Addiction: Learning Theories Explanation Of Gambling Addiction Flashcards
How can learning theory explain why someone might start gambling?
Social learning theory can explain why someone might start gambling through indirect reinforcement. If a person observes someone model gambling behaviour, they may imitate this behaviour. They are more likely to imitate the gambling behaviour if they see this person rewarded for gambling, meaning gambling has been vicariously reinforced.
How can learning theory explain why people continue to gamble?
- Because the act of gambling is a voluntary behaviour, persistent gambling is best explained through operant conditioning.
- Positive reinforcement can explain. Gambling as the act of gambling might be rewarded and reinforced by a pay out, especially the ‘big wins’, which act as a positive reinforcer by creating a significant feeling of reward. However, big wins are very rare and gambling addicts often continue to gamble for long periods without winning.
- Another way gambling can be positively reinforced even when loosing is through a ‘near miss’ (nearly winning). These function as positive reinforcers as they also create a feeling of excitement.
- Gambling is a partial reinforcement schedule rather than a continuous reinforcement schedule, meaning gambling is only reinforced some of the time, rather than every gambling. Partial schedules have a lower rate of extinction than continuous schedules, which helps to explain why gambling addicts continue to gamble despite loosing.
- Gambling is also a variable reinforcement schedule meaning it has a lower extinction than fixed reinforcement schedules which explains why gambling addicts continue to gamble despite the lack of reinforcement.
- Gamblers can be directly reinforced through negative reinforcement, as gambling may offer a way of escaping from negative aspects of a persons life (eg stress). ). These negative aspects of life are likely to increase when a person has a gambling addiction, and so this leads to a spiral, in which the negative reinforcement from gambling becomes all the powerful, as the negative stimuli it helps a person avoid become
stronger. - Gamblers may struggle to stop due to associations formed through classical conditioning, where stimuli like flashing casino lights and lottery shops trigger the desire to gamble.
What research supports the learning theory explanation of the role of reinforcement schedules in gambling addiction?
Madden (2005) studied how partial reinforcement schedules influenced pigeons’ persistence in pecking a key for food. When peck-to-reward ratios were high (lots of pecks needed for a reward), pecking behaviour extinguished more quickly with a predictable reward pattern than with an unpredictable pattern. The fact that the pigeons pecked more when the reward was unpredictable demonstrates the power of a variable reinforcement schedule for reinforcing behaviour. This supports learning theory’s claim that the variable reinforcement schedule used in most forms of gambling is highly addictive, explaining why gamblers persist despite low gamble-to-win ratios. However, a limitation of this study is its reliance on animal research. One issue is that animal subjects typically receive constant food outside experiments, unlike human gamblers, who cannot be sure of securing a constant supply of money outside of the gambling setting.
What is a strength of learning theory’s explanation for gambling addiction?
It produces real life applications. For example, covert sensitization is a treatment for gambling addiction that was developed using the principles of learning theory. McConaghy (1983) found that a year after receiving covert
sensitisation, 90% of patients had reduced their gambling. The fact that learning theory’s explanation for gambling addiction has led to the development of a seemingly successful treatment for gambling addiction shows the theory has useful applications.Moreover, the success of covert sensitization indirectly supports learning theory’s explanation of gambling addiction, as an effective treatment is unlikely to arise from an invalid theory. Its effectiveness suggests learning theory accurately explains gambling behaviour. However, this study lacks a control group, making it impossible to compare covert sensitization with doing nothing. Without this, it’s unclear whether reduced gambling was due to the treatment or would have occurred anyway, offering weak support for learning theory’s explanation of gambling addiction.
What is an issue with learning theory’s explanation for gambling?
It ignores the role of free will. According to learning theory, a person will begin to gamble if they are exposed to role models who gamble. They will then keep gambling because of the strong positive reinforcement schedule
offered by gambling. This explanation is deterministic, as it sets out an account of how addicts behave because of a series of prior events. Moreover, this explanation is also a hard deterministic account, as none of the events that determine a person’s addiction (e.g., the role models they are exposed to or the extent to of the positive reinforcement provided by gambling) are controlled by the individual. Therefore, learning theory’s explanation overlooks the role of free will in a person developing a gambling addiction. A significant objection to the deterministic explanation of gambling addiction offered by learning theory is that it presents gambling addicts as passive victims of their addiction. This matters as – regardless of whether the explanation is valid – it could lead a gambling addict to believe they don’t have the necessary internal locus of control to change their behaviour. Another way in which ignoring free will is problematic is that it goes against our basic intuition that we choose our own actions, including whether we will gamble. However, believing that gambling addicts have “chosen” to become gambling addicts is a socially sensitive way of explaining addiction. This is because a person who has chosen to be an addict is arguably not deserving of support from society. Perhaps learning theory’s explanation for gambling addiction is a kinder way of explaining gambling addiction, as it doesn’t imply that being a gambling addict is the fault of the addict.
