Decisional styles and risk of problem drinking or gambling J.G. Phillips ⇑ , R.P. Ogeil School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia article info Article history: Received 20 January 2011 Received in revised form 11 May 2011 Accepted 11 May 2011 Available online 2 June 2011 Keywords: Alcohol Decisional style Gambling Vigilance Procrastination Panic abstract Addictive behaviours indicate a deficit in self regulation, with a general predisposition towards addiction implied by comorbid addictive behaviours. To determine whether common or differing decisional styles were associated with alcohol and gambling problems university students (n = 462) completed online the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, and the South Oaks Gambling Screen to assess their alcohol use, and gambling patterns. There was some comorbidity between those at risk for alcohol and gambling-related problems, with both groups frequenting more gaming venues, however, participants at risk for alcohol related problems differed in their decisional styles from those at risk for gambling problems. A greater risk of alcohol related problems was linked to lower vigilance scores and increased tendencies towards procrastination. A higher risk of gambling problems was associated with lower decisional self-esteem and an increased proneness to hypervigilance or panic. Therefore, while a predisposition towards addiction manifests as a preference for addictive behaviour, it is associated with different decisional styles. Problem drinkers are more likely to have an avoidant decisional style, while problem gamblers are not confident in their ability to make decisions, and their decisions feel pressured. Crown Copyright Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction A degree of comorbidity associated with addictive behaviours (Conway, Kane, Ball, Poling, & Rounsaville, 2003) has led to the suggestion that there might be a general predisposition towards addiction in some individuals (Eysenck, 1997; Shaffer et al., 2004). However, others have suggested that addictive behaviours are more complex, resulting from deficits in a variety of cognitive and emotional mechanisms that are associated with decision mak- ing (Redish, Jensen, & Johnson, 2008). The nature of the underlying decision making processes become important as jurisdictions seek to control addictive behaviours. A common predisposition towards addiction might recommend commonalities in any approaches seeking to curb addictive behaviours (Shaffer et al., 2004), whereas individual differences might require a more addiction specific re- sponse. Hence, the present paper considers whether there are com- monalities to the decisional styles associated with addictive behaviours in an ‘‘at risk’’ population. 1.1. Addictive predispositions Neurobiological research has suggested a possible predisposi- tion towards developing addictive behaviours (Ducci & Goldman, 2008; Spanagel & Heilig, 2005). Robinson and Berridge (2003) noted that in some drug addicts there may be neurobiological changes which inhibit the ‘rational brake’ in specific cortical areas including the frontocortical systems which regulate the ability to make rational decisions, assess consequences of actions and pro- vide inhibitory control over impulsiveness (Dawe, Gullo, & Loxton, 2004). Jentsch and Taylor (1999) found that chronic exposure to drugs of abuse including cocaine, cannabis, opiates and PCP can de- press neural function in frontal lobes and that some drug addicts have neuropsychological deficits in these systems similar to clini- cal populations with frontal lobe dysfunction. Hence there is some indication of a predisposition towards addiction that could mani- fest as a greater valence towards substance abuse (Redish, 2004) and addictive behaviours (Shaffer et al., 2004). The comorbidity of addictive behaviours has encouraged attempts to identify a predisposition to an addictive personality. Jacobs (1988) suggested that the addictive personality engages in substance abuse and gambling as a form of escapism and to en- hance self-esteem. Higher levels of impulsivity and emotional lability have also been associated with addictive behaviour (Henderson, Galen, & DeLuca, 1998), and both alcohol dependent participants and problem gamblers have demonstrated a degree of cognitive impulsivity (Lawrence, Luty, Bogdan, Sahakian, & Clark, 2009; Maccallum, Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Nower, 2007). Despite suggestions that there could be a predisposition to- wards an addictive personality, substance abusers (Kerr, 1996) and gamblers (Blaszczynski & Nower, 2002) are heterogeneous 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.012 ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9905 3914; fax: +61 3 9905 3948. E-mail addresses: jim.phillips@monash.edu, Jim.Phillips@med.monash.edu.au (J.G. Phillips). Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 521–526 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid