20)
• 1-4 at risk
• 5 Probable Problem Gambler

20
Reasons to go to a gaming venue

• Entertainment 44.9
• Socialise 33.9
• Gamble 5.2
• Drink alcohol 5.0

21
Visits per month

• This gaming venue
• Mean 1.82, SD 2.63
• Other gaming venues
• Mean 1.05, SD 2.90

22
Problem Drinkers
23
Problem Gamblers
24
Visiting Gaming Venues
25
Reasons
26
Conclusions Faulty Decision making

• Problem gamblers and problem drinkers have higher
  scores on scales measuring defective decision
  making

27
Conclusions Emphasis on pros

• Problem gamblers go to a venue to gamble and are
  more likely to shop around
• Problem drinkers go to a venue to drink and are
  more likely to shop around

28
Conclusions Problem Drinkers

• Tend not to weigh the pros and cons
• Tend to be procrastinators
• Problem drinkers know why they go to a gaming
  venue
• Visit venues to drink
• More likely to go to other venues

29
Conclusions Problem Gamblers

• Have poorer decisional self esteem
• Exhibit more symptoms of panic
• Problem gamblers know why they go to a gaming
  venue
• Visit venues to gamble
• More likely to go to other venues
• Only gamble what you can afford
• Know your limit!

30
Ashbys law of requisite variety

• For a system to be controlled, the controller
  should have as many options as the system has
  states
• Corollary
• A system with more states than there are control
  options is not controlled
• Harder to control problem individuals if they go
  to more than one venue

31

• Questions?

32
Co-morbidity
33
Predicting Problem Gambling using Stepwise
Regression

• Gender
• Age
• Vigilance
• Procrastination
• Buckpassing
• Hypervigilance 0.128
• Decisional self esteem
• Problem drinking
• Visits 0.164
• Other venues 0.139
• Reason (to gamble) 0.116
• Adjusted
  R20.102

34
Reasons
35
Reasons
36
Visiting Gaming Venues