Cognitive explanation for gambling addiction

Question 1

What are the explanations for gambling addiction

Answer 1

• cognitive theory
• learning theory

Question 2

What is congitive theory of gambling based off of

Answer 2

• Expectancy
• coping
• self-efficacy
• cognitive bias

Question 3

define expectancy as part of cognitive theory to explaining gambling

Answer 3

Expectany is the idea of the percieved benefits of gambling can be huge:
- they expect the benefits to outweigh the costs
- and/or unrealistic expectations about how gambling will help them cope with their emotions i.e. boost positive mood (provide excitement) and reduce negative moods (alleviate stress).

These expectations are distorted.

Question 4

define coping as a part of cognitive theory to explain gambling

Answer 4

People engage in addictive behaviours to cope with stress in their lives.

Question 5

Define self-efficacy as a part of cognitive theory to explain gambling

Answer 5

Self-efficacy refers to the expectations we have about our ability to achieve a desired outcome, and is a key element in relapse.

Question 6

Explain self-efficacy as a part of cognitive theory to explain gambling relapse

Answer 6

Relapse happens because the person has a biased belief that they are not capable of abstaining permanently, so they expect to gamble again.
This sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the individual behaves in a way that confirms this expectation, which in turn is reinforced.

Question 7

define cognitive bias as a part of cognitive theory to explaining gambling

Answer 7

• A distortion of attention, memory and thinking.
• It arises because of how we process the world, especially when we do it quickly.
• For instance we recall memories that confirm our esisting views and ignore others.
• This can sometimes lead to irrational judgements and poor decision-making.

Question 8

briefly outline cognitive bias

Answer 8

• The focus stays on the positive aspect of behaviour (wins) and downplays the negative side.
• Gambling behaviours occur because reasoning is biased in many ways.

Question 9

Who focused on exploring cognitive bias’ and what did they find

Answer 9

Wagenaar 1988, he found there were 16 distortions

Question 10

list 6 of Wagenaar’s 16 distortions

Answer 10

• Availability bias
• confirmation bias
• concrete information bias
• hindsight bias
• flexible attribution
• illusion of control

Question 11

Wagenaar’s 16 distortions

Describe availability distortion

with example

Answer 11

Memories of wins can be recalled more easily than losses.

e.g. forgetting you lost £50 when you won £5

Question 12

Wagenaar’s 16 distortions

Describe confirmation bias

with example

Answer 12

Focusing on information that is consistent with a belief

e.g. such as being lucky

Question 13

Wagenaar’s 16 distortions

describe concrete information bias

Answer 13

Focuses on events such as big wins and downplays calculations of losses.

Question 14

Wagenaar’s 16 distortions

Describe hindsight bias

Answer 14

When a gamble looks back and says they expected whether the win or loss; this gives them a feeling of control - which they use to justify gambling

Question 15

Wagenaar’s 16 distortions

define flexible attribution

with example

Answer 15

Wins are explained as due to their skill and losses due to other people’s influence.

e.g. seeing people as good or bad luck ergo making them stay or go

Question 16

Wagenaar’s 16 distortions

describe illusion of control

with example

Answer 16

The feeling that gamblers have that they can exert control over an uncertain outcome.

e.g. having people blow on dice.

Question 17

Who is the most important researcher (for AQA) on cognitive bias

Answer 17

Griffiths 1994

Question 18

outline the procedure of Griffiths 1994

Answer 18

• Used the ‘thinking aloud’ method to compare the cognitive processes of regular slot machine gamblers and people who use the machines only occasionally.
• The participants verbalised any thoughts that passed through their minds as they played the machine.
• A content analysis classified these utterances into rational and irrational.
• A semi-structured interview was used to ask the participants about the degree of skill required to win on slot machines.

Question 19

what is the thinking aloud method

Answer 19

a form of introspection

Question 20

Give an example of rational comments from Griffiths 1994

Answer 20

‘wow, i won 10p’

Question 21

give an example of an irrational comment from Griffiths 1994

Answer 21

‘this machine likes me’

Question 22

outline the findings of Griffiths 1994

Answer 22

• He found there was no differences between regular and occasional gamblers in objective behavioural measures (e.g. the regulars didnt win more money)
• But regular gamblers made almost 6x as many irrational verbalisations than the occasionals.
• Regular gambler were more prone to illusion of control i.e. ‘im going to bluff this machine’
• Regular gamblers both overestimated the amount of skill required to win on slot machines and considered themselves to be especially skilful at doing so compared with the occasional gamblers.

Question 23

Evaluate Griffiths 1994

Answer 23

• W - method - self-report method is used to study cognitive biases however alternative research (Dickerson and O’Conner 2006) has suggested that what people say in gambling situations does not necessarily represent their true beliefs which may lead to a misleading impression of gambler’s though processes which may mean the findings lack validity.

Question 24

Evaluate cognitive theory as an explanation of gambling

Answer 24

• W - much of the research relies on the self-report method. Participants may struggle to vocalise their thoughts. This means that due to the required introspection this means that the area is difficult to research.
• W- it has been argued that many of the biases are hard to falsify and only specific to context which reduces its credibility as a scientific experiment
• W - it is not a complete explanation. - it is likely that social factors are involved in gambling becoming addictive, this may stem from a lack of money. This suggests that cognitive factors alone are not sufficient enough in explaining gambling addiction. This means that the approach is too reductionist by itself.