Cited by 103Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The reasoning skills and thinking dispositions of problem gamblers: a dual‐process taxonomy

Toplak, Maggie E., Liu, Eleanor, Macpherson, Robyn, Toneatto, Tony, Stanovich, Keith E.·2007·Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Abstract

We present a taxonomy that categorizes the types of cognitive failure that might result in persistent gambling. The taxonomy subsumes most previous theories of gambling behavior, and it defines three categories of cognitive difficulties that might lead to gambling problems: The autonomous set of systems (TASS) override failure, missing TASS output, and mindware problems. TASS refers to the autonomous set of systems in the brain (which are executed rapidly and without volition, are not under conscious control, and are not dependent on analytic system output). Mindware consists of rules, procedures, and strategies available for explicit retrieval. Seven of the eight tasks administered to pathological gamblers, gamblers with subclinical symptoms, and control participants were associated with problem gambling, and five of the eight were significant predictors in analyses that statistically controlled for age and cognitive competence. In a commonality analysis, an indicator from each of the three categories of cognitive difficulties explained significant unique variance in problem gambling, indicating that each of the categories had some degree of predictive specificity. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bdm.544

Cites

148 of 148 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toplak, M. E., Liu, E., Macpherson, R., Toneatto, T., & Stanovich, K. E.
Affiliations
  • York University (CA)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Toplak, Maggie E.
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09-22
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
103-124
ISSN
  • 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0771
OpenAlex
W1977697135
Cited by
103
References
146
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
problem gambling, gambling addiction, cognitive failure, dual-process theory, autonomous systems, mindware, cognitive control, reasoning skills, thinking dispositions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review