Convergent Validity of Measures of Cognitive Distortions, Impulsivity, and Time Perspective With Pathological Gambling James MacKillop State University of New York at Binghamton and Brown University Emily J. Anderson, Bryan A. Castelda, Richard E. Mattson, and Peter J. Donovick State University of New York at Binghamton The present study investigated the convergent validity of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire (GBQ; T. A. Steenbergh, A. W. Meyers, R. K. May, & J. P. Whelan, 2002), Gambling Passion Scale (GPS; F. Rousseau, R. J. Vallerand, C. F. Ratelle, G. Mageau, & P. J. Provencher, 2002), Eysenck Impulsivity Questionnaire (EIQ; S. B. G. Eysenck & H. J. Eysenck, 1978), and Stanford Time Perception Inventory (STPI; P. C. Zimbardo & J. N. Boyd, 1999) in reference to pathological gambling. The authors recruited 105 undergraduates representing categories of pathological gamblers, potential pathological gamblers, and nonpathological gamblers and administered the measures under neutral conditions. Both subscales of the GBQ and GPS and the Impulsivity subscale of the EIQ exhibited strong convergent validity, whereas the STPI showed weaker correspondence with symptoms of pathological gambling. Applications and limitations of these findings are discussed. Keywords: pathological gambling, assessment, cognitions, impulsivity, time perspective Valid assessment of pathological gambling remains a develop- ing area of research (Ladouceur & Toneatto, 2003; Raylu & Oei, 2002; Steenbergh, Meyers, May, & Whelan, 2002). For example, as in the case of other addictive disorders (e.g., Sayette, 1999), pathological gamblers exhibit a variety of cognitive distortions, such as skill misperceptions, skewed temporal orientation, super- stitions, and interpretive biases (Caron & Ladouceur, 2003; Langer, 1975; Toneatto, 1999). However, a lack of valid measures has impeded the systematic investigation of these factors. Two promising measures that have undergone preliminary val- idation are the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire (GBQ; Steenbergh et al., 2002) and the Gambling Passion Scale (GPS; Rousseau, Vallerand, Ratelle, Mageau, & Provencher, 2002). The GBQ is a two-factor self-report measure that assesses two core cognitive distortions in pathological gamblers, Luck/Perseverance and Illu- sion of Control. Similarly, the GPS is a two-factor measure of an individual’s self-reported passion for gambling (Rousseau et al., 2002). Based on Vallerand et al.’s (2003) binary conception of passion, the GPS assesses obsessive and harmonious passion for gambling (Rousseau et al., 2002). During initial validation studies, performance on both the GBQ and GPS has been demonstrated to correspond with gambling behavior (Ratelle, Vallerand, Mageau, Rousseau, & Provencher, 2004; Rousseau et al., 2002; Steenbergh et al., 2002). Impulsivity is a personality trait that has been extensively dis- cussed in reference to addictive behavior (Sher, Trull, Bartholow, & Vieth, 1999) but has been understudied in pathological gam- bling using validated measures (Raylu & Oei, 2002). Among the studies using validated measures, a relatively stable finding by those using the Eysenck Impulsivity Questionnaire (EIQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978) has been higher self-reported impulsivity in pathological gamblers relative to controls (Alessi & Petry, 2003; Blaszczynski, Steel, & McConaghy, 1997; Nower, Derevensky, & Gupta, 2004). Another construct that has been hypothesized to be relevant to pathological gambling (Hodgins & Engel, 2002) is time perspec- tive, or an individual’s orientation toward the past, present, and future. Time perspective can be assessed using the Stanford Time Perception Inventory (STPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). In a pre- liminary study, Hodgins and Engel (2002) found that subscales of the STPI discriminated between pathological gamblers and recre- ational gamblers. All of the aforementioned assessment measures may be relevant to understanding the underlying mechanisms of pathological gam- bling; however, they have not been extensively validated in refer- ence to pathological gambling or to each other. As such, the goal of this study was to evaluate the convergent validity of these measures. Convergent validity may be defined as the extent to which measures commonly correspond in terms of group perfor- mance (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). These measures were adminis- tered to undergraduate collegiate gamblers who were selected to represent various degrees of gambling behavior, from recreational to pathological gamblers. Method Participants For both theoretical and statistical reasons, this study examined individ- uals reporting a range of gambling problems. There has been considerable James MacKillop, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Binghamton, and Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University; Emily J. Anderson, Bryan A. Castelda, Richard E. Mattson, and Peter J. Donovick, Department of Psychology, State Univer- sity of New York at Binghamton. We thank Simone Magdich, Kimberly Robeson, and Lori Wagner for their assistance on this project. We acknowledge the contributions of the late Richard Burright. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James MacKillop, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, Box G-BH, Providence, RI 02906. E-mail: james_mackillop@brown.edu Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 20, No. 1, 75–79 0893-164X/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.1.75 75 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.