Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 379–391 | Cite as

Belief in Luck or in Skill: Which Locks People into Gambling?

Original Paper

Abstract

According to the social axioms framework, people’s beliefs about how the world functions (i.e., internal or external locus of control) are related to their social behaviors. Previous researchers have attempted to relate locus of control to gambling behavior, but the results have not been clear-cut. The present study speculated that the effects of perceived control (i.e., belief in luck and belief in skill) on gambling behavior are domain-specific and vary with the type of gambling. A total of 306 adult Macau residents ranging in age from 18 to 65 with casino gambling experience were recruited by going door to door. Empirical data on gambling frequency and perceived control relating to 13 types of gambling were collected. Our results demonstrated that the effects of belief in luck or skill on gambling behavior varied across different gambling categories. Specifically, for football lottery, Chinese lottery, and baccarat, it was not belief in skill but rather belief in luck that was a positive significant predictor of gambling frequency. Only for slot machines and stud poker did belief in skill significantly predict gambling frequency. For the remaining eight gambling categories, neither belief in luck nor belief in skill could predict gambling frequency. Our findings indicate that neither internal nor external locus of control can consistently explain people’s gambling behaviors. Instead, which factor plays a greater role in a person’s gambling behavior is dependent on the gambling type. Therefore, the finding that not all gambles are created equal might be a promising avenue for further research and treatment approaches.

Keywords

Belief in luck Belief in skill Gambling frequency Type of gambling Domain-specific 

References

  1. Acker, D., & Duck, N. W. (2008). Cross-cultural overconfidence and biased self-attribution. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1815–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 94–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein, P. L. (1998). Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33–47.Google Scholar
  7. Bronfman, N. C., Vázquez, E. L., Gutiérrez, V. V., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2008). Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 755–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darke, P. R., & Freedman, J. L. (1997). Lucky events and beliefs in luck: Paradoxical effects on confidence and risk-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 378–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Derevensky, J. L., Dickson, L., & Gupta, R. (2008). Adolescent attitudes towards gambling. Revista Brasileira De Terapias Cognitivas, 4(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  10. Derevensky, J., Gupta, R., & Baboushkin, H. (2007). Underlying cognitions in children’s gambling behavior: Can they be modified? International Gambling Studies, 7(3), 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickerson, M., & Adcock, S. (1987). Mood, arousal and cognitions in persistent gambling: Preliminary investigation of a theoretical model. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickerson, M., Walker, M., England, S. L., & Hinchy, J. (1990). Demographic, personality, cognitive and behavioral correlates of off-course betting involvement. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duarte, C. M., & Kalff, J. (1989). Influence of catchment geology and lake depth on phytoplankton biomass. Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie AHYBA4, 115(1), 27–47.Google Scholar
  15. Frank, M. L., & Smith, C. (1989). Illusion of control and gambling in children. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodie, A. S. (2003). The effects of control on betting: Paradoxical betting on items of high confidence with low value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 29(4), 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodie, A. S. (2005). The role of perceived control and overconfidence in pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(4), 481–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman, J. K., & Irwin, J. R. (2006). Special random numbers: Beyond the illusion of control. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 99(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths, M. D. (1990). The cognitive psychology of gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85(3), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. (1998). Adolescent gambling behavior: A prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with excessive gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 319–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanoch, Y., Johnson, J. G., & Wilke, A. (2006). Domain-specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment: An application to risk-taking behavior. Psychological Science, 17, 300–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harman, D. (1967). A single factor test of common method variance. Journal of Psychology, 35, 359–378.Google Scholar
  26. Kruger, D. J., Wang, X. T., & Wilke, A. (2007). Towards the development of an evolutionarily valid domain-specific risk-taking scale. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 555–568.Google Scholar
  27. Kweitel, R., & Allen, F. C. L. (1998). Cognitive processes associated with gambling behavior. Psychological Reports, 82, 147–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ladouceur, R. (2004). Perceptions among pathological and nonpathological gamblers. Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 555–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, J. W., Yates, J. F., Shinotsuka, H., Singh, R. H., Onglatco, M. L. U., Yen, N. S., et al. (1995). Cross-national differences in overconfidence. Asian Journal of Psychology, 1, 63–68.Google Scholar
  31. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model of social beliefs in multi-cultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leung, K., Bond, M. H., De Carrasquel, S. R., Muñoz, C., Hernández, M., Murakami, F., et al. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li, S., Bi, Y.-L., & Rao, L.-L. (2011). Every Science/Nature potter praises his own pot—can we believe what he says based on his mother tongue. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li, S., Chen, W. W., & Yu, Y. (2006). The reason for Asian overconfidence. Journal of Psychology, 140, 615–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li, S., Zhou, K., Sun, Y., Rao, L. L., Zheng, R., & Liang, Z. Y. (2010). Anticipated regret, risk perception, or both: Which is most likely responsible for our intention to gamble. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(1), 105–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin, E. J., Casswell, S., Easton, B., Huckle, T., Asiasiga, L., & You, R. Q. (2011). Time and money spent gambling and the relationship with quality-of-life measures: A national study of New Zealanders. Journal of Gambling Issues, 24, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1997). Gambling activities of young Australians: Developing a model of behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 207–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). Beliefs about control over gambling among young people, and their relation to problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nordgren, L. F., van der Pligt, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2007). Unpacking perceived control in risk perception: The mediating role of anticipated regret. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(5), 533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  41. Podasakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sun, Y., Zhou, K., Bi, Y. L., Huang, G. H., & Li, S. (2010). To gamble or not to gamble: A domain-specific intention. Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science, 19(11), 1012–1015. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  44. Sundali, J., & Croson, R. (2006). Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  45. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  46. Tang, C. S., & Wu, A. M. (2010). Direct and indirect influences of fate control belief, gambling expectancy bias, and self-efficacy on problem gambling and negative mood among Chinese college students: A multiple mediation analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 533–543.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang, X. T. (1996). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang, X. T. (2007). Evolutionary psychology of investment decisions: Studies of expected personal money allocation and differential parental investment in sons and daughters. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 406–414. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  49. Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wohl, M. J., & Enzle, M. E. (2002). The deployment of personal luck: Sympathetic magic and illusory control in games of pure chance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1388–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wohl, M. J., & Enzle, M. E. (2003). The effects of near wins and near losses on losses on self-perceived personal luck and subsequent gambling behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(2), 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yates, J. F., Lee, J. W., Shinotsuka, H., Patalano, A. L., & Sieck, W. R. (1998). Cross cultural variations in probability judgment accuracy: Beyond general knowledge-overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 89–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeng, Z. L. (2010). Status quo and future of casinos around the World. Beijing, China: Chinese economy publishing house. (in Chinese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Macau University of Science and TechnologyMacauChina
  4. 4.Gaming Teaching and Research CentreMacau Polytechnic InstituteMacauChina

Personalised recommendations