Gambling Addiction - Learning Theory

Question 1

Vicarious reinforcement

Answer 1

• this is the experience of seeing others being rewarded for their behaviour, specifically gambling
• these rewards come in the form of pleasure, enjoyment and occasionally financial return
• many people get into gambling through vicarious reinforcement

Question 2

Vicarious reinforcement - direct observation

Answer 2

• some may see people win big or get excited about gambling in person, which may influence their gambling behaviour

Question 3

Vicarious reinforcement - media

Answer 3

• others are influences to gamble by newspapers, magazines and other forms of media reporting positively on big lottery wins or other gambling

Question 4

Direct positive reinforcement

Answer 4

1. winning money, which makes someone want to continue to bet or wager in the hope of making more money
2. thrill that comes from gambling

Question 5

Direct negative reinforcement

Answer 5

• some gamble to escape from the real world, as it offers a distraction to aversive stimuli such as the anxieties of everyday life
• it is therefore negatively reinforced

Question 6

Partial reinforcement

Answer 6

• when B.F. Skinner conducted his experiments with pigeons and rats he used a continuous reinforcement schedule, which rewarded every desired response from the animals
• however, this does not lead to the most engrained and persistent behaviours
• a more effective schedule is a partial one, which creates the kind of persistent behaviour displayed in gambling
• one type of partial reinforcement is variable reinforcement

Question 7

Variable reinforcement

Answer 7

• produces the most persistent learning out of all of the ways that behaviour can be reinforced intermittently
• There is a level of unpredictability with variable reinforcement which makes it more exciting
• gambling is an example of variable reinforcement, since playing on a slot machine, one won’t win every time but they also don’t know when they will
• it takes longer for learning to be established but once it has been the addiction will be much more resistant to extinction
• even if a gambler faces big losses, they will still gamble since they learn that they won’t win every time but eventually they will if they persist

Question 8

Cue reactivity

Answer 8

• this can explain how a behavioural addiction e.g. gambling can be maintained as well as reinstated after relapse
• a number of secondary reinforcers will be present when someone is gambling, which are stimuli that also become reinforcing because of their association with pleasure
• these stimuli could be e.g. the smell of the bookies, the colours of a scratch card, a particular advert on TV
• these cues are everywhere the world, such as in the media, which means that it is difficult for the gambler to be able to avoid the,
• these constant, low-level reminders build up and may result in relapse

Question 9

(+) EVAL - research evidence

Answer 9

• Dickerson (1979) looked at the behaviour of gamblers in the real world
• he went to two bookies in Birmingham and found that high-frequency gamblers were consistently more likely to place their bets in the 2 minutes before the start of the race
• in contrast low-frequency gambler would tend to place bets on the next race once to got to this point
• this would prolong the rewarding excitement they felt
• this is evidence for the role of positive reinforcement on gambling behaviour for those who gamble a lot
• this study has ecological validity since it is done in a real life setting as opposed to in a lab

Question 10

(-) EVAL - lack of explanatory power

Answer 10

• Some types of gambling are easier to explain with learning theory that others
• these include complete chance games, e.g. slots, in which the outcome of the bet comes right after the bet is made
• this is a requirement for conditioning, that the two events occur very close together
• therefore a more skill-based game, e.g. poker, which also has a significant delay between bet and result are harder to explain through conditioning

Question 11

(-) EVAL - individual differences

Answer 11

• Griffiths and Delfabbro (2001) argue that conditioning processes don’t occur in the same way for everyone
• people’s response to the same stimuli may differ
• motivations may also differ, with some gambling for relaxations, some for pleasure and others for financial gain
• people also different in their susceptibility to cues
• learning theory can therefore not solely explain all gambling addictions