1 / 25

Individual Differences

Individual Differences. Griffiths (1994) The role of cognitive bias & skill in fruit machine gambling. Fancy a flutter?. The odd Lotto scratchcard? Friday night bingo? The ‘Dogs’? Down the Bookies? Late night poker? Losing your shirt?. Gambling addiction?.

thadeus
Download Presentation

Individual Differences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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?)

More Related