Gambling behaviour - Learning theory Flashcards
There are different types of rewards that an individual might experience from gambling, which may explain how addiction to gambling could develop:
Physiological rewards: e.g. adrenaline rush; increased dopamine in the nucleus accumbens => pleasure
Psychological rewards: e.g. the ‘near miss’ – the gambler thinking they are close to winning, which leads to excitement; raised self-esteem
Social rewards: e.g. peer praise – congratulated by others
- Slot machines reinforce reward by playing cheers and claps when someone wins
Financial rewards: experiencing a win
Contiguity is
the co-occurrence of an action and a reinforcement/ punishment.
The reward or positive reinforcement for gambling is immediate, so is ‘time contiguous.’
Losses on a slot machine result in immediate punishment, but the overall negative feeling does not arise until there has been a series of losses, so the association is not as strong.
The individual wins are much bigger in magnitude than each loss - the ‘punishment’ does not evoke such a strength of feeling.
The ‘big win’ hypothesis:
Many pathological gamblers report having a ‘big win’ early in their gambling career or an early prolonged winning streak.
They continue to gamble because of a desire to repeat that early ‘peak experience’ (Aasved, 2003)
The ‘near miss’:
Gambling can provide reinforcement even in the absence of a win.
Near misses (losses that are ‘close’ to being wins) create a brief period of excitement/thrill that encourage further gambling (Reid, 1986).
The schedules of reinforcement studied by Skinner’s work on rats and pigeons help us to understand how gambling behaviour is maintained.
Partial reinforcement: the behaviour is only sometimes reinforced (after a predictable (fixed) or unpredictable (variable) - number of responses/period of time).
Variable reinforcement: a type of partial reinforcement, where a proportion of responses are rewarded, after an unpredictable number of responses or time interval.
look at Reinforcement Schedule
diagram
Gambling machines typically use variable-ratio reinforcement
with wins occurring after an unpredictable number of responses.
The average ratio of wins to losses may be 1:4, but when they occur is unpredictable.
Why is this schedule of reinforcement so resistant to extinction?
It is the unpredictability of these rewards that encourages people to keep gambling – they can’t be sure of when a win will occur, so they continue to gamble as the next play might result in a win.
Conditioned cues
Stimuli (objects or environments) that occur immediately before or at the same time as the gambling behaviour become heavily associated with the primary reinforcer (gambling) over time.
These conditioned cues act as triggers for gambling because they have the ability to increase arousal, thus encouraging someone to revisit a casino or amusement arcade, to experience the positive emotions associated with it.
Stimuli that may become associated with gambling and may act as ‘conditioned cues’…….
Betting slips
Betting shops
Betting adverts
Scratchcards
Arguably, social learning theory can explain the initiation of gambling behaviour better than operant conditioning.
A child or young adult could witness a parent (role model) receiving a big win in an amusement arcade, resulting in vicarious reinforcement. They will notice the happiness of the parent (attention), retain that memory (retention), forming positive outcome expectancies and, when they think they have the money and opportunity (reproduction), try using slot machines themselves. The motivation would be to win too i.e. receive the same positive outcome.
Support for the influence of partial reinforcement
Horsley et al. (2012) subjected high- and low- frequency gamblers to either partial or continuous reinforcement scheduling.
After partial reinforcement, high-frequency gamblers continued to respond on gambling simulation for longer compared to low-frequency gamblers, despite the lack of reinforcement.
The researchers concluded that the greater persistence of response among this group might be the result of increased dopamine function that is particular to high-frequency gamblers, making them more likely to continue gambling, even in the absence of reinforcement.
This therefore suggests that there are individual differences that make some individuals more susceptible to gambling and receptive to the rewards, which challenges the learning theory.
Support for the influence of operant conditioning:
Parke and Griffiths (2004) supported the idea that gambling is reinforcing due to the money, thrill and excitement.
They also said that the ‘near misses’ often experienced by gamblers are both physiologically and psychologically rewarding.
They give the gambler the impression that they are close to winning and confirm their strategy.
Gamblers get just as physiologically excited when they are nearly winning as when they are winning.
This means that the behaviour is positively reinforced in both a win and an ‘almost win’, making it highly addictive.
Learning theory cannot explain all forms of gambling
Some forms of gambling have a short-time period between the behaviour and the consequence (e.g. scratch cards), whereas others (e.g. sports betting) have a much longer period between bet and outcome, and so have less to do with chance and simple conditioning and more to do with the skill of the individual.
Learning theory fails to explain why only some people become addicted (i.e. it cannot explain individual differences)
Although many people gamble at some time in their lives and experience the reinforcements associated with this behaviour, relatively few become addicts.
This suggests that there are other factors involved in the transition from gambling behaviour to gambling addiction.
Refer to research by Blasczynski and Nower (2002) on slide 15 to support this argument.
Reinforcement schedules may lead to irrational beliefs i.e. there is a cognitive element
Sharpe (2002): claimed that the placement of wins early on in the gambling experience (i.e. a big win when first gambling) and the patterns of wins and losses within gambling sessions may lead to irrational thoughts generated by beliefs about gambling machine reinforcement schedules.
i.e. an early big win may give the gambler the illusion that they can control the outcomes and that they possess the skill necessary to win. The resulting overestimation of the chances to win and the underestimation of the possible losses encourage persistent gambling.
This would therefore suggest that that learning theory and cognitive theory should be combined to explain gambling addiction, as learning theory alone offers only a partial explanation.
There are to gambling - learning theory is not the only explanation:
Blasczynski and Nower (2002) claim that there are different pathways for gambling addiction.
Gamblers who are ‘behaviourally conditioned’ may have begun gambling because of exposure to gambling through role models or peer groups. Their gambling addiction may therefore be largely explained through the process of social learning and reinforcement.
However, a second sub-group tends to have accompanying anxiety and/or depression, history of poor coping skills, as well as negative background experiences and life events. These factors produce an ‘emotionally vulnerable’ gambler, who uses gambling primarily to relieve their aversive emotional states.
This suggests that learning theory can only explain some types of gambling addiction, but does not explain all forms of gambling addiction.
Learning theory is a reductionist explanation for gambling addiction
Traditional learning theories i.e. classical and operant conditioning, reduce the complex nature of gambling addiction down to simple stimulus-response units, and in doing so there is very little consideration for cognitive and emotional influences. The theory also overlooks the role that genetics might play i.e. genetic vulnerability.
Griffiths and Delfabbro (2001) reviewed the literature on gambling addiction and possible explanations for the behaviour. They found that any single explanation was insufficient and that an integrated theory of learning theory, biology and the role of the environment should be developed.
It seems that attributing gambling addiction to learning theory alone offers only a partial explanation.
