Gambling and Shopping Addiction

• The cognitive approach explains gambling addiction via the expectancy theory. This is the expectations people have about what will happen if they gamble.
• The cognitive approach explains initiation of gambling by cost-benefit analysis. Maintenance is explained by irrational thoughts, cognitive biases, illusions of control and exaggeration of ability. Relapse can be explained by recall bias and overestimation of success.
• Initiation of gambling addiction in the cognitive approach is explained by cost benefit analysis. this is when someone weighs up the potentials costs and potential benefits of gambling. The costs include: financial loss, anxiety and disapproval from others. The benefits include: enjoyment, financial gain and the feeling of control. If someone expects the benefits to outweigh the costs they are likely to gamble.
• Maintenance of gambling can be explained by irrational thoughts, cognitive biases, illusions of control and exaggeration of ability in the cognitive approach. addicted gamblers are guided by irrational thoughts about how chance, luck and probability operates. Gambler’s fallacy is the mistaken belief that if something happens for frequently than normal (e.g. fixed heads tossed in a row)then it will happen less frequently in the future.
• cognitive biases can explain the maintenance of gambling addiction. Their thinking is biased towards perceiving favourable outcomes. The ‘near miss’ bias is when someone has lost their bet by coming second place, but they interpret this as a near miss as they nearly won. Near misses provides rewards (excitement) that maintain gambling behaviour.
• Illusions of control and exaggeration of ability can explain the maintenance of a gambling addiction. They may believe that they can influence the gambling outcome. They may believe superstitious behaviour (e.g. lucky socks)can make the odds in their favour. Others may believe they have special skills or knowledge that makes them experts in selecting what to bet on.
• Recall bias and overestimation of success can explain relapse of gambling. They recall wins and overestimate the benefits of gambling. They forget the losses and underestimate the costs. Their distorted cost benefit analysis makes gambling more attractive than it was.
• One strength of the cognitive approach in explaining a gambling addiction is that there are effective treatments. These address the cognitive biases and irrational thinking and replaces them with more rational ways of thinking. these cognitive based strategies have had some success. this supports the view that cognitive distortions underlie addicted gambling behaviour as tackling them reduces it.
• A weakness of the cognitive approach in explaining gambling addiction is that cannot explain the initiation and maintenance. There are many people who have irrational thoughts and distorted cognitions about gambling but very few people start gambling in the first place. of those that do, only about 1-3% have difficulty controlling their behaviour. If expectancy theory is correct then it is surprising there are not more addicted gamblers and so this suggests cognitive factors aren’t enough to explain why people start and continue gambling.
• The learning approach suggests that gambling behaviour is acquired through the social learning theory, classical and operant conditioning.
• Social learning and classical conditioning can explain the initiation of gambling. Positive, negative, partial and variable reinforcement can explain the maintenance of gambling. Cue reactivity can explain relapse of gambling.
• Social learning and classical conditioning can explain initiation of gambling. Vicarious reinforcement is part of social learning. Seeing others being rewarded is a powerful initiator. classical conditioning is influential as a first time gambler enjoys the external (noises and lights) and internal (excitement) sensations of gambling. These quickly become associated with gambling.
• Operant conditioning can explain the maintenance of a gambling addiction. This involves positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, partial reinforcement and variable reinforcement.
• Positive reinforcement in maintenance of gambling - gambling is rewarding through both winning money and by the ‘buzz’. Some gamblers experience a big win shortly after starting gambling and this memorable reward makes them seek to repeat it again. Near misses are positive reinforcers as they give bursts of excitement and tension.
• Negative reinforcement in the maintenance of gambling - gambling can be an escape from reality by providing a temporary relief from everyday anxiety.
• Partial reinforcement in the maintenance of gambling - only some instances of a behaviour are rewarded, which is common in gambling. Fruit machines operate on a partial reinforcement schedule where they only pay out on some bets and so behaviour is only sometimes reinforced. a person receiving this type of reinforcement will continue to gamble for a long time even after payouts stop.
• Variable reinforcement in the maintenance of gambling - when only a proportion of gambles are rewarded. A variable reinforcement schedule creates the most persistent gambling behaviours. E.g. a fruit machine might pay out on the average of 10 spins but not on every 10th spin as this would be too predictable. Instead the intervals between payouts vary. This is more exciting as gambler cannot be sure when the reward is coming so they continue to place bets.
• Cue reactivity can explain relapse of a gambling addiction. Gamblers encounter many conditioned cues, and these stimuli become reinforcing as they are associated with both physiological and emotional arousal. Gambling adverts, colourful lottery cards and flashing lights in a casino are all cue reminders that trigger the arousal a person associates with gambling, and still craves. Conditioned cues are hard to avoid due to social media and environment. These low level reminders are significant risk factors for relapse.
• Strength of the learning approach to understand gambling addictions - there is evidence. Dickerson observed gamblers in two betting offices in Birmingham and found high frequency gamblers consistently placed bets in the last two minutes whereas low frequency gamblers did not. It is likely the high frequency gamblers delayed their bets to prolong the rewarding excitement they felt. This shows how positive reinforcement can explain gambling in a real environment
• Another strength of the learning approach is there is evidence of variable reinforcement. Horsley et al compared high and low frequency gamblers in their sensitivity to variable reinforcement on a computer game. Some were continually reinforced every time they were successful, others were partially reinforced. Eventually no rewards were provided and the high frequency gamblers continued to play significantly longer even after reinforcement stopped. This shows variable reinforcement may influence addicted gamblers to continue.
• A weakness of the learning approach in understanding gambling addiction is that it cannot explain all gambling. Conditioning does not occur the same in everyone. Some people gamble and become addicted and others never return to gambling, despite receiving the same reinforcers. This may suggest cognitive biases may be a better explanation.