Title: How to facilitate problem gamblers to manage common cognitive biases
1How to facilitate problem gamblers to manage
common cognitive biases
- Polly Lam
- Clinical Psychologist
- The Resilience Centre
- (Macau Social Welfare Bureau)
2Gambling and Reasoning
- All forms of gambling involve decision making
- Such decision making processes are conducted in
uncertain situations - Three categories of decision-making that bear
particular relevance to gambling includes
risk-taking, behavioral persistence and
self-control
3Problem Gambling as Problem Reasoning
- Gamblers are motivated by a way of reasoning, not
by defects of personality, education or social
environment. (Wagenaar, 1988) - Several irrational beliefs were identified among
gamblers the illusion of control, manipulation
of luck, misunderstanding of randomness, chasing,
and selective attention to winning experience
(Toneatto, 1999) - Deficits in decision making and feedback
processing were found among PG (larger decision
making deficits in pathological slot machine
gamblers than in pathological casino gamblers)
(Goudriaan et al., 2005)
4Problem Gambling as Problem Reasoning
- Research has shown that PGs demonstrate
irrational beliefs or thinking patterns,
therefore - 1) It is assumed that these irrational beliefs
cause gambling problems - 2) It is assumed that by correcting these
irrational beliefs, gamblers could reduce their
gambling behaviors. This is the theoretical
foundation of cognitive therapy in problem
gambling
5Problem Gambling as Problem Reasoning
- The second assumption was supported by
meta-analysis (Petry, 2005) concerning the
treatment effectiveness of cognitive therapy and
cognitive behavioral therapy for problem gambling - However, the first assumption (the causal
relationship between irrational beliefs and
gambling behavior) has been questioned by recent
research (May et al., 2005, Delfabbro, 2006,
Steenbergh, 2000, 2001). These findings suggest
that gambling beliefs may not be related to the
generation of gambling behaviors among
non-problem gamblers
6Possible Explanations
- Irrational beliefs may be generated or reinforced
during excessive gambling behaviors rather than
causing PGs to gamble - Ladouceurs (2001) concept of the distinction
between objective knowledge vs. personally
relevant knowledge (PGs may have objective
knowledge about gambling but may utilize and
evaluate it differently. During the process of
gambling, irrational beliefs may override
objective beliefs)
7Possible Explanations
- Thompson et al., (1998) suggested that peoples
susceptibility to this illusion appears to vary,
depending on their motivational and emotional
states (People who have greater desires toward
winning may rate their chances of success higher,
and beliefs in winning skills or future
success could give PGs the confidence to manage
their senses of failure or anxiety.)
8Clinical Implications
- Cognitive processes such as cognitive appraisal,
monitoring and regulation, maybe more significant
than the cognitive contents of individual
thoughts and beliefs (Millar, 2003) - An individuals emotions and motivations play an
important role in influencing cognitive processes
(Thompson, 1998, Langer, 1975) - Treatment at the meta-cognitive level maybe more
effective than merely at the cognitive level
9What is Metacognition?
- A theoretical framework describing individuals
awareness of their own mental state (Millar,
2003) - Two dimensions Metacognitive knowledge
(awareness and understanding of thoughts) and
metacognitive control strategies (efforts to
regulate thoughts, emotions and behaviors in
order to achieve long-term , practical and
meaningful success)
10Metacognition and Therapy
- From the model of metacognition, clinicians can
help clients understand how their emotions could
distort their thinking processes, help them
monitor their thought processes, and teach them
how to regulate their emotions and behaviors,
rather than just teaching them the correct
information about gambling
11The Information Process Biases That Relate to The
Creation of Irrational Gambling Beliefs
- Using induction to analyze a random situation
- Using intuitive reasoning to judge or control a
random situation (the basis of superstitious
beliefs) - Establishing a singular/linear causality
- Confusing possibility with probability
- Using selective attention
- Adhering to availability heuristic
- Arbitrary inference (jumping to conclusions)
12Other Illusion of Control Found Among Problem
Gamblers in Playing Casino Table Games (Sundali,
2006)
- Hot Hand (the belief that a particular
person is hot, and betting with the numbers
that the person has chosen) - Stock of Luck (the belief that one has a
stock, or fixed amount of luck and, once it's
spent, the probability of winning decreases) - (What are the underlying meanings of these
beliefs?)
13Using Induction to Analyze Random Situations
- Commonly called the Gambler Fallacy
- Within the context of gambling, it manifests as
follows - 1) In a random situation, the probability of the
occurrence of a particular outcome is higher when
this outcome has not occurred for a long time - 2) In a random situation, the probability of the
occurrence of a particular outcome is lower when
this outcome has not occurred for a long time
14Gambler Fallacy
- The Gambler Fallacy is related to not
understanding the following - The nature of randomness
- The definition of an independent event
15The Nature of Randomness
- Random situation is unpredictable, due to the
interplay of multiple causal factors which all
partially contribute to the outcomes. Observers
cannot know which factors contribute more to the
outcome in every event within a certain period of
time (e.g. throwing a coin or a dice) - Random situation unpredictable due to the
involvement of the observers and/or participants
(quantum physic)
16The Nature of Randomness
- There are four dimensions of causal
relationships - Natural Randomness The movement of electrons
- Human-Manipulated Randomness Casino table games,
slot machines, lottery and other forms of
gambling (the generation of every outcome is
designed to be independent and not related to
previous outcomes) - Natural Causal Relationships Natural phenomena
- Human Manipulated Causal Relationships
Scientific inventions, social establishments, art
creations and human relationships
17The Nature of Randomness
- Only with the first, third and fourth dimensions,
can we use induction to analyze the underlying
causal relationships and apply them to generate
favorable outcomes - We can never analyze human manipulated
randomness due to limited time, limited
resources and the rules of the games (the
asymmetric warfare between gaming organization
and gamblers). It is simply a waste of time,
money and effort. - If gamblers invest their time, money and effort
in dimension 1, 3 or 4, the chance of success is
much higher (They could be prominent scientists,
artists, businessmen, politicians, or
professionals, and enjoy lovely family
relationships.)
18The Asymmetric Warfare between Gaming
Organizations and Gamblers
- Asymmetry in money and capital
- Asymmetry in information
- Asymmetry in organization
- Asymmetry in power
- Question What is the main difference between
social gambling and commercial gaming?
19Independent Events
- Clinicians found that the concept of independent
events is the most difficult concept for PGs to
understand. - Clinicians can ask PGs to collect all the
information that could contribute to the outcome
of throwing a dice and analyze the possible
results within one second (the process of
throwing a dice takes about one second) - In the next throw, the whole process of
information collection has to be repeated because
the previous information cannot be applied again
20Independent Events
- When clients refer back to previous records,
clinicians have to inform them that all the
contributing factors have changed already, it is
no use to analyze the past outcomes - When clients guess the outcome randomly (meaning
they play the same game with the gaming
organization), clinicians have to remind them
that the pay off ratios set by the gaming
organization always favor the organization. (the
asymmetric warfare between gaming organization
and gamblers)
21Using Intuitive Reasoning to Judge or Control a
Random Situation (the Basis of Superstitious
Beliefs)
- The underlying belief that one can use intuitive
reasoning and superstitious beliefs to judge a
random situation is known as the uniqueness of
discovery and the manipulation of intuitions,
luck or divine powers - Belief in intuitions, luck or divine powers is
not the problem. The real problem is that people
believe they are the only one in the world who
can discover and manipulate these powers and use
them in gambling situations
22Different Approaches of Clinicians
- Some clinicians will challenge these beliefs
based on their treatment approaches and models - Personally, I seldom challenge these beliefs. I
would rather question the uniqueness of the
beliefs and ask clients to acknowledge the
possibility that others may also have the
ability to recognize and apply intuition, luck
and divine power to gambling. I ask them to
imagine what would happen if every one (including
clients, other players and gaming organizations)
used the same power at the same time. - Such questioning helps clients review their
belief systems from a non-egocentric perspective,
and helps them move away from a world view of a
personalized and privatized Natural Law/God
23Beware of Clients Personal Meanings
- Usually, if clients deeply believe in the
abovementioned intuitive reasoning, clinicians
have to clarify how the clients personal
meanings are being projected onto such beliefs
before they can restructure these beliefs
24Singular/Linear Causality
- Belief in a simple/ singular, linear causality
that contributes to the outcomes of gambling
events - Usually found in gamblers who play sport-betting,
horse racing or other competition style gaming
activities
25Singular/Linear Causality
- PGs fail to recognize the following
- Multiple and interactive factors that contribute
to the result of a game or competition - Betting behaviors also become part of the
interactive factors - Human manipulation of the game results
- The setting of pay-off ratios always benefits the
gaming organizations
26Singular/Linear Causality
- Clinicians could help clients understand the
above-mentioned points - Clinicians could ask clients to list out the
possible ways to manipulate game/competition
results - Clinicians could work with clients to play with
the multiple and interactive factors that
contribute to the game/competition results - Clinicians could help clients understand the
disadvantages of investing time, money and effort
in a human manipulated game without much
transparency
27Confusing Possibility with Probability
- Possibility Whether or not X will happen
- Three types of possibilities
- Technically possible means it is technically
possible to let X happen - Empirically possible means although it is
technically impossible to let X happen at the
moment, based on empirical evidence, it is
possible to let X happen in the future - Logically possible means anything can happen
provided it is not illogical
28Confusing Possibility with Probability
- Probability means How likely it is that X will
happen - Confusing possibility with probability leads to
the delusion that chance is 50/50. - When people are making decisions under
uncertainty, they are more likely to consider
possibility than probability (neglect of
probability bias) (Baron, 2000). This is
especially true when a decision must be made
regarding one possible outcome that has a much
lower or higher utility but a has small
probability of occurring.
29Confusing Possibility with Probability
- Rather than challenging the over-estimation of
the probability of the occurrence of favorable
outcomes in gambling situations, it is better for
clinicians to show empathy toward clients
anxious emotions which predispose them to make
irrational decisions. It is more effective to
help clients understand that gambling places
oneself in emotionally vulnerable situations, and
in such situations, people are unlikely to make
rational decisions.
30Selective Attention
- Research shows that problem gamblers selectively
recall experiences of winning rather than losing - What is the meaning of winning? (Discussion)
31Selective Attention
- To win can be perceived as a sign that ones
luck is about to turn, a confirmation that good
things do happen in life, or that one might
receive things for free in a world where one is
expected to give in order to receive. Luck in
this sense is a secular counterpart to the
religious concept of graceThe Big Win inspires
imagery of wealth and happiness freely bestowed
upon the chosen by so high a power that it is
above and outside all systems of reciprocity.
(Binde, 2005)
32Selective Attention
- Apart from objectively revealing the losses
resulting from gambling, clinicians can also
facilitate clients in understanding the emotional
meanings of winning and help them discover ways
other than gambling to pursue these meanings
33Availability Heuristic and Arbitrary Inference
- Availability Heuristic Overestimating the
probability of the occurrence of an outcome due
to imagining about it before hand (Tversky
Kahneman, 1973) - Arbitrary Inference Jumping to conclusions
without examining the situation with logic and
empirical evidence
34Availability Heuristic and Arbitrary Inference
- Clinicians could show interest in clients
beliefs and ask them to clarify the origins of
such beliefs - Clinicians could provide correct information to
clients without making them feel foolish
35General Principles of Managing Problem Gamblers
Cognitive Biases
- Understanding the underlying emotional and
personal meanings of the beliefs - Helping clients understand that they are
misusing their intelligence rather than making
them feel they think stupidly - Showing empathy toward the emotional
vulnerabilities that contribute to making
irrational judgments - Showing concern that gambling can impair the
clients ability to make rational judgments (but
not victimizing the client) - Facilitating clients in monitoring their emotions
and thoughts - Facilitating clients in developing internal
dialogues that not only respond to their
cognitive biases, but also respond to their
emotions
36Question Discussion