Cognitive distortions as a component and treatment focus of pathological gambling: a review
Abstract
The literature on the role of cognitive distortions in the understanding and treatment of pathological gambling (PG) is reviewed, with sections focusing on (a) conceptual underpinnings of cognitive distortions, (b) cognitive distortions related to PG, (c) PG therapies that target cognitive distortions, (d) methodological factors and outcome variations, and (e) conclusions and prescriptive recommendations. The conceptual background for distortions related to PG lies in the program of heuristics and biases (Kahneman & Tversky, 1974) as well as other errors identified in basic psychology. The literature has focused on distortions arising from the representativeness heuristic (gambler's fallacy, overconfidence, and trends in number picking), the availability heuristic (illusory correlation, other individuals' wins, and inherent memory bias), and other sources (the illusion of control and double switching). Some therapies have incorporated cognitive restructuring within broader cognitive-behavioral therapies, with success. Other therapies have focused more narrowly on correcting distorted beliefs, more often with limited success. It is concluded that the literature establishes the role of cognitive distortions in PG and suggests therapies with particularly good promise, but is in need of further enrichment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Typical individuals exhibit an increase in gambling motivation in response to near-misses and overestimate the frequency of one of two equally probable outcomes after a run of the alternate outcome; these effects are increased in those with problematic gambling behaviour.
“While typical individuals exhibit an increase in gambling motivation in response to near-misses, and overestimate the frequency of one of two equally probable outcomes after a run of the alternate outcome, these effects are increased in those with problematic gambling behaviour (Fortune and Goodie, 2012; Michalczuk et al., 2011).”
From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Fortune and Goodie, 2012
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 94 · Cited by 246
- Authors
- Fortune, E. E., & Goodie, A. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- ORCID
- Fortune, Erica E.
- Venue
- Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 298-310
- ISSN
- 0893-164X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1501
- OpenAlex
- W2028099964
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 94
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 11.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Institute for Research on Gambling Disorders
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- cognitive distortions, gambling addiction, cognitive restructuring, cognitive behavioral therapy, heuristics and biases, representativeness heuristic, availability heuristic, gambler's fallacy, overconfidence, illusion of control, illusory correlation, treatment outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Cognition Disorders, Decision Making, Female, Gambling, Humans, Internal-External Control, Judgment, Male, Psychological Theory, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome
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