Browsing by Subject "uhkapelaaminen"

Aim of the study: Risk-sensitive foraging theory (RSFT) is an evolutionary-biological theory of how animals should choose in uncertain foraging situations for the choice to be beneficial for survival and reproduction. When having low energy budget, a more risky choice would be beneficial, and when having high energy budget, one should avoid a risky decision. There is no one, exhaustive model for risk-sensitive behavior, RSFT being just one of them. It has earlier been established that dependence disorders have common factors causing harm, non-specific to drug, and alcohol use is associated with gambling, both through shared genetic and environmental factors, and directly, and this association might be mediated by risk taking. Also, differences in risk taking behavior are rather individual based than species related. It has even been found that heroin-dependent individuals favor more risky choices over certain ones when in need of the drug. The aim of this study was to find out whether RSFT is suitable for describing the risk taking related to gambling. Methods: The sample was from Gambling Impact and Behavior Study survey data, which was collected by random-digit dial method in USA in 1997–1999. Economical aspect of energy budget was operationalized as household income, mental aspect of energy budget as gambling problem (measured by NODS, scale 0–10), and the decision to risk as money spent on gambling. Respondents with missing values in any of the variables were excluded resulting in a final sample size of 893 individuals. It was examined if household income and gambling problem were associated with money spent on gambling. A general linear model was fitted to the sample. Results: A general liner model seemed to fit to the sample. The income variable didn’t improve the model, but gambling problem did. Moreover, income and gambling problem had a significant interaction. Only with a few exceptions, people played more money in higher income classes and with a more severe gambling problem. People played a little money in every income class even with no gambling problem at all. On the other hand, when the gambling problem was severe, it affected the amount spent on gambling more in high income classes than in lower ones. People in the lowest income classes spent nearly the same amount with severe than with no gambling problem. Conclusions: The results give mixed implications of whether RSFT describes the risk taking related to gambling, which might be due to the unprecise definition of variables and methods of analysis, and other methodological aspects specific to gambling. The twin threshold model holds more promise than the traditional model of RSFT: when both economical and mental energy budgets are low, risk is avoided in gambling (survival threshold), but when economical energy budget is high risk is favored, which however, comes short as the definition of reproductive threshold in the context of gambling. A further examination is advised before making firm conclusions. Most importantly, gambling and gambling problems might be better understood from other perspectives.