Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34268669›Full record

ArticleJournal of gambling studies2022

Discounting Behavior in Problem Gambling.

Patrick Ring, Catharina C Probst, Levent Neyse, Stephan Wolff, Christian Kaernbach, Thilo van Eimeren, Ulrich Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Patrick RingKiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, Germany. patrick.ring@ifw-kiel.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2214-3139
Catharina C ProbstDepartment of Neurology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Levent NeyseSOEP, DIW, Berlin, Germany.
Stephan WolffDepartment of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Christian KaernbachDepartment of Psychology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Thilo van EimerenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ulrich SchmidtKiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, Germany.

Funding

Leibniz-Gemeinschaft SAW-IfW-2013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problem gamblers discount delayed rewards more rapidly than do non-gambling controls. Understanding this impulsivity is important for developing treatment options. In this article, we seek to make two contributions: First, we ask which of the currently debated economic models of intertemporal choice (exponential versus hyperbolic versus quasi-hyperbolic) provides the best description of gamblers' discounting behavior. Second, we ask how problem gamblers differ from habitual gamblers and non-gambling controls within the most favored parametrization. Our analysis reveals that the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model is strongly favored over the other two parametrizations. Within the quasi-hyperbolic discounting model, problem gamblers have both a significantly stronger present bias and a smaller long-run discount factor, which suggests that gamblers' impulsivity has two distinct sources.

Indexed as

GamblingChoice BehaviorHumansImpulsive BehaviorRewardDiscountingGamblingIncentivesRiskTime preferences

Identifiers

PMID34268669
PMCPMC9119884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.