learning theory of gambling addiction

role of social learning theory in gambling addiction

• Individuals observe role models gambling and see the exciting consequences of the behaviour, such as winning money

• This vicarious reinforcement leads them to imitate the gambling behaviour to get the same reinforcement

role of operant conditioning in gambling addiction

• Gambling continues through the process operant conditioning, which suggests that behaviour that is positively reinforced is likely to be repeated

  • Both winning money and the excitement of a potential win act as positive reinforcement

role of partial reinforcement in gambling addiction

• Partial reinforcement occurs when a behaviour is not rewarded every time, but the rewards come according to a schedule

• Fixed-interval - after regular intervals of time

• Variable interval - after varying and unpredictable intervals

• Fixed ratio - after a set number of attempts

• Variable ratio - after a varying and unpredictable number of attempts

the role of variable reinforcement in gambling addiction

• Skinner (1953) found that partial reinforcement strengthened a rat or pigeon’s change in behaviour, and the partial reinforcement schedule that kept a behaviour repeated for the longest was variable-ratio reinforcement

• In the case of gambling, the individual has no way to predict when they will win or lose, and therefore gambling is a behaviour subject to partial reinforcement on a variable-ration schedule

  • E.g. slot machines are manufactured to follow a variable-ratio schedule to ensure gamblers will keep playing

research which investigates the learning theory of gambling addiction

• Parke & Griffiths (2004)

  • Investigated the theory of operant conditioning as an explanation for gambling addiction and found that the sensation of a ‘near miss’ reinforced gambling behaviour as much as winning did, making gambling highly addictive

• Wardle et al. (2007)

  • Conducted the British Gambling Prevalence Survey and found the prevalence of gambling addiction was x6.57 higher in individuals who also had parents addicted to gambling, supporting the role of SLT in gambling

strengths of the learning theory of gambling addiction

• Learning theory explanations have practical applications: some effective treatments, such as aversion therapy and covert sensitisation, are derived from the learning explanation

• Evidence supports SLT as an explanation for starting gambling, and operant conditioning, and partial reinforcement as responsible for continuing to gamble

weaknesses of the learning theory of gambling addiction

• Learning theory cannot explain why one person may have a big win and not become addicted to gambling, whereas another may be addicted whether winning or losing

• Operant conditioning requires the behaviour to be followed almost instantly by reinforcement, or the connection between the 2 is lost but this is not the case with all gambling, such as betting on a horse race, which research suggests is just as addictive as gambling on slot machines

links of the learning theory of gambling addiction to issues & debates

• Learning theory suggests that gambling behaviour is entirely determined by environmental cues and reinforcement, not free choice

  • This implies gamblers are passive responders to external triggers, undermining free will

• The explanation is environmentally reductionist as it focuses only on stimulus-response mechanisms and ignores cognitive factors (e.g. irrational beliefs, distorted thinking) or biological predispositions