ROBERT F. MACMILLAN
April 13, 2006
Casino gambling has again become a controversy in Monroe County. We are not alone. More than a dozen states are having second thoughts over the promised benefits of legalized gambling.
Those who favor it point to the revenue it may bring; those who oppose it point to the social and economic damage it may do. Those who oppose it say that some customers would leave pretty much destroyed because gambling has cost them their savings, their homes and often their families. Proponents of gambling would argue this would not be the fault of legalized gambling but the weakness of those who could not leave while ahead. Learning theorists, however, have something different to say.
For years, it has been recognized that gambling is one of the purest forms of learned behavior. This conclusion is based on experimental results on conditioned responses.
Psychologist Ivan Pavlov, a world-renowned experimenter, rang a bell prior to feeding his dog. He noticed the dog would salivate, anticipating food. After a few runs, he would ring the bell but not feed the dog; to his amazement, the dog would salivate even though there was no food. The conclusion was obvious — the dog had learned to associate the bell with food. We now call this behavior "conditioned response," and herein lies a big problem with gambling. Expecting to win because it has happened before can become a learned response, and obsession and addiction can set in.
Studies have been designed since this primitive effort of Pavlov. They all recognize the potential of learned responses, and they have demonstrated the reality that random reward can be more effective than consistent reward. Pavlov's dog would have learned to expect food quicker if the experimenter rang the bell and sometimes did not feed the dog. With slot machines, this phenomenon is evident. A person who has put in a few quarters and received a handful in return is likely to try again. If the next few tries do not produce, the memory of the one that did can be compelling. "Quit while ahead" is often taken over with "It happened once, and I can make it happen again."
Robert F. Macmillan, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus from East Stroudsburg University's Counseling and Psychological Services.
April 13, 2006
Casino gambling has again become a controversy in Monroe County. We are not alone. More than a dozen states are having second thoughts over the promised benefits of legalized gambling.
Those who favor it point to the revenue it may bring; those who oppose it point to the social and economic damage it may do. Those who oppose it say that some customers would leave pretty much destroyed because gambling has cost them their savings, their homes and often their families. Proponents of gambling would argue this would not be the fault of legalized gambling but the weakness of those who could not leave while ahead. Learning theorists, however, have something different to say.
For years, it has been recognized that gambling is one of the purest forms of learned behavior. This conclusion is based on experimental results on conditioned responses.
Psychologist Ivan Pavlov, a world-renowned experimenter, rang a bell prior to feeding his dog. He noticed the dog would salivate, anticipating food. After a few runs, he would ring the bell but not feed the dog; to his amazement, the dog would salivate even though there was no food. The conclusion was obvious — the dog had learned to associate the bell with food. We now call this behavior "conditioned response," and herein lies a big problem with gambling. Expecting to win because it has happened before can become a learned response, and obsession and addiction can set in.
Studies have been designed since this primitive effort of Pavlov. They all recognize the potential of learned responses, and they have demonstrated the reality that random reward can be more effective than consistent reward. Pavlov's dog would have learned to expect food quicker if the experimenter rang the bell and sometimes did not feed the dog. With slot machines, this phenomenon is evident. A person who has put in a few quarters and received a handful in return is likely to try again. If the next few tries do not produce, the memory of the one that did can be compelling. "Quit while ahead" is often taken over with "It happened once, and I can make it happen again."
Robert F. Macmillan, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus from East Stroudsburg University's Counseling and Psychological Services.