Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 201–214 | Cite as

A Test of Social Cognitive Theory Reciprocal and Sequential Effects: Hope, Superstitious Belief and Environmental Factors among Lottery Gamblers in Thailand

  • Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs
  • Nathanat Chanchalermporn
Original Paper


This study tested social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) hypotheses of reciprocal and sequential effects among person, environment variables and behavior. The study examined the impact of hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors on the frequency, amounts of lottery gambling and chasing of particular numbers among Thai lottery gamblers. One hundred and fifty gamblers who visited two temples in Bangkok to search for number clues before buying tickets and 150 gamblers who simply bought lottery tickets from the stalls were recruited for the study. Models were constructed to test the effect of hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors on gambling behavior, and the reciprocal effect of gambling behavior on hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors. Results confirmed the theoretical reciprocal effects. A sequential effect model showing the effects of environmental factors on superstitious belief, hope and gambling behavior was also constructed and hope was found to be the result of superstitious belief. To reduce lottery gambling, the players need to be warned of their distorted hope and the small chance of winning lottery.


Social Cognitive Theory Hope Superstitious Belief Environmental Factors Lottery Gambling in Thailand 



The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier draft of this paper.


  1. American Psychatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  2. Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2006). A test of social cognitive model of lottery gambling in Thailand. International Gambling Studies, 6, 7–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Browne, B.A., & Brown, D.J. (1994). Predictors of lottery gambling among American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen, J. S. Long(Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, E. (2006). Domesticating gambling: Gender, caring and the U.K. national lottery. Leisure Studies, 25, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coups, E., Haddock, G., & Webley, P. (1998). Correlates and predictors of lottery play in the United Kingdom. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ‘Poh Pool’ numbers create sensation. Numbers clearly seen in teardrops. (2005, [B.E. 2548], July 30). Daily News, pp. 1, 11. In Thai.Google Scholar
  10. Amazed ‘Poh Pool’ body un-decomposed. (2005 [B.E. 2548], August 31). Daily News, pp. 1, 16. In Thai.Google Scholar
  11. Gamblers excited at winning numbers in water bowl at Wat Pailom (2005 [B.E. 2548], October 1). Daily News, pp. 1, 16. In Thai.Google Scholar
  12. Lucky Grandpa almost lost. Dealer stole jackpot ticket. (2006 [B.E. 2549], February 18). Daily News, pp. 1, 14. Thai.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, D. (2001). It could be you. The Lancet, 357(9256), 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felsher, J. R., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2003). Parental influences and social modeling of youth lottery participation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13, 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felsher, J. R., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2004). Lottery participation by youth with gambling problems: Are lottery tickets a gateway to other gambling venues? International Gambling Studies, 4, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrell, L., & Walker, I. (1999). The welfare effects of lotto: Evidence from the U.K. Journal of Public Economics, 72, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrest, D., Simmons, R., & Chesters, N. (2002). Buying a dream: Alternative models of demand for lotto. Economic Inquiry, 40, 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillespie, M. (1999). Lotteries most popular form of gambling for Americans. The Gallup Poll Monthly, 205, 55.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, M. (2000). Scratchard gambling among adolescent males. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grun, L., & McKeigue, P. (2000). Prevalence of excessive gambling before and after introduction of a national lottery in the United Kingdom: Another example of the single distribution theory. Addiction, 95, 959–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hendriks, V. M., Meerkerk G-J., Van Oers H. A. M., & Garretsen H. F. L. (1997). The Dutch instant lottery: Prevalence and correlates of at-risk playing. Addiction, 92, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, D. F. (2000). Juvenile gambling in North America: An analysis of long term trends and future prospects. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 119–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: SSI Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  25. Lange, M. A. (2001). Brief communication: “If you do not gamble, check this box”: Perceptions of gambling behaviors. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McConkey, C. W., & Warren, W. E. (1987). Phychographic and demographic profiles of state lottery ticket purchasers. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21, 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moltmann, J. (2002). Theology of hope. London: SCM-Canterbury Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Statistical Office (2006a). Table 1 Average incomes and expenses per household and debts per household, classified by households’ economic and social conditions, Buddhist Era 2539, 2541, 2542, 2543, 2544, 2545 and 254 . Ministry of Information Technology and Communication, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  29. National Statistical Office (2006b). Table 4 Registered population, areas, density and house-holds, classified by regions and provinces, BE 2548. Ministry of Information Technology and Communication, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  30. Neufeldt, V., & Guralnik, D. B. (1994). Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English. Third College Edition. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Quiggin, J. (1991). On the optimal design of lotteries. Economica, 58, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22. 1009–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers, P., & Webley, P. (2001). “It could be us!”: Cognitive and social psychological factors in U.K. national lottery play. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapira, Z., & Venezia, I. (1992). Size and frequency of prizes as determinants of the demand for lotteries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In: C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–276). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sylvain, C., Ladouceur, R., & Boisvert, J.-M. (1997). Cognitive and behavioral treatment of pathological gambling: A controlled study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker, I., & Young, J. (2001). An economists’s guide to lottery design. The Economic Journal, 111, F700–F722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M-C., & Parker, J. (2002). Gambling Participation in the U.S.—Results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs
    • 1
  • Nathanat Chanchalermporn
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate SchoolBangkok UniversityKlongtoey, BangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations