Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 295–305 | Cite as

Near Miss, Gambler’s Fallacy and Entrapment: Their Influence on Lottery Gamblers in Thailand

Original Paper

Abstract

Near miss, gambler’s fallacy and entrapment are hypothesized to influence gambling behavior but their individual impact on gambling behavior and their relationships have not been investigated. This study examines the direct and mediated effects of near miss, gambler’s fallacy and entrapment on lottery gambling among Thai lottery gamblers. Two groups of 200 lottery gamblers participated in the study. One group used superstitious methods to search for lottery numbers to bet, whereas the other group simply bought their tickets from lottery stalls. The superstitious group shows higher levels of near miss, gambler’s fallacy, entrapment and lottery gambling. Three models of relationships among near miss, gambler’s fallacy, entrapment and lottery gambling were constructed using LISREL program. The model that shows a direct effect of near miss, and one that shows a mediated effect of near miss fit the data equally. The results confirm a gambler’s fallacy and entrapment as starting points in the theory of cognitive psychology of lottery gambling and the generalization of near miss in gambling motivation.

Keywords

Near miss Gambler’s fallacy Entrapment Lottery gambling in Thailand 

References

  1. Ariyabuddhiphongs, V., & Chanchalermporn, N. (2007). A test of social cognitive theory reciprocal and sequential effects: Hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors among lottery gamblers in Thailand. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(2), 201–214. doi:10.1007/s10899-006-9035-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariyabuddhiphongs, V., Chanchalermporn, N., & Phengpol, V. (2007). Adapting the DSM-IV and SOGS scales to measure gambling problems among two groups of Thai lottery gamblers. Unpublished technical report, The Graduate School, Bangkok University.Google Scholar
  3. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Burns, B. D., & Corpus, B. (2004). Randomness and inductions from streaks: “Gambler’s fallacy” versus “hot hand”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 179–184.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Cote, D., Caron, A., Aubert, J., Desrochers, V., & Ladouceur, R. (2003). Near wins prolong gambling on a video lottery terminal. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(4), 433–438. doi:10.1023/A:1026384011003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croson, R., & Sundali, J. (2005). The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: Empirical data from casinos. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(3), 195–209. doi:10.1007/s11166-005-1153-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon, M. R., & Schreiber, J. E. (2004). Near-miss effects on response latencies and win estimations of slot machine players. The Psychological Record, 54, 335–348.Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths, M., & Wood, R. (2001). The psychology of lottery gambling. International Gambling Studies, 1, 27–45. doi:10.1080/14459800108732286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 (Abingdon, England), 92, 335–347. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03203.x.Google Scholar
  11. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: SSI Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  12. Kameda, T., & Sugimori, S. (1993). Psychological entrapment in group decision making: An assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 282–292. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 227–260). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  14. Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.Google Scholar
  15. MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in application of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 185–199. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McConkey, C. W., & Warren, W. E. (1987). Psychographic and demographic profiles of state lottery ticket purchases. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21, 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rao, V. S., & Monk, A. (1999). The effects of individual differences and anonymity on commitment to decisions: Preliminary evidence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reid, R. L. (1986). The psychology of the near miss. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2(1), 32–39. doi:10.1007/BF01019932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14(2), 111–134. doi:10.1023/A:1023042708217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers, P., & Webley, P. (2001). “It could be us!”: Cognitive and social psychological factors in UK national lottery play. Applied Psychology: International Review (Steubenville, Ohio), 50(1), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seibert, S. E., & Goltz, S. (2001). Comparison of allocations by individuals and interacting groups in an escalation of commitment situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 134–156. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02486.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chose course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thames, E. A. (1996). The sunk-cost effect: The importance of context. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 817–826.Google Scholar
  24. Wohl, M. J. A., & Enzle, M. E. (2003). The effects of near wins and near losses on self-perceived personal luck and subsequent gambling behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 184–191. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00525-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Graduate SchoolBangkok UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations