Psychology and Gambling.

This article will be discussing two opposing views on the nature of gambling and the motivations behind gambling behaviour. The first point of view we will be considering is whether, as many argue, gambling as behaviour is deviant and the second viewpoint is whether gambling is merely an extension of normal behaviour.

 

First School Of Thought:

There are a large number of people who see gambling as a deviant, abnormal behaviour, one that is contrary to a person’s own well-being. Many people who presume that gambling is deviant often focus their attentions on particular, unconventional forms of gambling, they may cite examples of how revenue generated from certain types of gambling is used to fund criminal activities. Many people who adopt this particular view of gambling do so because they are unfamiliar with the practice of gambling, they may view investments in the stock-markets as unnecessary risk, without fully comprehending the idea of speculating to accumulate, and the uncertainty of how the economic markets function. In short, many fail to grasp the idea of ‘calculated risks’.

 

 The definitions given as to what gambling is from this first point of view are often ill considered, although the element of risk taking is usually present. The lines seem to blur as to what can be considered a ‘reasonable risk’ and an ‘unreasonable risk’- of course this is usually down to individual judgement with some drawing a sharper line than others. They seem to be more accepting of risks that are taken with reference to some scientific/mathematical evidence of success or those risks that are commonly accepted as part and parcel of the social world. For example, they will not necessarily view the insurance companies as gamblers, even though all their policies are worked out in reference to calculated risks, insurers take a gamble every time that they underwrite an insurance policy.

 

A huge risk that failed to pay-off for example, was the insurance on the Twin Towers in New York, whereby only one tower was insured because they believed that the risk of two collapsing was so significantly small that the cost of insuring both was disproportionate to the risk- does this mean that those responsible for the insurance of the towers had a gambling problem? Were they displaying deviant behaviour by insuring only one? In hindsight plenty of people would probably say yes, but I doubt as many would have concurred had the events of 9.11 never happened.

 

Behavioural psychologists (or simply behaviourists in psychology speak) have forwarded some insightful theories regarding the methods of clinical diagnosis for problem gamblers. Certain behaviourists advocate the view that gambling is a form of maladaptive behaviour, the expression of a neurotic personality and that the only course of action for such people is some kind of behavioural therapy, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (or CBT).

 

CBT attempts to address the behaviours of an individual and encourages the development of new, more adaptive, behaviours in their place. CBT is a very effective form of therapy for many psychological problems and can indeed reduce gambling behaviour, but that still does not answer the question as to whether gambling is maladaptive in itself, or only when taken to extremes by certain individuals, say those who lack impulse control for example.

 

Other treatments, those advocated by Biological Psychologists, include taking anti-depressant such as fluoxitine, marketed under the name Prozac, which can help to reduce compulsive behaviours in some individuals who have problems with the way in which their brains manage levels of serotonin.

 

Other psychologists, and Freud would fall into this category, known as Psychoanalysts, would argue that gamblers gamble because of some unresolved conflict within the subconscious mind. For example, they may propose the view that gamblers keep taking unnecessary risks because their subconscious needs them to lose, and therefore be punished, that they feel they have done a wrong somewhere in their pasts that has never been acknowledged or punished and they consistently seek to undertake damaging behaviours as they attempt to reconcile with their pasts. I.e. they want to be punished because that is what they feel they deserve. Of course, Freud has been widely discredited, and this does all seem a little farfetched, but nonetheless there may be a grain of truth in that some problem gamblers may have unresolved internal conflicts, the exact nature of which one can only assume.

 

Second School Of Thought:

This school of thought considers gambling an extension of natural, adaptive behaviour, rather than as a form of deviant behaviour. From this point of view, gambling is a natural phenomenon and has a rational, instinctive basis.

 

Here, gambling is viewed merely as a leisure activity, and this is much more akin to the way in which the average gambler views their pastime. All psychologists will agree today that leisure is a fundamental part of a well-balanced life, and that the nature of gambling, as active, engaging and enjoyable fits well into a healthy life. It is the nature of risk inherent in gambling that makes the activity entertaining in the first place, while some may argue that risk should be avoided at all costs, if everyone were to do this, society would soon become stagnant, totalitarian and dogmatic. Risk-takers and risk-taking behaviours have all served an evolutionary imperative that has ensured that our species as a whole has progressed, grown and overthrown problems.

 

As a counter argument to the Psychoanalytic view that gamblers want to lose, many a time a gambler, unless they have learned to do otherwise, will attempt to chase their losses, that is to recoup losses that they have lost by gambling more, although the overall pattern will be loss, the intention was to win. Of course, this is not an argument to advocate gambling as chasing losses is disastrous, and you will see on many gambling sites that this is a golden rule that must not be broken. NEVER CHASE YOUR LOSSES.

 

Gambling is definitely viewed by many as a form of entertainment, yes it costs money, but so do many other pastimes that are socially acceptable to most, such as cinema, restaurant, etc. With a real life casino the excitement can be even greater than online, as the atmosphere adds to the experience. As human beings we are pleasure seekers, and many people find gambling pleasurable, so how can it not be ok?

 

With regards to the funding of criminal activities, while this may well have been true in the past, it is much less so now. With the proliferation of online casinos, the industry has evolved, because of the degree of competition any hint that a casino may be engaged in underhand tactics will very quickly see that casino collapse as word spreads and gamblers avoid it.

 

While it is true that gambling can be seen as a natural extension of behaviour, it is true that certain individuals are prone to develop a gambling problem to the point that it interferes with their everyday life. When this happens it can certainly be considered as a menace, but this will only happen to a small minority of people and as such cannot be used as an argument for banning gambling altogether. It is like alcohol, some people will become addicted to it, but the vast majority will not, this is no excuse for prohibition. Rather, these are reasons to find ways of identifying which type of person will encounter problems, and then create specific treatments to help them overcome their problems. And possibly such treatments and research can be funded by the casinos themselves, and then instead of viewing them as providers for the criminal fraternity, they can be viewed as providers for the socially troubled.

Copyright © www.online-casinos.co.uk, 2009. All Rights Reserved.