Explanations for gambling addiction: Cognitive therapy Flashcards
Expectations
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Gamblers usually expect benefits to outweigh costs but some overestimate benefits & underestimate costs
They also have unrealistic expectations of how gambling will help them cope w/ emotions
People w/ distorted expectations are more likely to become addicted
Cognitive biases
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Cog biases influence how gamblers think about their behaviour, what they do & don’t pay attention to and what they remember & forget
Rickwood et al’s four cog biases
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Skill & Judgement - addicted gamblers have illusion of control, meaning they overestimate their ability to influence a random event
Personal traits/ritual behaviours - addicted gamblers believe they have greater probability of winning as they are especially lucky or engaged in supersition
Selective recall - gamblers can remember details of wins but forget, ignore or minimise their losses
Faulty perceptions - addicted gamblers have disorted views about chance exemplified in gambler’s fallacy (belief that losing streak can’t last)
Self-efficacy
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Expectation we have about our own ability to achieve desired outcomes & is key element in relapse
Relapse happens because person has belief they are not capable of abstaining permenantly so they expect to gamble again
Sets up self-fufilling prophecy where individual behaves in way that conforms to this expectation, which is in turn reinforced
Griffiths’ research into cog biases
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Used ‘thinking aloud’ method to compare cog processes of regular slot machine gamblers & those who used them occasionally
Ppts verbalised thoughts that passed through their mind as they played
Content analysis classified these utterances into rational or irrational
Semi-structured interview used to ask ppts about degree of skill required to win on slot machine
Behavioural measure recorded (e.g. total winnings)
Griffiths’ findings
Cognitive theory (gambing)
No differences between regular & occasional gamblers in objective behavioural measures
Reg gamblers made 6x as many irrational verbalisations - particularly prone to illusion of control
Reg gamblers both overestimated amount of skill required to win & considered themselves especially skillful at doing so
Evaluation: Research support
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Strength - support for role of cog biases
Michalczul et al (2011) studied 30 addicted gamblers attending National Problem Gambling Clinic (NPGC) comparing w/ CG
Gamblers showed sigly higher levels of gambling-related cog biases
Gamblers more impulsive & more likely to prefer immediate reward even when rewards were smaller than rewards they could gain if they waited
There4, findings support view there is strong cog component to gambling addiction
Evaluation: Research support (Counterpoint)
Cognitive theory (gambing)
However, cog biases measured w/ gambling related cognitions scale (GRCS)
Scores respondents on 5 types of bias
Score could mean gambler has frequent biassed cognitions or may reflect tendency to use their beliefs to justify behaviour
There4, findings of study may not reflect gambler’s actual beliefs
Evaluation: Further research support
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Strength - Futher research support for cog biases
McCusker & Gettings (1997) used modified Stroop task
Ppts had to pay attention to one thing while ignoring another
Addicted gamblers took longer to perform this task than CG but only when words related to gambling
Unable to prevent word meanings from interfering w/ intended task
There4, gamblers have cog bias to pay attention to gambling-related info that doesn’t exist in non-gamblers
Evaluation: Methodological problems
Cognitive theory (gambing)
Limit - use of ‘thinking aloud’ in research
Dickerson & O’Connor (2006) what people say in gambling situations doesn’t represenr what they really think
Off-the-cuff remarks while using slot machine doesn’t relfect addicted gambler’s deeply held beliefs about chance & skill
Researchers instead get misleading impression that gamblers’ thought processes are irrational when they’re not
There4, findings not valid because gamblers’ utterances don’t express genuine beliefs
