Facing the Challenge: The Behavior Analysis of Gambling

For many, gambling is an entertaining, leisure-time activity. For a small percentage of individuals, however, gambling represents a severe behavioral disorder that has very negative, life-changing consequences. Although estimates of the frequency of pathological gambling in the general population may seem small (e.g., 1-3%; see Petry, 2005, for a review), those estimates translate into millions of individuals. Furthermore, there are certain populations who suffer from pathological gambling at rates well above those seen in the general population. For instance, data suggest that American Indians display the symptoms of pathological gambling at well over 10 times the frequency of the majority population (Wardman, el-Guebaly, & Hodgins, 2001). In short, pathological and problem gambling is a serious societal problem that deserves research attention. Despite the seriousness of the disorder, an argument could be made that the research community, and specifically behavior analysis, has done little to identify the underlying causes (or contingencies) that lead to pathological gambling. A cursory review of the literature supports that argument. A search of the PsycINFO database using the term "gambling" in an all-text search (conducted on September 8, 2007) yielded a total of 3,354 references. An identical search that cross referenced "gambling" with "experiment" identified 166 sources. A separate search that cross referenced "gambling" and "behavior analysis" yielded only 14 citations. One that cross referenced "gambling" and "reinforcement" yielded a total of 87. These searches suggest that less than 5% of the research literature on pathological gambling even mentions the word experiment, let alone uses experimental methodology. The importance of this small percentage cannot be overstated given that experiments represent the strongest and most straightforward method of determining cause-and-effect relationships. The searches also suggest that less than 3% of the published work on gambling is coming from a behavior-analytic perspective. This percentage is disturbing because behavior analysis has been successfully applied to serious behavioral disorders (e.g., Autism), yet little has been done to apply behavior analysis to pathological gambling. That is not to say that behavior analysts have completely ignored the study of gambling. They have not. For instance, Rachlin (1997) forwarded behaviorally oriented theories of addiction. Although discussed in the context of substance abuse, these theories can certainly be applied to pathological gambling. More recently, Fantino, Navarro, and O'Daly (2005) and Madden, Ewan, and Lagorio (2007) have argued that behavioral research perspectives and techniques can potentially forward our understanding of gambling behavior relative to other approaches. Petry and Roll (2001) suggested some treatments for pathological gambling from a behavioral perspective. Unfortunately, these significant contributions have not led to large amounts of behavior-analytic research. Two recent efforts will hopefully jumpstart such research. The first is the establishment of a behavior-analytic journal devoted to the study of gambling behavior. The journal, Analysis of Gambling Behavior, published its first issue in 2007. The second effort was an article published within that first issue. Specifically, Weatherly and Dixon (2007) attempted to put forward an integrative, behavior-analytic model of gambling behavior. They argued that doing so would potentially aid the study of gambling by focusing research attention on specific variables and by providing a general theoretical foundation for pursuing behaviorally oriented research in the broader literature. They also suggested such a model might also promote the attainment of research funding from agencies and foundations as those entities tend to rely heavily on a rationalistic approach to science. …