COGNITIVE BIASES AO3

• Supporting evidence for the cognitive bias is provided by Griffiths (1994). He compared the verbalisations of 30 regular gamblers with 30 non-regular gamblers while they were playing on a fruit machine. He found that the regular gamblers showed many more irrational verbalisations – 14% than the non-regular gamblers - 2.5%. In addition, the verbalisations showed evidence of many of the heuristics and biases described previously.
• Griffiths explanation


  Therefore, Griffiths supports cognitive explanations and that gamblers are more likely to exhibit cognitive biases and heuristics, suggesting that they are implicated in this addiction.
• However, one issue with cognitive biases as an explanation of gambling is that they may merely provide a description of the thoughts of gamblers rather than a true explanation of what causes gambling. Explanations of behaviour should be able to predict what will happen in certain circumstances, and one of the features of cognitive biases is that it is impossible to predict when a particular bias might be used.
• This is a weakness of this individual differences explanation as it merely provides a description of the cognitive biases that gamblers experience. However, it is not really an explanation for why or when someone will become addicted to gambling. Even the same individual might use difference biases on different occasions with no pattern; this cannot therefore offer us a complete explanation for addiction.
• Methodological issue - the use of questionnaires to assess cognitive processes. Questionnaires such as the Gambling Belief Questionnaire rely on the gambler being honest about what they are thinking, which could be subject to issues such as demand characteristics and social desirability bias. If a gambler is aware that what they are thinking is irrational, they may be reluctant to admit it.
• Further on the methodological issue of the cognitive explanation


  This is a weakness of research into cognitive biases and addiction that uses questionnaires, suggesting that such studies may lack validity and should be reviewed with caution.
• Ignores the role of social factors in addiction therefore, it is reductionist. For example, there are likely to be social factors involved in gambling becoming addictive. If someone is struggling with money, the prospect of an easy win gives a solution to the problem. This is a criticism of individual differences explanations as there could be more logical reasons why someone might gamble is due to social reasons which these explanations ignore.
• Reductionist 


  This is a weakness of the personality explanation of addiction because of focusing on personality and cognitive traits it ignores many other factors which could contribute to addiction. This explanation is only a partial explanation and cannot explanation addiction fully.
• Deterministic 


  Individual differences explanations are deterministic. both individual differences explanations ignore the role of free will in decision-making processes. Not every individual that have certain personality traits or cognitive biases develop addictive behaviour. This is a weakness of this individual differences explanation and ignores the role that free will plays in human behaviour. Not everyone who has these personality traits develops addictive behaviours. However, it can also be helpful in pinpointing contributing factors to addiction.