The Psychology of Gambling

The Psychology of Gambling

Gambling is a multibillion-dollar industry based on the psychology of human positive reinforcement behavior. Pathological gambling is considered a form of addiction. Burrhus Frederic Skinner is one of the first psychologists to study and prove addiction behavior in animals. He observed the effects of the positive reinforcement behavior in the Skinner box. Some scientists consider addiction of gambling a biochemical disorder due to the release of neurotransmitters. Other psychologists consider the pathological gambling a psycho-behavioral disorder such as obsessive-compulsive disorder. Casinos regularly create an attractive and pleasant environment which is proven by some studies to increase the urge to gamble. If this pleasant environment is disturbed via negative reinforcement, the urge to gamble is noticed to decrease. For decades, it was believed that a big win early in the career of a gambler will lead to pathological gambling. The researches proved this theory wrong hence the new gambling machines are now programmed to give jackpots at a much lower rate than their predecessors. Scientists surveyed an increase in compulsive behavior in pathological gamblers and addicts compared to non-gamblers and non-addicts. Problem gambling is a psychological, behavioral, and addictive disorder due to a false positive reinforcement belief which has no definite cure.

Annotated Bibliography

B.F. Skinner Foundation. (2011). A Brief Survey of Operant Behavior by B.F. Skinner. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from http://www.bfskinner.org/BFSkinner/SurveyOperantBehavior.html

Burrhus Frederic Skinner’s research and survey about the Operant Behavior explain the nature of gambling behavior. Skinner used three reinforcement methods to train rats in the Skinner box. In the first module, the rat learned to receive food (reinforcement) every time it touched the leaver. In the second module, the rat learned to obtain food after touching the leaver in a sequence of fixed number. In the third module, the rat learned to receive food when it contacted the leaver in a completely random sequence. After the rats adapted the reinforced behavior, Skinner discontinued rewarding their behavior with food. The first rat quit touching the leaver shortly after a few failed trials. The second rat also stopped stroking the leaver at a sequence of a fixed number after it was not reinforced for a long enough time. On the other hand, the third rat which behavior was reinforced randomly, never stopped touching the leaver. According to Skinner, gambling behavior is based on random reinforcement psychology, hence its addiction. Skinner proved how tempting it is to try and very difficult to quit gambling since the reinforcement is unconditioned or random.

Skinner’s work is based on the observation of basic behavior of simple animals while training in the Skinner box. It defines the simple psychology of gambling in humans. However, the new psychology theories argue that human behavior and psychology is a result of complex multi-factors compared to animals. Moreover, this study did not address the effect of adding negative reinforcement to the random positive reinforcement to represent the loss in case of gambling.

Kushner, M. G., Abrams, K., Donahue, C., Thuras, P., Frost, R.,+ Kim, S. W. (2007). Urge to Gamble in Problem Gamblers Exposed to a Casino Environment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(2), 121-132. Doi: 10.1007/s10899-006-9050-4

The study compares the subjective urge of gambling after exposure to a gambling cue such as casino atmosphere in two groups of problem gamblers (PG). The first group was exposed to a negative mood induction (NMI). The second group was not exposed to a negative mood induction. Initially, the two groups had an increased urge to gamble upon exposure to the cue factor. The first group experienced a decrease in the urge to gamble after the first and second exposure to negative mood induction. However, the urge increased slightly by time and after the third exposure. The second group had higher urge to gamble than the first group the entire time. However, the urge to gamble decreased gradually as time passes.
In conclusion, associating gambling with negative mood induction leads to decrease the urge to gamble in gambling addicts. On the contrary, in alcohol addiction, negative mood induction increased the urge to drink in alcoholics. This result gives a new vision to approach the treatment of problem gambling.

For many years, gambling was considered an addiction like drugs and alcohols. The principle for treatment was similar to chemical dependency and addiction. Drug use and addiction lead to significant changes in the body physiological functions and neurotransmitters. On the other hand, problem gambling is mainly a psychological addiction. The study above proves that associating the addictive behavior of gambling with a negative psychological factor helps decrease the intensity of the urge to gamble.

Shaffer, H. J. + Kidman, R. (2003). Shifting Perspectives on Gambling and Addiction. Journal of Gambling Studies. 19(1), 1-6. Retrieved from http://prox.miracosta.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.prox.miracosta.edu/docview/198779200?accountid=28060

This paper approaches the addiction of gambling from multiple points of view. It discusses the biological-chemical and psychological-behavioral theories of gambling addiction. Since the seventeenth-century addiction is known to man as excessive use of a substance due to tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal. In chemical addiction, the body develops a tolerance which is the need to intake of more significant amounts of the drug to achieve the same effect. After tolerance dependency develops in which an individual cannot function without the drug. Withdrawal develops when the addict has severe illness that may be fatal if he or she does not take the drug. The three criteria mentioned above conclude chemical addiction. In a situation of fear, excitement, and thrill, the endocrine system releases neurotransmitters such as endorphins which put the body in a state of elation and prepare for an emergency. The biological-chemical theory blames the excessive gambling on the addiction of the neurotransmitters released during the excitement of gambling. When gamblers develop tolerance, they raise their bets to increase the excitement and the release of more neurotransmitters. Excessive and continuous gambling defines the state of dependency. Gamblers express signs of withdrawal when they report feeling down if they do not gamble for an extended period. The psychological-behavioral theory considers addiction to gambling a behavioral compensation to a psychological need or disorder such as depression. The theory is supported by the obsessive behavior of the nature of gambling. Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder cannot resist the urge to repeat a specific harmful behavior to fulfill a certain psychological need. Compulsive gambling is substantially consistent with the obsessive-compulsive mental disorder.

This article is trying to prove two different logical and scientific explanations for the addictive behavior of gambling. However, it did not provide any scientific or statistical evidence to support its thesis. It did not provide a comparative study of two populations with increase or decrease of neurotransmitters or the existence of psychological disorder in gamblers.

Tochkov, K. (2010). Self Control Deficits and Pathological Gambling. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2 (2), 65-69. Retrieved from http://prox.miracosta.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.prox.miracosta.edu/docview/840750003?accountid=28060

This study observes that impatience and impulsive behavior are characteristics of animals and pathological gamblers. Animals and gamblers prefer to receive an immediate small win rather than wait for a late big win. The experiment gives pigeons the choice of picking a green light to wait one second for small amount of food or pick a red light and wait ten seconds for a large amount of food. All the pigeons picked the green light which proves that animals are impulsive. When the wait for the small amount of food after the green light was extended to ten seconds and the wait for the large amount of food after the red light was extended to fourteen seconds, most of the pigeons picked the red light. The results conclude that the impulsive behavior has decreased when the waiting time for the fast small reward has increased and when the gap between the waiting time for the fast small reward and the late large reward has decreased.

This paper describes a similar study done on a group of pathological gamblers, a group of pathological gamblers with a drug addiction problem, and a control group. The impulsive gambling behavior was tested in each group by asking questions such as “which do you prefer to receive a hundred dollars now or a thousand dollars after one month?” The pathological gamblers with addiction problem had the highest score for impulsive behavior i.e. choosing the hundred dollars now. The control group of non-gamblers had the lowest score for compulsive behavior i.e. they chose a thousand dollars after one month. The study created a formula to calculate the devaluation of a reward by time. It was noticed that the devaluation due to time is highest when considered by gamblers with addiction and it was the lowest when it came to the control group. In conclusion, this study observes a great correlation between the impulsive behavior and pathological gambling as well as a greater correlation between the impulsive behavior and pathological gambling in people with addiction.

This study addresses gambling from the positive reinforcement behavior point of view only. However, this study did not observe the affect of negative reinforcement which is associated with gambling. Moreover, the study did not suggest a behavior modification for the treatment of pathological gambling.

Weatherly, J. N., Sauter, J. M., + King, B. M. (2004). The "Big Win" and Resistance to Extinction When Gambling. The Journal of Psychology, 138 (6),495-504. Retrieved from http://prox.miracosta.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.prox.miracosta.edu/docview/213826166?accountid=28060

This research is questioning the “Big Win” hypothesis theory. The “Big Win” theory hypothesizes that the experience of a big win early in one gambling career predisposes that person to become a pathological gambler. This study divided participants with no experience in gambling into four groups. All the groups started a simulated gambling computer program with the same amount of credit. They were instructed to cash out and keep the money at any time they decide to quit the game. The first group game was programmed to give a big win at the first trial and no wins at any other trial. The second group game was programmed to give a big win at the fifth trial and no wins at any other trial. The third group game was programmed to receive two half big wins at the second and fifth trials only. The fourth group received no wins at all during the entire game. The results showed that the group which experienced a big win (jackpot) on the first trial quit gambling the earliest with a mean number of twenty trials. The group which experienced no wins at all was the second fastest group to quit gambling with a mean number of fifty five trials. The group which experienced two small wins on the second and fifth trials was the third group to quit gambling with a mean number of sixty trials. The group which experienced a big win on the fifth trial quit last with a mean number of seventy trials. This study disproves the “Big Win” theory since the results define the expectations. The researchers perform other trails with variable combination of winning and loss. The results showed the same pattern of resistance to extension in all the groups.   

The “Big Win” theory hypothesizes that the occurrence of a big win (jackpot) in the beginning of a gambling session leads to a high resistance to extinction i.e. higher number of trials. This study proves the “Big Win” theory wrong by the numbers and statistics. However, the subjects in this study are people with no experience in gambling. The behavior of experienced gamblers may be different than the participants in this study hence the results as well.

For many decades scientists have been interested in the gambling behavior of human beings. Addiction and gambling have been pared together since gamblers have less ability to resist in spite of its devastating financial harm. In order to treat gambling addiction scientists and psychologist have extensively studied the nature of gambling. In conclusion scientists found that gambling is an obsessive psychological behavior which has an addictive nature similar to a biochemical condition. Pathological gambling is simply caused by simple randomized positive reinforcement behavior. No definite successful therapy has been found yet. However possibly randomized negative reinforcement behavior could be the solution.