Explanations For Gambling Flashcards
What are the two theories to explaining gambling??
- learning theory
- cognitive theory
Explain the initiation of gambling addiction through the learning theory??
The learning approach suggests that one of the main factors in beginning to gamble stems from vicarious reinforcement (SLT). In other words, children imitate the apparently legitimate gambling behaviours that are shown by powerful role models and peers.
If higher status role models e.g. parents, are seen to be gambling and enjoying the ‘thrill’ (and /or winning) e.g. on the Saturday night lottery show; or the Grand National, the behaviour appears acceptable, attractive and rewarding. This leads to adolescents starting to gamble, which could progress to problem or pathological gambling.
Explain the maintenance of gambling addiction through the learning theory??
- Cue reactivity (Carter and Tiffany 1999)
Cue reactivity claims triggers or CUES in the environment that we have learnt to associate with gambling maintain the behaviour. These triggers are referred to as Conditioned Stimuli (CS). Through CC these cues (or CS) will elicit conditioned responses even in the absence of the actual problematic gambling.
- Partial and Variable Reinforcement schedules
Partial reinforcement means gambling behaviour is only rewarded on some occasions and not on all occasions. These variable ratio reinforcement schedules are seen to be extremely effective in maintaining the behaviour once gambling is initiated, as the gambler does not win every time they play. In fact, most fruit machines actually operate with this type of formula/programme i.e. they pay out on average every 100 plays or so. As this reinforcement schedule is only variable, gamblers can become obsessed with continued play, and hence gambling becomes a maladaptive behaviour.
Skinner schedules of reinforcement.
What are the several variable reinforcements??
Fixed ratio- every nth play is reinforced, so you only win every certain number of plays.
Variable ratio-every nth play is reinforced but the length of time between being reinforced can vary.
Fixed interval- reinforced in intervals of time, win every 30 minutes.
Variable interval-reinforced in intervals of time, but the times vary, e.g. win after 30 minutes one day and after 1 hour another.
What are the positive evaluations of the learning theory???
- The learning explanation of gambling addiction can be praised for having research to support the theory. Grant et al (2004) found that in a sample of problem gamblers that relapsed, over 40% claimed they did so because they missed the ‘thrill’ or ‘buzz’ of gambling. This implies that the positive reinforcement linked to gambling is too much to resist.
This suggests that the learning approach is a valid way of explaining gambling. - There are practical applications from the learning explanation of gambling, through cue exposure therapy.
Cue exposure involves presenting the cue to the individual and helping them control their reaction to it i.e. to develop coping strategies. In this way the response of ‘gambling’ in the presence of casino fades away or extinguishes.
This could imply that the learning theory is a validated explanation for why gambling addictions develop and carry on as cue exposure therapy is an effective treatment for gambling so therefore, cues must play a role in the addiction.
What are the negative evaluations of the learning theory??
- However, there is refuting evidence to suggest that genes play more of a role in gambling addiction.
Blum and Comings (1996) have identified that gamblers are far more likely to possess the A1DRD2 genetic variant predisposing them to gambling. (This gene has also been documented in nicotine addiction).
This implies that there may be better explanations for why gambling addictions develop. - An issue with the learning explanation for gambling addiction is that it could be considered environmentally reductionist. This is due to the explanation suggesting that gambling addiction is caused by partial and variable reinforcement schedules. By taking a reductionist view it may mean that other explanations, such as biochemical explanations are missed, limiting the explanation. However, being environmentally reductionist can aid research as it is the middle level of explanation and supports studying behaviour in a scientific way.
What does the cognitive explanation emphasise and believe about gambling addiction???
The cognitive explanation of gambling (and all addictions) emphasises irrational thought processes. In other words, gambling addicts are FAULTY INFORMATION PROCESSORS.
This means that ‘addicts’ are essentially making a series of misattributions (or biases) about their addiction. For example, when they lose on a horse bet, they may interpret this as a ‘near miss’ rather than a loss which may encourage further gambling.
The cognitive approach believes that many addictions are created through self-medication. This means that addictive gambling has started to alleviate negative cognitive states. Gambling may also create a ‘buzz’ of excitement that initially raises mood levels.
Explain the cognitive biases for gambling maintenance and relapse??
- ‘Cognitive myopia’ (short-sightedness) suggests that gamblers focus on the immediate gratifying state far more than the long term consequences of heavy gambling (financial, social and family problems). This is a biased way of processing information, and suggests decision making is at fault. This is an irrational belief or a cognitive bias.
Availability-wins are more memorable than losses
Confirmation bias- using information that fits in with beliefs (being a lucky person)
Concrete information bias-focuses on big wins and down plays losses
Hindsight bias-saying what they expected, to create an illusion of control.
Flexible attribution- wins due to their skill, losses due to external factors-bad machine
Illusion of control - belief you can affect the chances of winning when the chances are actually random - choosing “lucky numbers” on a lotto ticket. Encourages gamblers to believe they can influence chance
What are the positive evaluations of the cognitive theory??
- The cognitive explanation of gambling addiction can be praised for having research to support the theory. Griffith’s study took place in a real amusement arcade in Exeter with 60 ppts split into 2 groups of participants; “thinking aloud” or “non-thinking aloud”. Half the ppts were regular gamblers and half were not gamblers. In the “thinking aloud” condition, Pps had to say whatever they were thinking as they played the fruit machine. Each participant was given £3 to gamble on machine.
The findings were there was no difference in skill between regular and non regular fruit machine gamblers. Regular gamblers did make more irrational verbalisations than non regular gamblers. 14 percent of the regular gamblers verbalisations were irrational comments compared to 2.5 percent of the non regular gamblers.
This suggests that the cognitive explanation has high validity as the gamblers showed cognitive distortions in their thinking. - There are practical applications from the learning explanation of gambling, through the use of CBT. As the explanation suggests that cognitions are at fault in the addiction of gambling, CBT can be used to address these faulty thoughts.
For example, CBT can help to address confirmation bias and flexible attribution but challenging the irrational thoughts such as being a lucky person.
This could imply that the cognitive explanation can help society manage their gambling addiction, and allow for more people to get effective treatment.
What are the negative evaluations for cognitive theory??
- There is evidence that faults in genes may be responsible for gambling addiction.
Blum and Comings (1996) have identified that gamblers are far more likely to possess the A1DRD2 genetic variant predisposing them to gambling.
In addition, Black et al (2006) found that 1st degree relatives of pathological gamblers were more likely to suffer from gambling addiction than more distant relatives.
This suggests that the cognitive explanation for gambling may be limited in how much it can explain gambling addiction being due to just cognitive factors.
However-this still doesn’t explain how they become addicted in the first place, so it may be a multi theory approach is needed. . - An issue with the cognitive explanation for gambling is that there are cause and effect issues. Although there is supporting evidence to suggest that cognitive distortions are linked to gambling, we can not be sure that cognitive distortions such as an illusion of control cause someone to become addicted to gambling. This is due to the fact that patients are rarely studied before they get a diagnosis of addiction, and therefore we do not know what their cognitions before they came addicted. This questions the validity of the explanation as we can not be sure that cognitive distortions cause addiction.
