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 doesnt explain the FIRST
  behaviour
• (no previous reinforcement Skinners 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
  its 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 doesnt like
  me)
• SWEARING at the machine (You bastard)
• ASKING QUESTIONS (Whats 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
  doesnt like me today)
• Only 1.1 for NRGs
• RGs used heuristics, notably
• FLEXIBLE ATTRIBUTIONS
• I had a feeling it wasnt 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 theres 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 dont 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?)