17.4.1 The Learning Theory of Gambling Addiction

• As with nicotine addiction, social learning theory can be used to explain why people start to gamble
• Individuals observe role models, such as their peers and/or family members gambling and see the exciting consequences of the behaviour, such as winning money 
• This vicarious reinforcement leads them to imitate the gambling behaviour in order to get the same reinforcement
• Gambling continues through the process of operant conditioning, which suggests that behaviour that is positively reinforced (rewarded) is likely to be repeated
• Both winning money and the excitement of a potential win act as positive reinforcement
• Partial reinforcement is when a behaviour is not rewarded every time but the rewards come according to a schedule
• There are four different schedules of partial reinforcement:
• 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

• 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 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 an example of a behaviour subject to partial reinforcement on a variable-ratio schedule
• Slot machines are manufactured to follow a variable-ratio schedule to ensure gamblers will continue to play
• A slot machine (see image below) might be set to give a win on average every twenty games, but an individual could win on the third game and then not again until the twenty-fifth (variable-ratio) and this will raise their excitement while anticipating the reward and they continue playing

Slot machines pay out on a variable-ratio schedule - an example of partial reinforcement.

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’ (which is really a loss) often experienced by gamblers 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 6.57 times higher in individuals who also had parents who were addicted to gambling, supporting social learning theory as an explanation for starting gambling 

Evaluation of the learning theory of gambling addiction

Strengths

• Learning theory explanations have practical applications: some effective treatments, such as aversion therapy and Covert sensitisation , are derived from the learning explanation 
• Evidence supports social learning theory as an explanation for starting gambling and operant conditioning and partial reinforcement as responsible for continuing to gamble

Weaknesses

• 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 two 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

Link to Issues & Debates: 

Learning theory is beta biased as it does not acknowledge the difference between men and women. According to the survey conducted by Wardle et al (2007) men were 4.9 times as likely to be problem gamblers as women, and learning theory cannot explain this.

Operant conditioning is a reductionist stimulus-response explanation for gambling as it ignores physiological and social factors that explain gambling, such as poverty increasing the temptation of going for a big win, or the changes in the dopamine reward pathway that result in addictive behaviour.

Learning theory is also deterministic as it does not acknowledge the role of an individual’s free will in deciding whether or not to gamble.