Gambling behind the walls: A behavior-analytic perspective.

Abstract

The field of behavior analysis has done an excellent job of not only raising public awareness about certain disorders (e.g., Autism), but also developing the best treatments for those disorders. The field has not yet, however, done so for many behavioral disorders. For instance, pathological gambling is a major societal issue, but little behavior-analytic work has focused on it despite the fact that the disorder occurs at several times the frequency of other, more publicized, disorders such as Autism (Dixon, Marley, & Jacobs, 2003). One possible reason for the dearth of behavior-analytic research could be B.F. Skinner's (1953) conclusion that gambling behavior could be understood in terms of schedules of reinforcement. Subsequent research, however, suggests that multiple factors likely control gambling behavior (e.g., see Weatherly & Dixon, 2007). According to most prevalence studies, the rate of pathological gambling in the general population likely ranges between 1 -2% (see Petry, 2005, for a review). In terms of absolute numbers, these percentages represent millions of individuals in the United States alone. The numbers do not, however, encapsulate the problem. That is, pathological are individuals who officially meet diagnostic criteria according to the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Other people are labeled as gamblers because they display some symptoms of pathological gambling, but not enough symptoms to be diagnosed clinically as pathological. The prevalence rates of problem gambling are also difficult to estimate, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the number of problem exceeds the number of pathological gamblers, possibly another 5% or more of the population (see Petry, 2005). Pathological gambling is currently classified as an impulse disorder that is not otherwise classified. (1) To meet diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling, an individual must display at least five of the ten possible symptoms. Three of these symptoms are generally considered in nature. The possible cognitive symptoms include a preoccupation with gambling, feeling the need to increase one's betting so as to maintain the original level of excitement or arousal, and feeling restless when one attempts to cease gambling. (2) Six of the remaining seven symptoms are descriptive of behaviors in which the gambler might engage. They are trying to cease gambling but failing, increasing one's betting in an attempt to win back what has been lost (i.e., chasing one's bet), lying to others so as to conceal one's gambling, engaging in illegal behavior to finance one's gambling, putting one's opportunities (e.g., job, personal relationships, etc.) in jeopardy because of continued gambling, and turning to other individuals to finance one's gambling or to address financial issues that have resulted from one's gambling. (3) Interestingly, only one of the official symptoms for pathological gambling specifically identifies a contingency that might be controlling the person's gambling behavior; that the person gambles as an escape. It will therefore likely come as no surprise to behavior analysts that this particular symptom may have special relevance, which will be addressed later in the paper. As one might imagine, the research literature on gambling is immense (and beyond the scope of the present paper to review all of it), and many researchers have attempted to identify the factors that lead to pathological gambling. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this research is correlational in nature. As such, associative relationships can be, and have been, identified. However, the causal mechanisms underlying the disorder have not been firmly established. Regardless, research has potentially identified the establishing operations (Michael, 1993) or setting events (Kantor & Smith, 1975) for pathological gambling. As outlined by Petry (2005), there are six major risk factors for pathological gambling, several of which may be intercorrelated. …