Conceptual and methodological issues in pathways model research

ABSTRACT

The Pathways Model proposes three principal pathways into pathological or problem gambling which is predicated on two principal assumptions. The first is that risk factors can be differentiated into distinct clusters. The second is that certain preexisting individual differences, co-morbidities or circumstances contribute to an increased risk of subsequent gambling-related problems. In this paper, we argue that much of the evidence in support of the Pathways model has principally focused on the first of the assumptions. Research supports the view that there are sub-groups or subtypes of gamblers who approximate the clustering of characteristics postulated by the Pathways Model. However, such evidence does not so readily confirm the second assumption, namely the factors identified are antecedents or causal contributors to the development of gambling problems. In this paper, we examine the types of evidence required to strengthen support for the Model. Important research priorities include the need for additional longitudinal studies into the emergence and influence of risk factors; the relative importance of experiential and dispositional factors; and, being able to show differences in the pattern of associated co-morbidities as distinct from just differences in the severity of gambling disorder across the subtypes.

KEYWORDS:

• Addictive behavior
• gambling
• pathological gambling
• methodology
• pathways

View correction statement:

Correction

Funding sources

No funding sources were declared by the authors in relation to this manuscript.

Constraints on publishing

No constraints on publishing were declared by the authors in relation to this manuscript.

Competing interests

No competing interests were declared by the authors in relation to this manuscript.

Preregistration statement

No preregistration was declared by the authors in relation to this manuscript.

Data availability statement

No data set was declared by the authors in relation to this manuscript.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Paul Delfabbro

Paul Delfabbro graduated from the University of Adelaide with degrees in Arts, Commerce and Economics and a PhD in psychology. He has published extensively in several areas, including the psychology of gambling, child protection and child welfare and applied cognition.

Daniel King

Daniel King is an Associate Professor in the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University. He has over 150 refereed papers in behavioral addictions and has been a regular consultant for the WHO in relation to the measurement and classification of gaming and internet-related disorders.