The third and arguably the most contentious assumption of behaviourism is that we can determine what makes us do something only by strictly observing our responses to situations in experimental conditions. The inner workings of the mind and emotions e.g. memory, thinking, perception, attitude and so on are considered irrelevant from the prospective of the behaviourist.
By considering other models of perspective the debate can be widened to consider what other factors may determine why some people gamble and some don’t and why some people can gamble intermittently or in moderation whereas others become addicted.
The extreme biological approach is like the radical behaviourist approach in that it is reductionist and deterministic. However, it does consider alternatives to classical and operant conditioning in the belief that our actions are determined by body chemistry and genetic makeup. Research has shown that identical twins (MZ) have a greater tendency to have the same behaviours (e.g. eating disorders) as their sibling when compared to non-identical (DZ) twins.
This supports the theory that we are susceptible to inherit genetic predispositions to mental disorders and environmental stressors. However, this alone does not mean we will become addicted gamblers if our parents displayed this type of addiction through genetic inheritance (nature). Neither does it mean that we can become addicted to gambling by the learning experience alone (nurture). What it is more likely is an interaction between two or more factors e.g. that we may have a genetic predisposition towards a mental illness which is triggered by a an environmental stressor. This is supported by the diathesis-stress model which states what is inherited in some cases of mental disorder is a predisposition to be vulnerable to it, not the disorder itself.
In the case of gambling the thrill of gambling may in some cases distract the participant away from their daily stressors (e.g. work, family problems, financial problems) and react to remove rational thought and reduce the levels of adrenaline thus reducing blood pressure, heart rate and so on which gives the participant a feeling of stress relief.
Once felt this likable feeling is a reward to a stimulus i.e. operant conditioning where a feeling of relief / distraction from the stress is the reward to a stimulus the thrill of playing the fruit machine. This interaction of biological (inherited predisposition) and behavioural (operant conditioning) goes to support that more than one prospective can contribute to a condition, habit, behaviour etc.
In contrast to the behaviourist approach another perspective that can be considered is that of cognition which is concerned with the internal mental explanations of behaviour with its emphasis on passive responses to external events. Cognitive psychology has influenced almost all areas of psychology including theories of emotion, motivation attitude formation etc.
Although no overall cognitive theory exists it is plausible that emotions due to winning or the motivation and competitive drive of taking on and beating the machine could be determining factors. The theory of the cognitive perspective is mechanistic and that we act like a computer in that we take in information, process that information and can retrieve the information in its original form (or as a schema).
If a previous experience of winning has formed a view or a schema that winning makes the participant feel good it may predispose them to keep trying to maintain that feeling by continually gambling until the state of euphoria is recaptured. However, the individuals predisposition and other factors e.g. life stressors and sense of reality will contribute to whether the individual suspends their judgement or knows when to stop or to pre set a defined limit of what they can or are prepared to lose.
It is entirely plausible to consider that part of the process of starting, continuing and becoming addicted to gambling involves conscious thought and an internal struggle at some stage of the rights and wrongs of continuing to gamble. If the rational thought process (cognition) works the individual will maintain a sense of reality and realise that they have to stop gambling for social and/or economic reasons. However, if the rational thought process fails then rational judgement may be suspended and the continuation of gambling internally justified.
The psychodynamic approach to this issue would argue that the internal conflict between the rights and wrongs of continuing to gamble was a battle between the id, the ego and the superego. The id works on the pleasure principle, it seeks to reduce tension and to obtain pleasure without regard for other people or for the rules of society. The id has two instinctive drivers, the Eros, the life enhancing feeling driven by a psychic energy called Libido and Thanatos the aggressive instinct that will attack anything that tries to prevent satisfaction of the Libido. Therefore it could be argued that there is a drive to obtain pleasure from trying to beat the machine and an aggression towards anyone trying to prevent the continued effort to win, the id will continue to try and obtain the pleasure whilst the conscience element of the superego will tell us it is wrong and we should not continue because we can’t afford it or we are developing a problem etc.
In addition, the third element of the structure of the psychodynamic model of personality, the ego will try and keep a reality check on what we are doing. If the gambling becomes excessive and threatens our or our dependant’s social or economic feeling of well-being we may feel criticised and rejected by family, friends and society. At this point the ego will sense that improper impulses are arising and usually use good sense and reasoning to stop the gambling. However, if the ego is weak it may prevent these feelings of improper impulses by using defence mechanisms to justify the inappropriate behaviour.
The defence mechanisms can take many forms. For example, the continuation of gambling can be justified by denial, the participant will say they can stop if they want but they don’t want it is just a bit of fun, there is no problem. Alternatively, they may rationalise their behaviour to satisfy unconscious motives e.g. taking out stress and aggression on the machine or diverting emotions of hate and/or aggression away from a loved one by taking out heir anger by aggressively playing the fruit machine and blaming their feelings on losing.
In conclusion, the article makes some good points about the structural characteristics of the fruit machine playing to our behavioural patterns to keep us gambling. However, its assertion that more work is needed to pin point which structural characteristics are most likely to affect addiction is a reductionist view in that it assumes our behaviours alone will determine which of the structural characteristics will cause addiction.
In my opinion the machine characteristics, colours, sounds, lights familiarity and the environment are influencing factors and they do affect our behaviour. However, it is to reductionistic and deterministic to conclude that these are the only factors that lure us to start gambling then develop an addiction. Other factors such as our emotional state, moral values, personality and genetic make up must all be considered to understand the complex reasons why we gamble to differing degrees.
1503 words.
