Skip to main content
Log in

Work and Non-Pathological Gambling

Journal of Gambling Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most economists believe that people would value an additional $1,000 in income more if they were poor than if rich, but if so, people should not gamble according to standard expected utility theory. Thus, economists have been challenged to explain the pervasiveness of gambling in human behavior. A recently proposed solution to this theoretical challenge (Nyman 2004; Nyman et al. in Journal of Socio-Economics 37:2492–2504, 2008) suggests that, because having to work for one’s income is a fact of life in market economies, many individuals view the winnings from gambling not only as additional income, but as additional income for which one does not need to work. As a result, individuals, and especially those who are disadvantaged in the labor market, attach a utility premium to gambling winnings and gamble because of that. This utility premium would explain the pervasiveness of gambling in society, especially among the economically disadvantaged. This paper reviews the economic approaches to explaining non-pathological gambling, presents an overview of the new theory, and uses data from the National Epidemiological Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions from 2001 to test it. The results indicate that the respondent’s work characteristics explain the decision to gamble in a way that is consistent with theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebaum, E., & Katz, E. (1981). An institutional rationale for the Friedman-Savage utility function. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 319–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernoulli, D. (1738). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Trans. Louise Sommer (1954) Econometrica, 22, 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, R., & Brenner, G. A. (1990). Gambling and speculation: A theory, a history and a future of some human decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C., Cook, J. P., Edell, J. A., & Moore, M. (1999). State lotteries at the turn of the century: Report to the national gambling impact study commission. Duke University.

  • Conlisk, J. (1993). The utility of gambling. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coups, E., Haddock, G., & Webley, P. (1998). Correlates and predictors of lottery playing in the United Kingdom. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., el-Guebaly, N., Wynne, H., & Chen, S. (2006). Risk of harm among gamblers in the general population as a function of level of participation in gambling activities. Addiction, 101, 570–580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., el-Guebaly, N., Wynne, H., & Miller, N. V. (2008). Replication of low-risk gambling limits using Canadian provincial gambling prevalence data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 321–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de la Vina, L., & Berstein, D. (2002). The impact of gambling on personal bankruptcy rates. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31, 503–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diecidue, E., Schmidt, U., & Wakker, P. P. (2004). The utility of gambling reconsidered. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29, 241–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbs, I. M. (1988). Risk aversion, gambling and the labour-leisure choice. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 35, 171–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, B. (1979). An expected utility function for the insurance buying gambler. Review of Economic Studies, 46, 741–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldstein, S. A. (1998). President of SMR Research Corporation, testimony before the House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Bankruptcy Revision.

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1980). A simple model for the utility of gambling. Psycholmetricka, 45, 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, S. E. (2000). Measuring the prevalence of sector-specific problem gambling: A study of casino patrons. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 25–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstein, D., Murphy, S., & Toce, M., et al. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago, Illinois: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

  • Grant, B. F., Moore, T. C., Shepard, J., & Kaplan, K. (2003). Source and accuracy statement: Wave 1 national epidemiological survey on alcohol and related conditions (NESARC). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakansson, N. H. (1970). Friedman-Savage utility functions consistent with risk aversion. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 472–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, M. S. (2004). State lotteries and consumer behavior. NBER Working Paper 9330. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

  • Kim, Y. C. (1973). Choice in the lottery-insurance situation augmented-income approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 148–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R., & Marley, A. J. (2000). On elements of chance. Theory and Decision, 49, 97–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 1, 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M. (1989). Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1622–1668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikesell, J. L. (1994). State lottery sales and economic activity. National Tax Journal, 47, 165–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Y.-K. (1965). Why do people buy lottery tickets? Choices involving risk and the indivisibility of expenditure. Journal of Political Economy, 7, 530–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M. W., Stitt, B. G., & Giacopassi, D. (2000). Casino gambling and bankruptcy in new United State casino jurisdictions. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29, 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyman, J. A. (2004). A theory of demand for gambles. Department of Economics Working Paper #322. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

  • Nyman, J., Welte, J. W., & Dowd, B. E. (2008). Something for nothing: A model of gambling behavior. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2492–2504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, R. D. (1998). The economics of wagering markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 2021–2064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, U. (1998). A measurement of the certainty effect. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 32–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, H. J., & Korn, D. A. (2002). Gambling and related mental disorders: A public health analysis. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 171–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1998). Dreams and disillusionment: A dynamic model of lottery demand. In J. Simon (Ed.), Four essays and a not on the demand for lottery tickets and how lotto players choose their numbers. Florence: European University Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economics Literature, 38, 332–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M.-C. O., & Parker, J. C. (2002). Gambling participation in the U.S.—results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 313–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M.-C. O., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors for pathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a grant from the Institute for Research into Gambling Disorders of the National Center for Responsible Gambling. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John A. Nyman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nyman, J.A., Dowd, B.E., Hakes, J.K. et al. Work and Non-Pathological Gambling. J Gambl Stud 29, 61–81 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-9290-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-9290-9

Keywords

Navigation