Kumar Oynama Bozukluğunun Davranışsal İnhibisyon-Aktivasyon Sistemleri ve Sosyodemografik Etkenler ile İlişkisi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 36 - 45, 21.03.2022

Abdullah Burak Uygur

https://doi.org/10.17517/ksutfd.862992

Cited By: 1

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada amacımız kumar oynama bozukluğunun, davranışsal inhibisyon-aktivasyon sistemleri ve sosyodemografik etkenler ile ilişkisini ortaya koymak ve Gray’in biyopsikolojik kişilik modelini kumar oynama bozukluğu gösterenlerde, ülkemizde ilk kez test ederek, kültürümüze özgü farklılıkları ortaya koymaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: İnternet ortamında gerçekleştirilen çalışmada, araştırmaya katılmayı kabul eden katılımcılardan sosyodemografik veri formu, South Oaks Kumar Tarama Testi (SOKTT) ve Davranışsal İnhibisyon Sistemi/Davranışsal Aktivasyon Sistemi (DİS/DAS Ölçeği) ölçeklerini doldurmaları istenmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan 415 katılımcının 401’i (%96.6) çalışma hakkındaki bilgilendirmeyi okuyup, çalışmaya katılmayı kabul ederken 14’ü (%3.4) çalışmaya katılmayı reddetmiştir. Çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden 401 katılımcının 24’ü (%5.98) uygun olmayan veri nedeniyle çalışma dışı bırakılmış ve 377 katılımcı ile çalışma gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan 377 katılımcı arasında şiddetli kumar oynama bozukluğu (kumar bağımlılığı) (SOKTT puanı: 8 ve üzeri) oranı %2.9 ve hafif kumar oynama bozukluğu (problemli kumar oynama) (SOKTT puanı: 3-7) oranıysa %8.2 olarak bulunmuştur. Hafif ve şiddetli kumar oynama bozukluğu birlikte değerlendirildiğinde katılımcıların %11.1’inde kumar oynama bozukluğu belirlenmiştir. Sosyodemografik etkenlerden erkek olmak, sigara-alkol kullanmak ve intihar düşüncesinin varlığı kumar oynama bozukluğu için risk etkenleri olarak saptanmıştır. Kumar oynama bozukluğu gösteren katılımcıların ‘’davranışsal inhibisyon’’ alt ölçeği ortalamaları, kumar oynama bozukluğu göstermeyen katılımcılardan 1.001 puan, daha düşük bulunmuştur (p = 0.048).
Sonuç: Kumar oynama bozukluğunun, yakın bir gelecekte ülkemiz açısından ciddi bir soruna dönüşme potansiyeli taşıdığı görülmektedir. Bulgularımız, kumar oynama bozukluğu gösteren bireylerin tedavi ve takip süreçlerinde, özellikle davranışsal inhibisyona yönelik kognitif süreçlere dikkat edilmesi gerektiğini ve davranışsal inhibisyon odaklı başa çıkma yaklaşımının, kumar oynama bozukluğuna karşı koruyucu olabileceğini düşündürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kumar oynama bozukluğu, bağımlılık, davranışsal inhibisyon, davranışsal aktivasyon, Gray'in Pekiştirmeye Duyarlılık Teorisi, sosyodemografik etkenler

Destekleyen Kurum

Yok.

Proje Numarası

Yok.

Teşekkür

Çalışmada kullanılan klinik ölçeklerin, internet ortamına aktarılmasındaki teknik yardımları için, Bio. Ezgi İdil’e teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

The Relationship of Gambling Disorder With Behavioral İnhibition-Activation Systems and Sociodemographic Factors

Öz

Objective: Our aim in this study is to reveal the relationship between gambling disorder with behavioral inhibition-activation systems and sociodemographic factors and to bring to light the differences specific to our culture by testing Gray's biopsychological personality model for the first time in our country on those with gambling disorders.
Material and Methods: In the study conducted on the internet, the participants who accepted to participate in the study were asked to fill in the sociodemographic data form, the South Oaks Gambling Screening Test (SOGS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS Scale). Of the 415 participants who participated in the study, 401 (96.6%) read the information about the study and agreed to participate in the study, while 14 (3.4%) refused to participate in the study. 24 (5.98%) of 401 participants who accepted to participate in the study were excluded due to inappropriate data and the study was conducted with 377 participants.
Results: Among the 377 participants who participated in the study, the rate of severe gambling disorder (gambling addiction) (SOGST score: 8 and above) was 2.9% and the rate of mild gambling disorder (problem gambling) (SOGST score: 3-7) was 8.2%. When mild and severe gambling disorder were evaluated together, 11.1% of the participants were having a gambling disorder. Among sociodemographic factors; being a male, smoking, alcohol use, and the presence of suicidal ideation were determined as risk factors for gambling disorder. The "behavioral inhibition" subscale mean of the participants with gambling disorder was found to be 1.001 points lower than the participants who did not show gambling disorder (p = 0.048).
Conclusion: It is seen that gambling disorder has the potential to turn into a serious problem for our country in the near future. Our findings suggest that attention should be paid to cognitive processes, especially for behavioral inhibition, in the treatment and follow-up processes of individuals with gambling disorders and behavioral inhibition focused coping approach may be protective against gambling disorder.

Anahtar Kelimeler

gambling disorder, addiction, behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, Sociodemographic factors

Proje Numarası

Yok.

Kaynakça

• Referans 1. Blinn-Pike L, Worthy SL, Jonkman JN. Adolescent gambling: A review of an emerging field of research. The Journal of Adolescent Health. 2010 Sep;47(3):223-236.
• Referans 2. Lorains FK, Cowlishaw S, Thomas SA. Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addiction. 2011 Mar;106(3):490-498.
• Referans 3. Lesieur HR, Custer RL. Pathological gambling: roots, phases, and treatment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1984 Jul;474(1):146-156.
• Referans 4. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
• Referans 5. Çakmak S, Tamam L. Kumar Oynama Bozukluğu: Genel Bir Bakış. Journal of Dependence 2018;19(3):78-97.
• Referans 6. Martins SS, Storr CL, Lee GP, Lalongo NS. Environmental influences associated with gambling in young adulthood. Journal of urban health: bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2013 Feb;90(1):130-140.
• Referans 7. Okuda M, Liu W, Cisewski JA, Segura L, Storr CL, Martins SS, et al. Gambling Disorder and Minority Populations: Prevalence and Risk Factors. Current Addiction Reports. 2016 Sep;3(3):280-292.
• Referans 8. Blanco C, Myers J, Kendler KS. Gambling, disordered gambling and their association with major depression and substance use: a web-based cohort and twin-sibling study. Psychological medicine. 2012 Mar;42(3):497-508.
• Referans 9. Moghaddam JF, Yoon G, Dickerson DL, Kim SW, Westermeyer J. Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in five groups with different severities of gambling: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Am J Addict. 2015 Jun;24(4):292-298.
• Referans 10. Petry NM, Kiluk BD. Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. The Journal of nervous and mental disease. 2002 Jul;190(7):462-469.
• Referans 11. Gray JA. The neuropsychology of temperament. In Strelau J, Angleitner A, eds. Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement. Perspectives on individual differences. New York: Plenum Press; 1991. p.105-128.
• Referans 12. Corr PJ, Perkins AM. The role of theory in the psychophysiology of personality: from Ivan Pavlov to Jeffrey Gray. Int J Psychophysiol. 2006 Dec;62(3):367-76.
• Referans 13. Odlaug BL, Chamberlein SA. Neurocognitive comparison of cognitive flexibility and response inhibition in gamblers with varying degrees of clinical Severity. Psychol Med. 2011 Oct;41(10):2111-19.
• Referans 14. O’Connor R, Stewart, S, Watt M. Distinguishing BAS risk for university students’ drinking, smoking, and gambling behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences. 2009 Mar;46(4):514-519.
• Referans 15. Kim DY, Lee JH. Effects of the BAS and BIS on decision-making in a gambling task. Personality and Individual Differences. 2011;50:1131-1135.
• Referans 16. Jiménez-Murcia S, Granero R, Tárrega S, Angulo A, Fernández-Aranda F, Arcelus J, et al. Mediational role of age of onset in gambling disorder, a path modeling analysis. J. Gambl. Stud. 2016 Mar;32(1):327-340.
• Referans 17. Wardell JD, Quilty LC, Hendershot CS, Bagby RM. Motivational pathways from reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity to gambling frequency ad gambling-related problems. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2015 Dec;29(4):1022-1030.
• Referans 18. Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67:319-333.
• Referans 19. Van Holst RJ, Van Holstein M, Van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE. Response inhibition during cue reactivity in problem gamblers: an fMRI study. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e30909. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030909.
• Referans 20. Boog M, Höppener P, vd. Wetering BJM, Goudriaan AE, Boog MC, Franken IHA, et al. Cognitive Inflexibility in Gamblers is Primarily Present in Reward-Related Decision Making. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:569. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00569
• Referans 21. Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am. J. Psychiatry. 1987;144:1184-1188.
• Referans 22. Duvarcı İ, Varan A. South Oaks Kumar Tarama Testi Türkçe formu güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2001;12(1):34-45.
• Referans 23. Şişman S. Davranışsal İnhibisyon Sistemi/Davranışsal Aktivasyon Sistemi Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Psikoloji Çalışmaları Dergisi. 2012;32(2):1-22.
• Referans 24. Corp I. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp2013.
• Referans 25. MacLaren V, Ellery M, Knoll T. Personality, gambling motives and cognitive distortions in electronic gambling machine players. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015 Jan;73:24-28.
• Referans 26. Jonker FA, Jonker C, Scheltens P, Scherder EJ. The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in cognition and behavior. Rev. Neurosci. 2015;26:1-11. DOI: 10.1515/revneuro-2014-0043.
• Referans 27. Güz G, Güz HO. Patolojik kumar bağımlılığında davranışsal inhibisyon. Current Addiction Research. 2017;1(2):65-71.
• Referans 28. Balodis IM, Potenza MN. Anticipatory reward processing in addicted populations: A focus on the monetary incentive delay task. Biological Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;77(5):434-444.
• Referans 29. Gaher RM, Hahn AM, Shishido H, Simons JS, Gaster S. Associations between sensitivity to punishment, sensitivity to reward, and gambling. Addictive Behaviors. 2015 Mar;42:180-184.
• Referans 30. Madden GJ, Petry NM, Johnson PS. Pathological gamblers discount probabilistic rewards less steeply than matched controls. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009 Oct;17(5):283-90.
• Referans 31. Gullo MJ, Potenza MN. Impulsivity: mechanisms, moderators and implications for addictive behaviors. Addictive Behaviors. 2014 Nov;39(11):1543-1546.
• Referans 32. Moeller FG, Barratt ES, Dougherty DM, Schmitz JM, Swann AC. Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am J Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;158(11):1783-1793
• Referans 33. Potenza MN. The neural bases of cognitive processes in gambling disorder. Cogn Sci. 2014 Aug;18(8): 429-38.
• Referans 34. Yang Y, Zhong X. Positive association between trait impulsivity and high gambling-related cognitive biases among college students. Psychiatry Res. 2016 Sep;243:71-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.110.
• Referans 35. Potenza MN, Balodis IM, Derevensky J, Grant JE, Petry NM, Verdejo-Garcia A, et al. Gambling disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 Jul;5(1):51. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-019-0099-7.
• Referans 36. Petry NM. Pathological Gambling: Etiology, Comorbidity, and Treatment. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2005.
• Referans 37. Maccallum F, Blaszczynski A. Pathological gambling and suicidality: an analysis of severity and lethality. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2003 Spring;33(1):88-98.
• Referans 38. Pallanti S, Rossi NB, Hollander E. Impulse Control Disorders Clinical Handbook. (Dürtü Kontrol Bozuklukları Klinik El Kitabı) In Hollander E, Stein DJ eds. İstanbul: Sigma Publishing; 2007. p.251-89.
• Referans 39. Alavi SS, Ferdosi M, Jannatifard F, Eslami M, Alaghemandan H, Setare M, et al. Behavioral addiction versus substance addiction: Correspondence of psychiatric and psychological views. International Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2012 Apr;3(4):290-294.
• Referans 40. Atkinson J. Commonalities in the association of behavioral activation and behavioral inhibition with problem gambling and alcohol use in young adult college students. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2019 Mar;35(1):125-141.
• Referans 41. Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, LaBrie RA, Kidman RC, Donato AN, Stanton MV, et al. Toward a syndrome model of addiction: Multiple expressions, common etiology. Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2004 Nov-Dec;12(6): 367-374.
• Referans 42. Ariyabuddhiphongs V. Lottery gambling: A review. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2011 Mar;27(1):15-33.
• Referans 43. Granero R, Penelo E, Stinchfield R, Fernandez-Aranda F, Savvidou LL, Fröberg F, et al. Is pathological gambling moderated by age? J Gambl Stud. 2014 Jun;30(2):475-92.
• Referans 44. Johnson TE, Dixon MR. Altering response chains in pathological gamblers using a response‐cost procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2009 Fall;42(3):735-740.
• Referans 45. Clarke D. Older adults' gambling motivation and problem gambling: A Comparative Study. J Gamb Stud. 2008 Jun;24(2):175-192.
• Referans 46. Çakıcı M, Çakıcı E, Karaaziz M, Babayiğit A. A review of problem and pathological gambling in North Cyprus. Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry & Psychology. 2019;1(2):123-128.