The influence of analytical thinking on altering gambling beliefs and behaviours

Gamblers are known to engage in an array of cognitive distortions that fuel poor gambling decisions. Dual process theory suggests that people have preferences for either intuitive or analytical thinking; and these preferences can predict or influence the choices they make. This thesis explored the interplay between a gambler’s cognitive style (their preference for intuitive vs. analytical thinking), their gambling beliefs, and their consequent gambling behaviour. In order to demonstrate the protective nature of analytical thinking, a measure of protective gambling beliefs was developed that was then incorporated into three additional studies designed to assess how an intuitive cognitive style contributes to poor gambling decisions, and conversely the potential for increased analytical thinking to generate safer gambling. The main findings showed that 1) preferences for intuitive (and lack of analytical) thinking contributes to beliefs about gambling that fuel problem gambling and greater gambling consumption; 2) Using general analytic primes at point of play is counterproductive in generating safer gambling, and counter to expectations, resulted in an increase in positive expectations regarding gambling outcomes; 3) Ongoing analytical training that is specific to gambling, in contrast, resulted in protective belief changes and a reduction in time spent gambling. These findings have implication for generating effective interventions and clinical tools that help demystify the decision-making process for gamblers who may be experiencing harm because of intuitive thinking that contributes to poor gambling choices.