Cognitive Theory (AQA A Level Psychology): Revision Note

The role of cognitive biases in gambling addiction

• The cognitive approach sees gambling addiction as a result of maladaptive thought processes

• Expectancies are at the heart of the cognitive explanation, as gamblers have expectations about the future benefits and costs of their behaviour, and when they expect the benefits of gambling to outweigh the costs, addiction becomes more likely

  • This sounds like a conscious, rational decision-making process, but it is not, because memory and attention processes do not operate in a rational and logical manner

• A cognitive bias is a pattern of thinking and processing information about the world that produces distorted thoughts and beliefs 

  • Cognitive biases are examples of maladaptive thought processes that result in gambling addiction

• Research has identified several relevant cognitive biases explaining gambling addiction

• Rickwood et al. (2010) classify these cognitive biases and distortions into four categories:

  • Skill and judgement – gambling addicts have an illusion of control, overestimating their ability to influence a random event, e.g., being especially skilled at choosing lottery numbers

  • Personal traits and ritual behaviours – gambling addicts believe they have a greater probability of winning because they are especially lucky or they engage in superstitious behaviour, e.g., touching a certain item of clothing before placing a bet

  • Selective recall – gamblers remember the details of their wins but forget, ignore or discount their losses, which are often interpreted as completely unexplainable mysteries

  • Faulty perceptions – addicted gamblers have distorted views about the operation of chance, exemplified in the gambler's fallacy, the belief that a losing streak cannot last and is always about to be ended by a win

Research which investigates the cognitive theory of gambling addiction

• Griffiths (1994) used the 'thinking aloud' method with regular and occasional slot machine gamblers, and found no difference between the groups on objective measures, as regular gamblers did not win more money

  • However, regular gamblers made almost six times as many irrational verbalisations (14% compared with 2.5%), were prone to an illusion of control such as claiming to bluff the machine, and overestimated the skill involved in winning

• Joukhador et al. (2003) conducted a literature review to compare the cognitive styles of 52 non-regular gamblers and 56 gamblers who were addicted and found that addicted gamblers showed more cognitive biases and irrational thinking than the non-regular gamblers

Evaluation of research investigating the cognitive theory of gambling addiction

Strengths

• The understanding of how gamblers think means that cognitive behavioural therapy could be used to treat these biases and irrational beliefs to reduce gambling addiction

• Research shows that frequent gamblers place their bets automatically, as predicted by cognitive theory, e.g., McCusker & Gettings (1997) used a modified Stroop procedure and found gamblers took longer to name the ink colour of gambling-related words than control words

  • This suggests gamblers have an automatic bias towards gambling-related information that does not exist in non-gamblers, so cognitive biases can operate without us being aware of them

Limitations

• The research into cognitive biases and gambling addiction is correlational, which means that cause-and-effect cannot be established, i.e., cognitive biases could simply be a side-effect of being an addict

• Individual differences may determine how gamblers interpret their gambles, e.g., Burger & Smith (1985) found that people with a high need for control over their lives are more likely to believe they can influence chance-determined situations

  • They may therefore be drawn to gambles where they wrongly believe their skill affects the outcome, such as choosing lottery numbers, so cognitive biases alone cannot explain gambling

Issues & Debates

• The cognitive approach assumes behaviour is shaped by internal mental processes (e.g., cognitive biases), but it also suggests individuals can recognise and challenge irrational thoughts

  • This contrasts with environmental determinism, as in learning theory, and exemplifies soft determinism, where people are influenced but not entirely controlled by cognitive factors

• The theory leans towards a nomothetic approach by identifying general patterns of thinking in gamblers (e.g., common biases)

  • However, it can be applied idiographically in therapy (e.g., CBT) by targeting an individual’s unique irrational beliefs—supporting a combined approach to understanding and treating addiction