Learning theory of Gambling addiction Flashcards
(15 cards)
Outline the positive reinforcement associated with gambling
Any behaviour that produces a consequence that the individual finds rewarding then
becomes more frequent.
Griffiths (2009) argues that gamblers playing slot machines may become more addicted
because of the physiological rewards (e.g. getting a buzz from winning), psychological
rewards (e.g. the near miss) socialrewards (e.g. peer praise), and financial rewards
Outline the negative reinforcement associated with gambling
Gambling can also be an escape for many (only a temporary one).
This is a negative
reinforcement to the extent that it offers a distraction from aversive stimuli such as the
anxieties of everyday life.
What is partial reinforcement
When a behaviour is
reinforced only some of
the time it occurs (e.g.
every tenth time or at
variable intervals)
Outline partial reinforcement associated with gamblers
The sequence of outcomes in some forms of gambling (e.g. fruit machines) is determined by a partial reinforcement
schedule.
Wins follow some bets but not all. Partial reinforcement produces a stronger learned
behaviour (that is more resistant to extinction) than constant positive reinforcement.
The belief that they will be rewarded and win at some point in the future keeps the individual gambling. As gamblers usually win at very random intervals, it explains why they can go for a long time without winning and still have the same strong urge to gamble.
What is variable reinforcement
A type of partial
reinforcement in which a
behaviour is reinforced
after an unpredictable
period of time or number
of responses.
Outline Variable reinforcement associated with gamblers
Variable reinforcement is when only a proportion of a player’s responses are rewarded.
Gambling machines use a particular type known as variable-ratio reinforcement, with wins occurring after an unpredictable number of responses.
This is a highly unpredictable pattern of reinforcement. It takes longer for learning to be
established but once is has occurred it is much more resistant to extinction. It is possible to go for many spins with no pay out at all, but the gambler continues to bet for a long time even when their behaviour is no longer reinforced.
This helps to explain why some people continue to gamble despite experiencing big losses.
Outline the big win hypothesis
Early experiences are important in shaping long-term addictive behaviour.
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’.
Outline the near miss hypothesis
Gambling can provide reinforcement even in the absence of a win.
Near misses or losses that are ‘close’ to being wins create a brief period of excitement and thrill that encourage further gambling.
Some fruit machines are designed to ensure a higher than chance frequency of near misses
How does cue reactivity maintain gambling bahviours
Cue reactivity can explain how a behavioural addiction like gambling can be maintained
and reinstated after relapse.
The gambler will encounter many secondary reinforcers,
stimuli which become reinforcing because of their association with the exciting arousal experienced by gamblers.
The casino experience itself is reinforcing, flashing lights, ringing bells, sound of coins
these are all exciting for the gambler.
These stimuli act as triggers for gambling because they have the ability to increase arousal (classical conditioning).
How may vicarious reinforcement affect gambling addiction
Individuals observe role models gambling who find it an enjoyable and rewarding
experience that could enable you to win a lot of money.
As a result of this vicarious
reinforcement the individual decides that gambling is a pleasurable behaviour and thus
begins gambling themselves. Even if they do not win initially, they persevere because their
observations lead them to expect future enjoyment/winning, especially if the individual identifies with role models and have a good relationship with them.
What is a strength of the learning theory of gambling addiction
Supporting evidence
What are limitations of the learning theory of gambling addiction
Doesn’t explain all types of gambling
Oversimplistic
Evaluate supporting evidence as a strength of the learning theory of gambling addiction
P:Supported by evidence.
E: Dickerson observed the behaviour of gamblers in real-life gambling environments – two betting shops in
Birmingham. He found that the gamblers who placed the most bets on horse races (high frequency gamblers) were consistently more likely than low frequency gamblers to place their bets in the last two minutes before the start of the race.
Low frequency gamblers who waited until this point tended to place their bets on the next race
instead. The high-frequency gamblers may have delayed betting to prolong the rewarding excitement they felt, for example at the tension built up by the radio commentary broadcast in the betting shop.
E: This is evidence for the role of positive reinforcement on gambling behaviour in those who gamble most often
and in a realistic setting rather than in a psychology lab.
Evaluate that it doesn’t explain all types of gambling as a limitation of the learning theory of gambling
P: There are different pathways to gambling addiction.
E: Gamblers who are ‘behaviourally conditioned’ may have begun gambling because of exposure to gambling
through role models or peer groups. Their gambling addiction may be explained largely through the process of social learning and reinforcement. However, a second subgroup tends to have accompanying anxiety or depression, a 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.
E: This suggests that learning theory can only explain some types of gambling addiction but does not explain all
forms of gambling addiction.
Evaluate that its oversimplistic as a limitation of the learning theory of gambling
P: Over simplistic.
E: Learning theories are better at explaining some types of gambling than others. Gambling games vary in the balance of skill and chance they involve. Success with most fruit machines and lottery scratch cards is due entirely to chance with no opportunity for the gambler to influence the outcome. However, in poker the
gambler’s skill plays an important role. When playing fruit machines there is almost no delay between placing
the bet and knowing the outcome. The two events occur very close together as required for conditioning to occur.
E: Addiction to games requiring skill, especially those in which there is a significant delay between bet and outcome, is more difficult to explain in terms of conditioning. Learning theories therefore lacks explanatory power for all gambling addiction.
