A comparison of impulsivity and sensation seeking in pathological gamblers and skydivers

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00944.x

Personality and Social Psychology

A comparison of impulsivity and sensation seeking in pathological

gamblers and skydivers

HELGA MYRSETH,1,2 RENATE TVERÅ,1 SUSANNE HAGATUN1 and CAMILLA LINDGREN1

1Department of Psychosocial Sciences, University of Bergen, Norway2Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway

Myrseth, H., Tverå, R., Hagatun, S. & Lindgren, C. (2012). A comparison of impulsivity and sensation seeking in pathological gamblers and skydivers.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.

The aim of this study was to compare pathological gamblers and skydivers in relation to measures of impulsivity and sensation seeking. The EysenckImpulsivity Scale – Narrow Impulsiveness Subscale and the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking were administered to pathological gamblers (n = 29),skydivers (n = 93), and a control group (n = 43). A two-way multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to explore differences in impulsivity andsensation seeking between the groups and possible group by gender and group by age interaction effects. The significant effects were further investigatedusing follow-up univariate analysis of variance. The results showed significant main effects of Group, Gender and Age, and a significant Group by Genderinteraction effect. The results showed no statistically significant differences in impulsivity between pathological gamblers and skydivers; however, bothgroups scored higher than the controls. The skydivers scored higher compared to the pathological gamblers and controls on both sensation seekingsubscales. Pathological gamblers scored higher than the controls on the subscale Need for Stimulus Intensity, although lower than the controls on the sub-scale Need for Novelty. We conclude that skydivers and pathological gamblers do not seem to differ in terms of impulsivity, but that the two groups differin terms of sensation seeking. Skydivers are hence characterized by more sensation seeking compared to pathological gamblers. Skydiving, as opposed topathological gambling, is not considered a psychiatric disorder, and skydiving may represent a more non-pathological way to fulfill the need for stimulusintensity.

Key words: Impulsivity, sensation seeking, pathological gambling, skydiving.

Helga Myrseth, Department of Education, Chr. gt 13, P.B. 7807, N-5020 Bergen, Norway. Tel: + 47 55 58 88 78; fax: + 47 55 58 98 79; e-mail:[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Jumping out of an airplane may seem like a crazy and scary thingto do, but for a skydiver it is a fun and exciting experience.Similarly, spending more than you can afford on gambling issomething most people would not do, while some people get a‘‘kick’’ out of gambling and continue to gamble despite the severenegative consequences. Researchers have asked the question as towhy some people are more attracted to these types of sensation-seeking behaviors than others, and personality factors such asimpulsivity and sensation seeking have been suggested to play arole.Pathological gambling is classified as an impulse control disor-

der according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association,2000). The DSM-IV-TR defines impulse control disorders as ‘‘thefailure to resist an impulse, drive, or temptation to perform an actthat is harmful to the person or to others’’ (p. 663American Psy-chiatric Association, 2000); hence, impulsivity is seen as one ofthe core features of pathological gambling. However, studies havevaried in how they define and measure impulsivity which hashampered the studies on impulsivity and its correlates (Nower &Blaszczynski, 2006). Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, Schmitz andSwann (2001) suggest that a definition of impulsivity shouldinclude the following elements: ‘‘1) decreased sensitivity to nega-tive consequences of behaviour; 2) rapid, unplanned reactions tostimuli before complete processing of information; and 3) lack ofregard for long-term consequences (Moeller et al., 2001, p. 1784).

� 2012 The Authors.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology � 2012 The Scandinavian PsychologicalRoad, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Several studies have revealed that pathological gamblers ingeneral are characterized by higher rates of impulsivity comparedto non-gamblers (Alessi & Petry, 2003; Blaszczynski, Steel &McConaghy, 1997). Myrseth, Pallesen, Molde, Johnsen andLorvik (2009) found that pathological impulsivity was a signifi-cant predictor of pathological gambling. Although many studieshave shown positive associations between impulsivity and patho-logical gambling, the results in this field have been contradictory,and some studies have failed to find a relationship between gam-bling and impulsivity (Allcock & Grace, 1988; Langewisch &Frisch, 1998). A lack of definitional and conceptual clarity hasbeen suggested to lead to various findings within this field,whereas some have argued that the definition of impulsivityshould be more specific (Nower & Blaszczynski, 2006).Impulsivity has also been associated with a personality factor

called sensation seeking (Nower & Blaszczynski, 2006). Sensa-tion seeking can be defined as ‘‘… a trait defined by the seekingof varied, novel, complex and intense sensations and experiences,and the willingness to take physical, social, legal and financialrisks for the sake of such experiences’’ (Zuckerman, 1994, p. 27).Studies have demonstrated that interest in new situations, manic-depressive tendencies, sexual experiences, experiences with drugsand psychopathology are all behaviors associated with sensationseeking (Zuckerman, Buchsbaum & Murphy, 1980).It has been suggested that individuals who score high on sensa-

tion seeking have higher optimal levels of arousal (i.e. higher lev-els of activity in the brain’s norepinephrine and dopamine systemsmake them feel better). The arousal theory of gambling suggests

Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington. ISSN 0036-5564.

2 H. Myrseth et al. Scand J Psychol (2012)

that gambling provides a higher level of stimulation and arousalbecause of the monetary risk and uncertainty involved in theactivity. Therefore, individuals scoring high on sensation seekingmay seek activities which produce higher levels of stimulation/arousal (Zuckerman, 1994). In accordance with this, it has beensuggested that gamblers scoring high on sensation seeking con-tinue to play in order to maintain the arousal because of itsrewarding effects, despite the possible punishing effects of losingmoney (Breen & Zuckerman, 1999).Research has documented that gamblers often score higher on

sensation seeking compared to controls (e.g. Anderson & Brown,1984; Zuckerman et al., 1980). Nevertheless, some studies havenot supported this notion (e.g. Blaszczynski, Wilson & McCona-ghy, 1986; Hammelstein, 2004; Langewisch & Frisch, 1998).According to Breen and Zuckerman (1999), the failure of somestudies to find an association between pathological gambling andsensation seeking may be attributed to methodological weaknessessuch as a failure to control for variables such as gender, age, typeof gambling involved or differences between treatment seekingand non-treatment seeking gamblers. Furthermore, there may beindividual differences in sensation seeking among pathologicalgamblers, and the choice of the preferred type of gambling hasbeen found to vary with the level of sensation seeking (Coventry& Brown, 1993). Betting on horses at the racetrack has been asso-ciated with significantly higher scores on sensation seeking incomparison to playing off-course games (Bonnaire, Bungener &Varescon, 2006, 2009; Coventry & Brown, 1993).The assessment of sensation seeking has previously relied heav-

ily on Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS), which hasbeen criticized and its validity questioned (Arnett, 1994; Hammel-stein, 2004). According to Coventry and Brown (1993), it ispossible that gamblers concentrate all their sensation-seeking out-lets in just one channel, that is, gambling. As a result, Zucker-man’s sensation-seeking scale, which simply totals thecommitment to a variety of sensation seeking activities, may failto capture the true extent of gamblers’ commitment to sensationseeking. Fortune and Goodie (2010) also underscore the impor-tance of the subscale scores in the SSS and suggest that the failureof some previous studies to show a positive relationship betweensensation seeking and gambling activity may be due to the use ofthe total score of the SSS as opposed to subscale scores.Arnett (1994) suggested a new conception of sensation seeking

in which the Need for Novelty and Need for Stimulus Intensityare included as components. He also developed a scale known asthe Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS) to measure thisconception of sensation seeking. The AISS does not include anyitems concerning norm breaking and antisocial behavior such asthe SSS does. Arnett emphasizes that sensation seeking can beexpressed in many areas of a person’s life, thus accordingly, sen-sation seeking may be viewed as a predisposition to behave inmany different ways. The determining factor for how it will beexpressed is the individual’s socialization environment throughoutone’s lifetime.Some studies have proposed that gamblers are not characterized

by high levels of sensation seeking in general, but rather a higherNeed for Stimulus Intensity. Nower, Derevensky and Gupta(2004) found that pathological gamblers scored higher on inten-sity seeking compared to controls, though there were no differ-

� 2012 The Authors.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology � 2012 The Scandinavian Psychological

ences between the groups in novelty seeking. Myrseth et al.(2009) also found that pathological gamblers had a higher Needfor Stimulus Intensity compared to controls, but a lower Need forNovelty.Risk-taking behavior can be defined as voluntary self-invest-

ment in a situation that contains a significant degree of danger andthe possibility of bodily or material damage (or both; Cazenave,Le Scanff & Woodman, 2007). Extreme sports can be defined asa ‘‘recreational physical activity, which carries a risk of seriousphysical injury or even death’’ (Willig, 2008, p. 691), and canhence be classified as a risk-taking behavior according to theabovementioned definition. Examples of extreme sports includeactivities such as bungee jumping, skydiving, skate and snow-boarding, surfing, hang gliding and rafting. Extreme sports are arelatively recent phenomenon and little psychological research inthis area has been carried out (Willig, 2008), which may alsoserve to explain why so little research regarding the relationshipbetween impulsivity and extreme sports has yet been published(Llewellyn & Sanchez, 2008).Based on the fact that other forms of risk taking have been

linked to impulsivity (Clarke, 2004), it has been hypothesized thatlevels of impulsivity would be higher in individuals who performextreme sports with elements of risk taking, such as rock climb-ing. However, Llewellyn and Sanchez (2008) examined whetherindividual differences in sensation seeking, impulsivity and self-efficacy could predict risk taking in rock climbing, and found thatboth sensation seeking and impulsiveness were actually negativelyassociated with risk taking. In the same study, they also found thatexperienced climbers took more calculated risks and were lessmotivated by a need for impulsivity and sensation seeking thaninexperienced climbers. Another study conducted by Cazenaveet al. (2007) revealed that women who engaged in risk-takingsports for leisure purposes were more impulsive and scored higheron sensation seeking compared to women who did not engage inrisk taking sports as well as women whose profession involvedpracticing a risk taking sport.Extreme sports has been associated with sensation seeking in

some studies (Diehm & Armatas, 2004; Jack & Ronan, 1998),with Hymbaugh and Garrett (1974) finding support for higher sen-sation seeking in skydivers compared to controls. According toZuckerman (1979), people scoring high on sensation seeking willchoose external stimuli that maximize their internal sensationssuch as drugs or physical activities (e.g. skydiving, scuba diving,etc.), and will voluntarily engage in activities involving physicalrisk (Zuckerman et al., 1980). This is consistent with Jack andRonan’s (1998) finding that people who participated in high-risksports (skydiving, mountaineering, hang gliding, etc.) had ahigher score on sensation seeking than people involved in low-risk sports (e.g. swimming, aerobics, golf). Consequently, a highneed for sensation seeking has been suggested as a necessary pre-condition for the initiation of and involvement in extreme sports(Willig, 2008). Still, only modest correlations have been foundbetween sensation seeking and engagement in high-risk sports(Furnham, 2004).High-risk sports such as skydiving may appear to be a reckless

impulsive act driven by the pursuit of thrills at the expense ofsafety and caution. Nonetheless, participants themselves arguethat what is required in order to participate in high-risk sports is a

Associations.

Scand J Psychol (2012) Impulsivity and sensation seeking 3

‘‘carefully staged scenario which produces just the right balancebetween challenge and comfort in order to allow a certain kind ofexperience to become possible’’ (Willig, 2008, p. 699). For thatreason, the purpose of extreme sports seems not to be the pleasur-able feelings per se (‘‘adrenaline buzz’’ and ‘‘feeling high’’), butto match one’s abilities with the demands of the context in orderto test one’s limits without being overwhelmed (Willig, 2008).This may indicate that impulsivity is incompatible with the prac-tice of extreme sports.Few studies have investigated impulsivity and sensation seek-

ing in skydivers and to the best of our knowledge no previousstudy has compared pathological gamblers and skydivers on mea-sures of sensation seeking and impulsivity. However, previousresearch seems to indicate that personality factors such as impul-sivity and sensation seeking may be associated with both extremesports and pathological gambling. The aim of the present studywas therefore to explore possible differences in impulsivity andsensation seeking between pathological gamblers and skydiverscompared to controls.

METHOD

Participants

The present study is based on three subsamples: a sample of pathologicalgamblers (n = 29), a control group of non-pathological gamblers(n = 43), and a sample of skydivers (n = 93). The first two subsampleswere part of a study conducted by Myrseth et al. (2009). The sample ofpathological gamblers was comprised of 26 men and 4 women (the meanage was 32.8 years, SD = 9.9). The control group was comprised of 43non-pathological gamblers matched on sex and age (± 5 years; the meanage 39.5 years, SD = 12.3). The skydiver sample was comprised of 77men and 16 women (the mean age was 33.4 years, SD = 10.2).

Procedure

The pathological gamblers were treatment seeking gamblers recruitedthrough advertisements in regional newspapers, referrals from thenational helpline for gamblers and through referrals from general practi-tioners. To be included in the study the pathological gamblers had to ful-fill the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling (AmericanPsychiatric Association, 2000) satisfying five or more symptoms(M = 7.8, SD = 1.6). The contrast group was recruited through advertise-ments in newspapers and in order to be included in the contrast groupthe participants had to receive a score of 3 or less in the South OaksGambling Screen Revised (SOGS-R; Lesieur & Blume, 1993). SeeMyrseth et al. (2009) for more details. All the participants had to sign aninformed consent before they were included in the study. The study com-plied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the RegionalCommittee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Western Norwayand the Norwegian Social Science Data Service. The sample of skydiverswas recruited from three different skydiving clubs in Norway, and ane-mail with an invitation to complete an anonymous web-based question-naire was sent to all members of the three skydiving clubs. Of theskydivers, 75% regarded themselves as active skydivers whereas 25%were regarded as non-active (e.g., jumped occasionally).

Instruments

The Eysenck Impulsivity Scale, Narrow Impulsiveness Subscale (EIS-nI;Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977), which is a measure of pathological impulsiv-ity, consists of 13 questions in regard to the ability to plan, delay andthink before acting. The answer categories are dichotomous (‘‘yes’’ or


‘‘no’’). The Kuder-Richardson-20 value for the EIS-nI was 0.74 in thepresent study.

The Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS; Arnett, 1994) is a20-item measure of sensation seeking using a four-point Likert scale, inwhich each response category indicates how well the statement fits. TheAISS consists of two subscales: the Need for Novelty and the Need forStimulus Intensity. Cronbach’s alpha for the AISS was 0.70, and 0.50and 0.68 for the two subscales Need for Novelty and Need for StimulusIntensity, respectively.

Statistics

The data were coded and analyzed using the SPSS version 15. Prelimin-ary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity,univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariancematrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious violations noted. Atwo-way factorial MANOVA was conducted in order to explore possibledifferences in impulsivity and sensation seeking among the three groupsand possible group by gender and group by age interaction effects. Threedependent variables were used: Impulsivity, Need for Novelty, and Needfor Stimulus Intensity. The independent variables were group (Pathologi-cal gamblers, Control group, Skydivers), gender, and age. The variableAge was dichotomized at the median. Correlations between age and thedependent variables are presented in Table 1. The significant effects werefurther investigated using follow-up ANOVAs.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant main effect of Group on thecombined dependent variables, F(6, 298) = 11.29, p < 0.001;Wilks’ Lambda = 0.66. A significant main effect of Genderwas found, F(3, 149) = 6.12, p < 0.001; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.89.A significant main effect of Age was found, F(3, 149) = 4.97,p < 0.001; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.91. In addition, a significant over-all Group by Gender interaction effect was found, F(6,298) = 2.23, p < 0.05; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.92. When the resultsfor the dependent variables were considered separately, using aBonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.017, there was a significanteffect of Group on all dependent variables: Impulsivity,F(2,151) = 3.37, p < 0.01, Need for Novelty, F(2,151) = 24.86,p < 0.001, and Need for Stimulus Intensity, F(2,150) = 14.23,p < 0.001. There was also a significant main effect of Gender onNeed for Stimulus Intensity, F(1,151) = 17.07, p < 0.001, and asignificant main effect of Age on Need for Stimulus Intensity,F(1,151) = 13.25, p < 0.001. In addition there was a significantGender by Age interaction effect on Impulsivity, F(1,150) = 6.63, p < 0.01.To further investigate the impact of Age on Impulsivity, a

follow-up 2 · 3 ANOVA (Age · Group) was conducted. Therewas a statistically significant main effect for Group,F(2,160) = 5.92, p < 0.01. No significant interaction effect wasfound. To investigate the impact of Gender on Impulsivity, afollow-up 2 · 3 ANOVA (Gender · Group) was also con-ducted. There was a statistically significant main effect forGroup, F(2,160) = 4.45, p < 0.05. Bonferroni post-hoc testsindicated that the mean score for pathological gamblers,M = 5.74, SD = 3.55, was significantly different from that ofthe control group, M = 3.36, SD = 2.25, p < 0.001, but notfrom the skydivers, M = 4.90, SD = 2.59, p = 0.44, while themean score for the skydivers was significantly different fromthe mean score for the control group, p < 0.01.

Associations.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s product-moment correlations

N Mean SD 1 2 3 4

Total sample1. Age 166 34.99 11.04 –2. Impulsivity 166 4.64 2.81 )0.29* –3. Need for novelty 163 28.67 4.96 )0.25** 0.27** –4. Need for stimulus intensity 163 26.12 5.54 )0.43** 0.30** 0.46** –

PGs1. Age 29 32.62 10.04 –2. Impulsivity 29 5.74 3.55 )0.03ns –3. Need for novelty 29 24.58 3.72 )0.17 ns 0.49** –4. Need for stimulus intensity 29 25.66 4.45 )0.34 ns 0.41* 0.32 ns –

NPGs1. Age 44 39.82 12.12 –2. Impulsivity 44 3.36 2.25 )0.13 ns –3. Need for novelty 44 26.64 4.02 )0.36* 0.23 ns –4. Need for stimulus intensity 44 21.82 5.26 )0.34* 0.09ns 0.54** –

Skydivers1. Age 93 33.44 10.19 –2. Impulsivity 93 4.90 2.59 )0.38* –3. Need for novelty 90 30.99 4.43 )0.21* 0.31** –4. Need for stimulus intensity 90 28.38 4.67 )0.41** 0.24* 0.28** –

Note: * p < 0.05 (two-tailed); ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed); ns, non-significant.


In order to follow up the results for the Need for Novelty vari-able, a 2 · 3 (Age · Group) ANOVA was conducted. There wasa significant main effect for Group, F(2, 157) = 26.35, p < 0.001,and Age, F(1, 157) = 4.71, p < 0.05. To investigate the impact ofGender on Need for Novelty, a follow-up 2 · 3 ANOVA (Gender· Group) was also conducted. There was a significant main effectof Group, F(2,157) = 30.25, p < 0.001. There was also a signifi-cant Group by Gender interaction effect, F(2,157) = 4.31,p < 0.05 (see Fig. 1). Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated that themean score for pathological gamblers, M = 24.58, SD = 3.72,was significantly different from the skydivers, M = 30.98,SD = 4.43, p < 0.001, but not from the control group, M = 26.64,SD = 4.02, p = 0.12. The mean score for the skydivers was also

Fig. 1. Mean scores on need for novelty for the groups divided by gender.


significantly different from the mean score for the control group,p < 0.001.To further investigate the impact of Age on Need for Stimulus

Intensity, a follow-up 2 · 3 ANOVA (Age · Group) was con-ducted. There was a statistically significant main effect for Group,F(2, 157) = 21.80, p < 0.001, and for Age, F(1, 157) = 17.27,p < 0.001. To investigate the impact of Gender on Need for Stim-ulus Intensity, a follow-up 2 · 3 ANOVA (Gender · Group) wasalso conducted. There was a statistically significant main effectfor Group, F(2, 157) = 19.22, p < 0.001, and for Gender, F(1,157) = 18.38, p < 0.001. Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated thatthe mean score for pathological gamblers, M = 25.66, SD = 4.45,was significantly different from the skydivers, M = 28.38,SD = 4.67, p < 0.05, and from the control group, M = 21.81,SD = 5.26, p < 0.01. The mean score for skydivers was also sig-nificantly different from the mean score for the control group,p < 0.001.

DISCUSSION

In line with previous findings, the present study revealed that bothpathological gamblers and skydivers scored higher on impulsivityin comparison to the control group, although no differences inimpulsivity between skydivers and gamblers were observed. Pre-vious studies have also indicated that people involved in extremesports score higher on sensation seeking compared to controls. Inthe present study, we found that the skydivers scored higher onboth sensation seeking subscales, the Need for Novelty and theNeed for Stimulus Intensity, when compared to both pathologicalgamblers and the control group. No significant differencesbetween pathological gamblers and the controls were found onthe subscale Need for Novelty, but the pathological gamblersscored higher than the controls on the subscale Need for StimulusIntensity.

Associations.


The finding that pathological gamblers scored high on impul-sivity is in line with previous research (e.g. Blaszczynski et al.,1997; Myrseth et al., 2009). Previous findings have also indicatedthat impulsivity can be a significant predictor for pathologicalgambling (Myrseth et al., 2009). Myrseth et al. (2009) furthersuggest that high levels of impulsivity may explain why gamblerscontinue to engage in gambling behavior despite severe negativeconsequences. Because gamblers are often more preoccupied withthe immediate rewards of their behavior, they often overlook thelong-term negative consequences. The preference for small imme-diate rewards over the preference of a larger delayed reward is anindicator of impulsivity that has been associated with the severityof the gambling problem (Alessi & Petry, 2003). Alessi and Petry(2003) found that the severity of gambling problems was a predic-tor for impulsive choices in a delay discounting task. Even so, thequestion of whether an increased impulsivity precedes the devel-opment of excessive gambling or the levels of impulsivityincrease subsequent to the development of gambling problemsstill remains an open question.Since some forms of risk taking such as gambling have been

linked to impulsivity (Clarke, 2004), it is likely that extreme sport,which is also considered to be a risk taking activity, is positivelycorrelated with impulsivity. In the present study, the skydiversscored higher on impulsivity compared to the control group,thereby supporting this assumption. However, a previous studyexamining the link between impulsivity and extreme sport hasfailed to confirm associations between engaging in extreme sportand high levels of impulsivity. Llewellyn and Sanchez (2008)found that rock climbers were not significantly higher risk takersand impulsive compared to controls. One possible explanation forthis finding is that impulsive individuals may lack some of theskills that are regarded as being of importance in rock climbingsuch as the ability to plan effectively and have effective risk man-agement skills (Llewellyn & Sanchez, 2008). The discrepancy offindings between the present study and the study by Llewellynand Sanchez (2008) may be attributed to differences in samplecharacteristics (skydivers versus rock climbers), whereas one mayspeculate that the skydivers scored higher on impulsivity sinceskydiving does not necessarily involve the same skills as rockclimbing.Another study found that levels of impulsivity were different in

amateurs compared to professional risk takers. Cazenave et al.(2007) found that women who performed extreme sports for lei-sure purposes were more impulsive than woman who made a liv-ing from practicing an extreme sport. This finding indicates thatindividuals who are involved in extreme sports at the professionallevel may be characterized as more controlled (i.e. less impulsive)than those engaged in such activities for leisure purposes. Theauthors also examined whether the various groups differed in theirdegree of alexithymia, that is, the ability to recognize andacknowledge one’s emotional state. The results indicated that theamateur risk-taking women exhibited a tendency to be more alexi-thymic than both the professional risk-taking group and the con-trol group. Based on this finding, the authors speculated that theamateur women engaged in extreme sports in order to experiencepsychological relief. They also concluded that since the amateurand professional women had different psychological profilesdespite practicing the same extreme sports, this may indicate that


individuals participating in extreme sports are not necessarilyimpulsive individuals in general.In the present study the skydivers scored high on both subscales

of sensation seeking, which is in accordance with previous find-ings which show that people involved in extreme sports are highin sensation seeking (Diehm & Armatas, 2004; Jack & Ronan,1998). As a result, high scores on sensation seeking could be anecessary precondition for an involvement in these activities(Willig, 2008). Yet, Willig (2008) argued that skydivers are notjust sensation seekers involved in the sport in order to achievepleasurable feelings or activation (‘‘adrenaline buzz’’ and ‘‘feel-ing high’’) per se. Instead, they wish to match their abilities withthe demands of the context in order to test their limits withoutbeing overwhelmed. Experiencing a challenge and learning a newactivity may be as equally important to the skydivers as the acti-vation it produces. On the other hand, this could also be anexpression of the sensation seeking trait. Zuckerman (1979)defined the trait as ‘‘a need for varied, novel and complex sensa-tions and experiences ...’’ (p. 10), and it is likely that the chal-lenge resulting from doing something new and difficult (such aslearning to skydive) may satisfy this need. In line with this, manyof the participants in Willig’s study (2008) reported that they felta need, rather than a desire, to engage in extreme sports. This find-ing supports the notion of sensation seeking in individuals whopractice extreme sports.In accordance with previous research (Myrseth et al., 2009;

Nower et al., 2004), the pathological gamblers in the presentstudy scored higher on the Need for Stimulus Intensity, but loweron the Need for Novelty compared to the control group, althoughthe latter finding did not reach statistical significance in the pres-ent study. This is probably due to a smaller sample size of gam-blers in the present study. The Need for Stimulus Intensity inpathological gamblers may be reflected in the development of tol-erance and the fact that they have to gamble for more and moremoney in order to achieve the desired excitement from the gamethey are playing, which is one of the core diagnostic criteria forpathological gambling in the DSM-IV (American PsychiatricAssociation, 2000). The Need for Stimulus Intensity could also beexplained by arousal theory, in that pathological gamblers attemptto maintain optimal levels of arousal by engaging in gamblingactivities. According to Anderson and Brown (1984), the arousalor excitement that results from gambling behavior is an importantreinforcement for regular gamblers.Comparing the two groups, the results showed that pathological

gamblers and skydivers were similar in their levels of impulsivity,but differed in sensation seeking. The high scores for both groupson impulsivity could be explained by the fact that both pathologi-cal gamblers and skydivers focus more on the immediate situation(e.g. reward) and do not think about the long-term consequences(e.g. possibly harm). Both gambling with money and skydivingmay have serious consequences for the individual (and peoplearound him or her); hence, impulsivity and the failure to takelong-term consequences into account can be a contributing factorwhen choosing to engage in these activities. Although no statisti-cally significant differences in terms of impulsivity were obtainedbetween gamblers and skydivers in the present study, the meanscore on impulsivity for the skydivers was higher than the meanscore for the pathological gamblers. It is possible that the sizes of

Associations.


the present samples were not large enough to obtain a potentialsignificant difference; thus, future large-scaled studies shouldinvestigate this in more detail.The scores on sensation seeking differed significantly between

the two groups. While the skydivers scored highest on both sub-scales, the pathological gamblers also scored high on the Need forStimulus Intensity (although lower than the skydivers), but scoredlow on the Need for Novelty. Since skydiving is a potentiallymore life-threatening activity than pathological gambling, thismay explain why skydivers experience a greater ‘‘kick’’ whenperforming the activity, therefore scoring higher on the Need forStimulus Intensity. Skydiving is also a relatively short-lastingactivity, while gambling can last for hours. Hence, the intensity ofthe gambling activity may be lower in comparison to skydiving.This time dimension can also possibly explain the differences inNeed for Novelty. For the pathological gamblers who perform thesame gambling activity for hours after hours every day, or severaltimes a week, the activity may lose the aspect of novelty. Sinceskydivers do not usually engage in their risk-taking behavior asoften, they may experience a higher sense of novelty and salienceeach time.It is important to recognize that while the pathological gamblers

in this study suffered from a psychiatric disorder, the skydivers didnot. Merely fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for pathological gam-bling is indicative of a range of negative consequences of the behav-ior (e.g., disturbed relationships, economic problems). Theskydivers’ impulsivity and sensation seeking may be regarded as ahealthier way to express these needs compared to the behavior of agambler. The negative consequences of skydiving occur less often,and most skydivers do not experience any negative consequencesfrom their behavior. Consequently, high levels of impulsivity andsensation seeking may not necessarily be related to negative conse-quences. A possible implication for treatment of pathological gam-blers is that gamblers may learn to find other less harmful ways ofchannelling their impulsivity and sensation-seeking tendencies.Since both skydivers and pathological gamblers in this study weresimilar in their levels of impulsivity, but still seek distinctive behav-iors, further research should attempt to investigate other personalityfactors associated with extreme sports and pathological gamblingthat may explain the different choice of activities.

Limitations of the study

The present study did not measure whether the skydivers also par-ticipated in gambling activities. Consequently, if some of the sky-divers were actually gamblers as well, this may have confoundedthe results.Another limitation is that the present study did not distinguish

between different types of gambling activities. It is possible thatdifferent subgroups of gamblers (such as horse racing gamblersversus slot machine gamblers) are characterized by different levelsof impulsivity and sensation seeking, as horse race gamblinginvolves an element of skills in contrast to slot machine gambling(Bonnaire et al., 2006; Myrseth, Brunborg & Eidem, 2010). Inaddition, the gamblers in the present study were treatment seekinggamblers, and this may have affected their scores, as treatmentseeking samples often exhibit elevated levels of distress (Myrsethet al., 2009) and have been found to possess lower levels of sen-


sation seeking compared to non-treatment seeking gamblers(Zuckerman, 1999).The present study relied solely on measures of self-report when

assessing impulsivity and sensation seeking, which may representa possible limitation of the study. Participants may wish to portraythemselves in certain ways, and therefore reply in ways theyotherwise would not (e.g. treatment seekers may exaggerate theirproblem in order to receive treatment). Another limitation of thisstudy is that we did not control for the influence of other personal-ity factors. Other studies have documented a link between person-ality factors such as openness and neuroticism, and impulsivityand sensation seeking (Llewellyn & Sanchez, 2008; Myrsethet al., 2009). Studies have also found sensation seeking to be neg-atively related to depression (e.g., Carton, Morand, Bungenera &Jouvent, 1995), and as high rates of co-morbidity with depressionhave been reported for pathological gamblers (Petry, Stinson &Grant, 2005) there is a possibility that depression among the PGshave influenced their sensation-seeking scores. Future studiesshould consequently control for scores on depression.The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the AISS was 0.70, and

0.50 and 0.68 for the two subscales Need for Novelty and Needfor Stimulus Intensity, respectively. The low Cronbach’s alphavalues of the subscales may represent a threat to the validity ofthe results. However, the internal reliability values are in line withthe values reported by Arnett (1994): 0.70 for the total scale, and0.50 and 0.64 for the Novelty and Intensity subscales, respec-tively. The low number of items (10 items) in each subscale mayhave contributed to low internal consistency values.Future research should attempt to investigate whether there are

other personality factors that may explain their preference for thedifferent activities, as well as if these personality factors are stableacross time. This could lead to important knowledge about howpersonality factors such as impulsivity and sensation seeking caninfluence human behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The skydivers scored high on both impulsivity and sensationseeking. The pathological gamblers also obtained high scores onimpulsivity and Need for Stimulus Intensity, but low scores onNeed for Novelty. The results indicated that skydivers andpathological gamblers did not seem to differ in terms of impul-sivity, but that the two groups differed in terms of sensationseeking. The similarities in impulsivity may be explained by thefact that both gambling and skydiving involve elements of risktaking, whereas the differences in scores on sensation seekingmay be related to differences in frequency of the behavior andin the amount of time spent engaging in the behavior, in addi-tion to the potential severity of the consequences involved inthese activities.

REFERENCES

Alessi, S. M. & Petry, N. M. (2003). Pathological gambling severity isasssociated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure.Behavioural Processes, 64, 345–354.

Allcock, C. C. & Grace, D. M. (1988). Pathological gamblers are neitherimpulsive nor sensation-seekers. Australian and New Zealand Jour-nal of Psychiatry, 22, 307–311.

Associations.


American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) (text revision, 4th ed.N).Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Anderson, G. & Brown, R. I. F. (1984). Real and laboratory gambling,sensation-seeking and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 75,401–410.

Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a newscale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 289–296.

Blaszczynski, A. P., Steel, Z. & McConaghy, N. (1997). Impulsivity inpathological gambling: The antisocial impulsivist. Addiction, 92, 75–87.

Blaszczynski, A. P., Wilson, A. C. & McConaghy, N. (1986). Sensationseeking and pathological gambling. British Journal of Addiction, 81,113–117.

Bonnaire, C., Bungener, C. & Varescon, I. (2006). Pathological gamblingand sensation seeking: How do gamblers playing games of chance incafes differ from those who bet on horses at the racetrack? AddictionResearch & Theory, 14, 619–629.

Bonnaire, C., Bungener, C. & Varescon, I. (2009). Subtypes of Frenchpathological gamblers: Comparison of sensation seeking, alexithymiaand depression scores. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 455–471.

Breen, R. B. & Zuckerman, M. (1999). ‘‘Chasing’’ in gambling behav-ior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality and Individ-ual Differences, 27, 1097–1111.

Carton, S., Morand, P., Bungenera, C. & Jouvent, R. (1995). Sensation-seeking and emotional disturbances in depresssion: Relationships andevolution. Journal of Affective Disorders, 34, 219–225.

Cazenave, N., Le Scanff, C. & Woodman, T. (2007). Psychological pro-files and emotional regulation characteristics of women engaged inrisk-taking sports. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 20, 421–435.

Clarke, D. (2004). Impulsiveness, locus of control, motivation and prob-lem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 319–345.

Coventry, K. R. & Brown, R. I. F. (1993). Sensation seeking, gamblingand gambling addictions. Addiction, 88, 541–554.

Diehm, R. & Armatas, C. (2004). Surfing: An avenue for socially accept-able risk-taking, satisfying needs for sensation seeking and experienceseeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 663–677.

Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Place of impulsiveness in adimensional system of personality description. British Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57–68.

Fortune, E. E. & Goodie, A. S. (2010). The relationship between patho-logical gambling and sensation seeking: The role of subscale scores.Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 331–346.

Furnham, A. (2004). Personality and leisure activity: Sensation seekingand spare-time activities. In R. M. Stelmack (Ed.), On the psychobi-ology of personality: Essays in honour of Marvin Zuckerman (pp.429–451). New York: Elsevier Science.

Hammelstein, P. (2004). Faites vos jeux! Another look at sensation seek-ing and pathological gambling. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 37, 917–931.


Hymbaugh, K. & Garrett, J. (1974). Sensation seeking among skydivers.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 118.

Jack, S. J. & Ronan, K. R. (1998). Sensation seeking among high- andlow-risk sports participants. Personality and Individual Differences,25, 1063–1083.

Langewisch, M. W. J. & Frisch, G. R. (1998). Gambling behavior andpathology in relation to impulsivity, sensation seeking, and riskybehavior in male college students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14,245–262.

Lesieur, H. R. & Blume, S. B. (1993). Revising the South Oaks Gam-bling Screen in different settings. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9,213–223.

Llewellyn, D. J. & Sanchez, X. (2008). Individual differences and risktaking in rock climbing. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 413–426.

Moeller, F. G., Barratt, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M. &Swann, A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 158, 1783–1793.

Myrseth, H., Brunborg, G. & Eidem, M. (2010). Differences in cognitivedistortions between pathological and non-pathological gamblers withpreferences for chance or skill games. Journal of Gambling Studies,26, 561–569.

Myrseth, H., Pallesen, S., Molde, H., Johnsen, B. H. & Lorvik, I. M.(2009). Personality factors as predictors of pathological gambling.Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 933–937.

Nower, L. & Blaszczynski, A. (2006). Impulsivity and pathological gam-bling: A descriptive model. International Gambling Studies, 6(1),61–75.

Nower, L., Derevensky, J. L. & Gupta, R. (2004). The relationship ofimpulsivity, sensation seeking, coping, and substance use in youthgamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 49–55.

Petry, N. M., Stinson, F. S. & Grant, B. F. (2005). Comorbidity ofDSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders:Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol andrelated conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66, 564–574.

Willig, C. (2008). A phenomenological investigation of the experience oftaking part in ‘‘extreme sports’’. Journal of Health Psychology, 13,690–702.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level ofarousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases ofsensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocialmodel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zuckerman, M., Buchsbaum, M. S. & Murphy, D. L. (1980). Sensationseeking and its biological correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 187–214.

Received 9 December 2011, accepted 21 December 2011

Associations.

Documents

A comparison of impulsivity and sensation seeking in pathological gamblers and skydivers