Individual Differences

1. Individual Differences Griffiths (1994) The role of cognitive bias & skill in fruit machine gambling

2. Fancy a flutter? • The odd Lotto scratchcard? • Friday night bingo? • The ‘Dogs’? • Down the Bookies? • Late night poker? • Losing your shirt?

3. Gambling addiction? • Can you get addicted to gambling the way you can to.. • Alcohol? • Cigarettes? • Heroin? • What are the symptoms of “addiction”?

4. What is addiction? • EUPHORIA • A “buzz” or “high” • WITHDRAWAL • Negative side-effects of going without – anxiety, nausea, depression • TOLERANCE • Bigger & bigger doses for the same “high” • Applies to drugs – does it apply to gambling?

5. Biological Theory • Euphoria occurs in the brain • NEUROTRANSMITTERS • Brain chemicals that create mood • Some drugs create feelings of pleasure directly in the brain • GENETIC PREDISPOSITION • Some people inherit a tendency to become addicted to drugs

6. Biological Theory - criticisms • What about the social situation? (theory is purely dispositional) • EG craving a cigarette at a party, but not in the bath • ahhhhh • Individual differences? • Gene DRD2 found in 42% of alcoholics • But also in 25% of general population • And 55% of those with autism

7. Behaviourist Theory • Perhaps addictive BEHAVIOURS are learned • They are REINFORCED by the pleasure they produce • Like Skinner and his rat • So addiction is possible to • Shopping • Online games • And gambling

8. Behaviourist Theory - criticisms • Not EVERYONE learns to be addicted • Some people just try smoking once • Shop in the January sales • Have the odd flutter • Also – this theory doesn’t explain the FIRST behaviour • (no previous reinforcement – Skinner’s rat pressed lever by accident – accidental gambling???)

9. Cognitive Theory of Addiction • Mark Griffiths, professor of Gambling Studies • Suggests 3 more components of addiction • SALIENCE • How important is the behaviour? How much time do you spend thinking about it? • CONFLICT • How much trouble does your behaviour cause? • RELAPSE • Do you go back to the behaviour at the same high level – even if “dry” for a long time?

10. Cognitive Bias • Addicts think about their behaviour in a different way from non-addicts • Weigh up the PROS and CONS differently • Gamblers view odds differently from non-gamblers • Exaggerate importance of skill • Downplay element of luck • IRRATIONAL thinking about their addictive behaviour

11. Heuristics 1 • “Rules of thumb” we use for problem solving • Can help us arrive at a quick solution • ILLUSION OF CONTROL • Choosing “lucky numbers” on a lotto ticket • Encourages gamblers to believe they can influence chance

12. Heuristics 2 • FLEXIBLE ATTRIBUTIONS • Winning down to own skill but… • … losing down to bad luck • FIX ON ABSOLUTE FREQUENCY • Gamblers count total winnings… • … but ignore number of times they lost

13. THE STUDY • AIM: Compare the behaviour/cognitions of Regular Gamblers (RGs) and Non-Regular Gamblers (NRGs)….. Natural Experiment • Gamblers = fruit machine players • 60 participants, self-selecting/snowball sample • 30 RGs (1 female) • 30 NRGs (15 male, 15 female, mostly students) • Recruited through campus posters or (RGs) personal invitation from gambler known to Griffiths

14. HYPOTHESES • There will be NO DIFFERENCE in skill of RGs and NRGs • RGs will be SKILL-ORIENTATED (NRGs will think it’s luck) • RGs will have more IRRATIONAL COGNITIONS than NRGs (eg using heuristics) • Players THINKING ALOUD will take longer than the rest

15. PROCEDURE • Each participant given £3 (30 plays) to gamble on a fruit machine in local arcade • Field Setting • Asked to try to stay on for 60 gambles • Then own choice: keep money or play on

16. MEASURES 1 • SKILL – observing behaviour • 7 variables • Total Plays (during session) • Total Time (spent on machine) • Play Rate (gambles per minute) • End Stake (total winnings in 10p coins) • Wins (total number of wins) • Win Rate (wins per minute) • Win Rate (number of plays for each win)

17. MEASURES 2 • COGNITIONS – irrational verbalisations • Half of players asked to “THINK ALOUD” • Tape recorded, grouped into 30 “UTTERANCE CATEGORIES” • PERSONIFYING the fruit machine (“She doesn’t like me”) • SWEARING at the machine (“You bastard”) • ASKING QUESTIONS (“What’s going on?”) • Reference to SKILL (“I won because I was quick”) • Reference to LUCK (“That was lucky”) • Etc

18. MEASURES 3 • COGNITIONS – semi-structured interviews • The following questions • Is there any skill involved in playing fruit machines? • How skilful do you think you are compared to the average person? • What sort of skills ARE involved in fruit machine gambling?

19. Results 1 • H1: Is there any difference in skill between RGs & NRGs? • Not really – wins were the same • RGs had higher play rate (8 gambles/min) than NRGs (6 gambles/min) • Apparently, more confident using features like HOLD or NUDGE to “gamble up” small wins

20. Results 2 • H2: Were RGs more skill-orientated? • Yes • 5.3% of RGs talking aloud referred to skill • Only 1.5% for NRGs • In interviews, NRGs said fruit machines “mostly chance” but RGs said “equal chance & skill” • NRGs viewed selves as below-average in skill, RGs “above average” • RGs gave examples of knowing “feature skills” and when machine has just paid out

21. Results 3 • H3: Were RGs more irrational in their thinking?? • Yes • 7.4% of RGs personified the machine (“machine doesn’t like me today”) • Only 1.1% for NRGs • RGs used heuristics, notably: • FLEXIBLE ATTRIBUTIONS • “I had a feeling it wasn’t going to pay very much after giving me a feature”

22. Results 4 • H4: Did thinking aloud affect the players? • Yes, for RGs only • RGs thinking aloud had lower win-rate per number of gambles • I.E. the RGs made fewer gambles between each win than the NRGs when thinking aloud

23. Conclusions • The only real difference between RGs and NRGs was cognitive • RGs think there’s more skill involved than there really is • 4 gamblers listened to playback of their verbalisations  surprised at the irrationality • Basis for cognitive therapy for gambling addicts?

24. Evaluation • REDUCTIONISM – only looks at cognitions, not previous reinforcement/role models or biology/genetics • ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY – high, due to setting in arcade • RELIABILITY – used inter-rater reliability but second rater listening to tapes found it confusing • GENERALISABILITY – from small-stakes fruit machines to high-rolling poker, roulette or sports?

25. Alternative Procedures • Change the people – don’t use students but recruit regular gamblers from betting shops, race tracks, etc • Change the task – football pools, horse racing odds etc • Change the measures – measure arousal with ECG (heartrate) or EEG (brainwaves) • Maybe different results with sports gambling (actual skill in predicting winners?) or biological measures (genetic basis for gambling addiction?)