Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 61–81 | Cite as

Work and Non-Pathological Gambling

  • John A. Nyman
  • Bryan E. Dowd
  • Jahn K. Hakes
  • Ken C. Winters
  • Serena King
Original Paper


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.


Non-pathological gambling Work Something for nothing 



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.


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  2. Applebaum, E., & Katz, E. (1981). An institutional rationale for the Friedman-Savage utility function. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 319–324.Google Scholar
  3. Bernoulli, D. (1738). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Trans. Louise Sommer (1954) Econometrica, 22, 23–36.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Conlisk, J. (1993). The utility of gambling. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coups, E., Haddock, G., & Webley, P. (1998). Correlates and predictors of lottery playing in the United Kingdom. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de la Vina, L., & Berstein, D. (2002). The impact of gambling on personal bankruptcy rates. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31, 503–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diecidue, E., Schmidt, U., & Wakker, P. P. (2004). The utility of gambling reconsidered. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29, 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobbs, I. M. (1988). Risk aversion, gambling and the labour-leisure choice. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 35, 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden, B. (1979). An expected utility function for the insurance buying gambler. Review of Economic Studies, 46, 741–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldstein, S. A. (1998). President of SMR Research Corporation, testimony before the House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Bankruptcy Revision.Google Scholar
  15. Fishburn, P. C. (1980). A simple model for the utility of gambling. Psycholmetricka, 45, 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, S. E. (2000). Measuring the prevalence of sector-specific problem gambling: A study of casino patrons. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 25–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Hakansson, N. H. (1970). Friedman-Savage utility functions consistent with risk aversion. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 472–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kearney, M. S. (2004). State lotteries and consumer behavior. NBER Working Paper 9330. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, Y. C. (1973). Choice in the lottery-insurance situation augmented-income approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luce, R., & Marley, A. J. (2000). On elements of chance. Theory and Decision, 49, 97–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Machina, M. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 1, 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Machina, M. (1989). Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1622–1668.Google Scholar
  26. Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mikesell, J. L. (1994). State lottery sales and economic activity. National Tax Journal, 47, 165–171.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nyman, J. A. (2004). A theory of demand for gambles. Department of Economics Working Paper #322. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  31. Nyman, J., Welte, J. W., & Dowd, B. E. (2008). Something for nothing: A model of gambling behavior. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2492–2504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sauer, R. D. (1998). The economics of wagering markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 2021–2064.Google Scholar
  33. Schmidt, U. (1998). A measurement of the certainty effect. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 32–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaffer, H. J., & Korn, D. A. (2002). Gambling and related mental disorders: A public health analysis. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 171–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John A. Nyman
    • 1
  • Bryan E. Dowd
    • 1
  • Jahn K. Hakes
    • 2
  • Ken C. Winters
    • 1
  • Serena King
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.U. S. Census BureauWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Hamline UniversitySaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations