Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 171–183 | Cite as

Can Demographic Variables Predict Lottery and Pari-mutuel Losses? An Empirical Investigation

Original Paper

Abstract

Using data from the 2004 and 2005 Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CES) comprising of 15,000 respondents, this study examines two research questions. The first of these considers the demographic differences between households whose members lose money playing the lottery and/or engaging in pari-mutuel betting and those whose members do not lose money participating in such activities. The second assesses demographic differences among households whose members lose money playing the lottery and/or engaging in pari-mutuel betting. It was found that respondents living in money-losing households are slightly older, better off financially, more likely to be married or divorced, more likely to live in a state with at least one legal casino and more likely to live in the Northeast than respondents living in non-money-losing households. Among those living in money-losing households, the least wealthy and African American respondents are more likely to lose a higher proportion of their respective incomes purchasing lottery tickets and engaging in pari-mutuel betting than wealthier respondents and whites.

Keywords

Lottery Pari-mutuel betting Gambling losses 

References

  1. Blakey, G. R. (1979). State conducted lotteries: History, problems, and promises. The Journal of Social Issues, 35, 62–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Browne, B. A., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Predictors of lottery gambling among American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 339–347.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, A. C., Gillett, P. L., Rubinstein, M., & Gentry, J. W. (1990). An exploratory study of lottery playing, gambling addiction, and links to compulsive consumption. Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U. S.), 17, 298–305.Google Scholar
  4. Freund, E. A., & Morris, I. L. (2005). The lottery and income inequality in the States. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 996–1012. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00333.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gribbin, D. W., & Bean, J. J. (2006). Adoption of state lotteries in the United States, with a closer look at Illinois. The Independent Review, X, 351–364.Google Scholar
  6. Hansen, A. (2004). Lotteries and state fiscal policy. Tax Foundation Background Paper, 46, 1–36.Google Scholar
  7. Kaplan, H. R. (1984). The effects of state lotteries on the pari-mutuel industry. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 331–344. doi:10.1007/BF01014588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marler, L. G., & Berney, R. E. (1973). Demographic information on parimutuel betters with implications for tax incidence. The Annals of Regional Science, 7, 88–99. doi:10.1007/BF01285533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McConkey, C. W., & Warren, W. E. (1987). Psychographic and demographic profiles of state lottery ticket purchasers. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21, 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McGowan, R. (1994). State lotteries and legalized gambling: Painless revenue or painful mirage?. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  11. Meinert, D. B., Lumpkin, J. R., & Reich, R. V. (1989). Public opinions toward state lotteries: A comparison of non-player and player views. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 481–490.Google Scholar
  12. Mikesell, J. L. (1990). Lotteries in the state fiscal system. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 313–330. doi:10.1007/BF01014587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mobilia, P. (1992). A little bit more evidence of lottery regressivity: The Kansas state lottery. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 361–369. doi:10.1007/BF01024123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sauer, R. D. (1998). The economics of wagering markets. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVI, 2021–2064.Google Scholar
  15. Terrell, D. (1994). A test of the gambler’s fallacy: Evidence from pari-mutuel games. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 309–317. doi:10.1007/BF01064047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thalheimer, R., & Ali, M. M. (1992). Demand for parimutuel horse race wagering with special reference to telephone betting. Applied Economics, 24, 137–142. doi:10.1080/00036849200000112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thompson, W. (2001). Gambling in America: An encyclopedia of history, issues and society. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  18. United States Bureau of the Census. (2005). Income and apportionment of state-administered lottery funds: 2004. http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/state/04lottery.pdf. Retrieved 20 May, 2008.
  19. United States Bureau of the Census. (2006). Income and apportionment of state-administered lottery funds: 2005. http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/state/05lottery.pdf. Retrieved 20 May, 2008.
  20. United States Bureau of the Census. (2007). Income and apportionment of state-administered lottery funds: 2006. http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/state/06lottery.pdf. Retrieved 20 May, 2008.
  21. 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. doi:10.1023/A:1021019915591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wisman, J. D. (2006). State lotteries: Using state power to fleece the poor. Journal of Economic Issues, 4, 955–966.Google Scholar
  23. Young, R. D. (2004). State lotteries: History, practices, issues and the South Carolina educational lottery. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina College of Liberal Arts’ Institute for Public Research and Policy Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Social Work and Criminal JusticeBloomsburg University of PennsylvaniaBloomsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations