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.