learning explanations of gambling addictions Flashcards
SLT - vicarious reinforcement
vicarious reinforcement - experience of seeing others being rewarded for their gambling - pleasure and enjoyment + occasional financial returns
doesn’t have to be direct observation e.g. newspapers, magazines
may be enough to trigger a desire for the same reinforcement in someone who hasn’t gambled before
SLT best explains initiation of gambling addiction
operant conditioning
positive reinforcement - direct gain e.g. winning money and from the ‘buzz’ that accompanies a gamble (which is exciting)
negative reinforcement - gambling can offer a distraction from aversive stimuli (e.g. anxieties of everyday life)
best explains maintenance of an addiction
two types of reinforcement
partial
variable
partial reinforcement
refers to some behaviours being reinforced but not all behaviours
therefore a person will continue to gamble as winning follows some bets but not others
once established, a partial reinforcement schedule makes it difficult for gamblers to quit due to uncertainty of reinforcement (e.g. winning) makes it hard to stop
makes extinction (stopping) less likely
variable reinforcement
refers to a behaviour being reinforced after an unpredictable number of responses
therefore a person will continue to gamble as they may win after placing 2 bets but other times may not win until after placing 20 bets
so when winning occurs it is unpredictable and the uncertainty of when a pay-out is due keeps players playing for longer
gambler learns that they will not win with every gamble, but they will eventually win if they persist (reinforcing gambling)
makes extinction least likely
classical conditioning
cue reactivity
in their course of gambling, an individual will experience many secondary reinforcers that they associate with the exciting arousal experienced through gambling
e.g. atmosphere of betting shop, colour of scratch cards
these cues both maintain gambling and cause relapse after a period of abstinence
strength
supporting research evidence
parke and Griffths (2004)
interviewed gambling addicts and found they reported gambling as reinforcing due to the money, thrill and excitement
addicts also reported that a sensation of a near miss also encourages them to continue gambling
suggests gambling behaviour is generally reinforced both by winning (positive reinforcement) and almost winning (partial reinf) making it highly addictive
limit 1
environmentally reductionist
when a theory, model or explanation inappropriately explains behaviour at a basic environmental level
learning theory doesn’t take into account the physiological rewards experienced by gamblers e.g. adrenaline and dopamine involved in buzz of winning
suggests that other biological factors involved in reinforcing properties of gambling, weakening usefulness of learning theory
for a holistic understanding, we need to look at both environmental and biological factors
limit 2
environmentally determinist
which is when a theory, model or explanation suggests our free choice is limited by environmental factors
although many people gamble at some point in their lives & experience reinforcements associated with this behaviour, relatively few become addicts
suggests individuals have an element of free will in whether they want to continue gambling, weakening the usefulness of the learning explanation
limit 3
cannot explain all types of gambling behaviour
according to learning theory (and principles of conditioning) a reward needs to come shortly after a behaviour takes place for it to be reinforced
e.g. placing a bet on a fruit machine will have a short delay between gambling and outcome whereas, long delay placing a bet on a sports game and outcome but equally as addictive
suggests principles of learning theory cannot explain all types of gambling addiction, weakening validity as an explanation
