The effects of induced sadness, stress sensitivity, negative urgency, and gender in laboratory gambling

Figures & data

Figure 1. Example of decision to gamble in the gambling task (Canale, Rubaltelli et al., 2017; FeldmanHall et al., 2015).

Table 1. Sample characteristics across conditions [percentage or mean (and standard deviations)].

Characteristics	Condition 1 Sadness (n = 60)	Condition 2 Control (n = 60)	Group difference p value
Socio-demographic characteristics
Gender (female)	50%	50%
Age	22.10 (1.80)	22.23 (1.73)	.68
Years of education	15.00 (2.37)	15.43 (1.80)	.26
Socioeconomic status	5.13(1.50)	5.05(1.78)	.78
Employment (‘yes’)	11.7%	11.7%
Key measures
Stress sensitivity	1.81 (0.70)	1.85 (0.63)	.72
Attitudes toward gambling	4.02 (0.53)	3.87 (0.60)	.15
Negative Urgency	2.28 (0.69)	2.30 (0.70)	.90
Control variables
Reappraisal	4.39 (1.03)	4.74 (1.13)	.08
Suppression	3.56 (1.15)	3.54 (1.32)	.91
Trait Emotional Intelligence	4.65 (0.74)	4.83 (0.68)	.15
Frequent gamblers (‘Yes’)	5%	5%
Depression	0.89 (0.70)	0.74 (0.49)	.18

Table 2. Mean sadness/negative affect (and standard deviations) by mood condition and time.

	Sadness VAS			Negative Affect
	Condition 1 Sadness (n = 60)	Condition 2 Control (n = 60)	Group difference p value	Condition 1 Sadness (n = 60)	Condition 2 Control (n = 60)	Group difference p value
Baseline (Time 1)	3.03 (1.58)	2.77 (1.82)	.39	1.40 (.43)	1.39 (.45)	.90
Post-induction (Time 2)	4.10 (1.90)	2.75 (1.86)	<.001	1.51 (.46)	1.37 (.44)	.10
Post-gambling task (Time 3)	2.98 (1.63)	2.83 (1.90)	.64	1.41 (.39)	1.44 (.43)	.66

Note. VAS = visual analog scale.

Table 3. Results of the GLMs.

Hypotheses	Fixed effects	χ^2	p Values	Estimate (SE)	z Value	p Values
H1
	SS	5.67	.01	0.01 (0.001)	2.42	.01
H2
	Condition	0.62	.42
	Sadness vs. Control			−0.03 (0.07)	−0.38	.70
	Gender	0.07	.79
	Male vs. Female			0.03 (0.07)	0.35	.73
	Condition × Gender	0.05	.81
	(Sadness vs. Control) × (Male vs. Female)			−0.02 (0.11)	−0.23	.81
H3
	SS	5.51	.02	0.04 (0.01)	4.47	<.001
	Condition	0.47	.49
	Sadness vs. Control			−1.42 (0.21)	−6.68	<.001
	Gender	0.06	.82
	Male vs. Female			−1.18 (0.24)	−4.88	<.001
	SS × Condition	9.56	.002	0.08 (0.01)	6.86	<.001
	SS × Gender	1.03	.30	0.06 (0.01)	5.34	<.001
	Condition × Gender	0.22	.63
	(Sadness vs. Control) × (Male vs. Female)			1.92 (0.32)	5.89	<.001
	SS × Condition × Gender	39.81	<.001	−0.11 (0.01)	−6.38	<.001
H4
	SS	4.14	.04	0.11 (0.02)	5.22	<.001
	Condition	0.51	.47
	Sadness vs. Control			2.17 (0.57)	3.81	<.001
	NU	1.64	.20	0.31 (0.05)	5.97	<.001
	SS × Condition	2.38	.12	−0.05 (0.02)	−1.87	.06
	SS × NU	44.22	<.001	−0.01 (0.01)	−5.46	<.001
	Condition × NU	35.05	<.001	−0.21 (0.06)	−3.23	.001
	SS × Condition × NU	2.13	.14	0.01 (0.03)	1.47	.13

Note. GLM = generalized linear models; SS = stress sensitivity; NU = Negative Urgency.

Figure 2. Interaction plot for stress sensitivity, gender, and condition in relation to attractiveness of the gamble (i.e. how much money subjects gambled from €0 [Y0] to €10 [Y10]).

Canale, N., Rubaltelli, E., Vieno, A., Pittarello, A., & Billieux, J. (2017). Impulsivity influences betting under stress in laboratory gambling. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10745-9

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

FeldmanHall, O., Raio, C. M., Kubota, J. T., Seiler, M. G., & Phelps, E. A. (2015). The effects of social context and acute stress on decision making under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1918–1926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615605807

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data Availability Statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/2tu9h/.

Data availability statement

https://osf.io/2tu9h/