Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 455–470 | Cite as

Heuristic and Analytic Processing in Online Sports Betting

Original Paper

Abstract

This article presents the results of two studies that examine the occurrence of heuristic (i.e., intuitive and fast) and analytic (i.e., deliberate and slow) processes among people who engage in online sports betting on a regular basis. The first study was qualitative and was conducted with a convenience sample of 12 regular online sports gamblers who described the processes by which they arrive at a sports betting decision. The results of this study showed that betting online on sports events involves a mix of heuristic and analytic processes. The second study consisted in a survey of 161 online sports gamblers where performance in terms of monetary gains, experience in online sports betting, propensity to collect and analyze relevant information prior to betting, and use of bookmaker odds were measured. This study showed that heuristic and analytic processes act as mediators of the relationship between experience and performance. The findings stemming of these two studies give some insights into gamblers’ modes of thinking and behaviors in an online sports betting context and show the value of the dual mediation process model for research that looks at gambling activities from a judgment and decision making perspective.

Keywords

Sports betting Online betting Heuristics Analytic processing Dual mediation 

References

  1. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allcock, C. (1985). How to gamble in the eighties. In J. McMillen (Ed.), Proceedings of the inaugural conference of the national association for gambling studies (pp. 240–246). Retrieved from http://www.nags.org.au/pdf/Proceedings%2085.pdf.
  3. Andersson, P., Edman, J., & Ekman, M. (2005). Predicting in the World Cup 2002 in soccer: Performance and confidence of experts and non-experts. International Journal of Forecasting, 21, 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ARJEL (Autorité de régulation des jeux en ligne). (2012). Statistics retrieved from www.arjel.fr/.
  5. Ashman, T., Bowman, A. R., & Lambrinos, J. (2010). The role of fatigue in NBA wagering markets: The surprising home disadvantage situation. Journal of Sports Economics, 11, 602–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulier, B. L. K., & Stekler, H. O. (1999). Are sports seedings good predictors? An evaluation. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantinotti, M., Ladouceur, R., & Jacques, C. (2004). Sports betting: Can gamblers beat randomness? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 143–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Chantal, Y., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Skill versus luck: A motivational analysis of gambling involvement. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 407–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Daries, E., & Maufras, J. (2011). Gagner aux paris sportifs. Paris: Eyrolles.Google Scholar
  11. Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311, 1005–1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillon, W. R., Madden, T. J., Kirmani, A., & Mukherjee, S. (2001). Understanding what’s in a brand rating: A model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Entine, O. A., & Small, D. S. (2008). The role of rest in the NBA home-court advantage. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 4, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrest, D., & Simmons, R. (2000). Forecasting sport: The behaviour and performance of football tipsters. International Journal of Forecasting, 16, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilovich, T. (1983). Biaised evaluation and persistence in gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1110–1126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilovich, T., & Griffin, D. (2010). Judgment and decision making. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 542–588). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. (1996). Anticipation of injurious consumption outcomes and its impact on consumer attributions of blame. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henslin, J. M. (1967). Craps and magic. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 316–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute Substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ladouceur, R., Giroux, I., & Jacques, C. (1998). Winning on the horses: How much strategy and knowledge are needed? Journal of Psychology, 132, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lesieur, H. R., & Rosenthal, R. J. (1991). Pathological gambling: A review of the literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7, 5–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Online Casino City. (2012). Statistics retrieved from http://online.casinocity.com/.
  33. Paul, R. J., & Weinbach, A. P. (2002). Market efficiency and NCAA College basketball gambling. Journal of Economics and Finance, 29, 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paul, R. J., Weinbach, A. P., & Weinbach, C. J. (2003). Fair bets and profitability in college football gambling. Journal of Economics and Finance, 27, 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pavée, F. (2010). Paris sportifs en ligne: Mode d’emploi. France: RMC Sports.Google Scholar
  36. Reyna, V. F. (2004). How people make decisions that involve risk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ricketts, T., & Macaskill, A. (2004). Differentiating normal and problem gambling: A grounded theory approach. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosecrance, J. (1986). You can’t tell the players without a scorecard: A typology of horse players. Deviant Behavior, 7, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott, D. (1982). The winning way to successful punting. Sydney: Puntwin.Google Scholar
  40. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sloman, S. A. (2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379–396). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spence, M. T., & Brucks, M. (1997). The moderating effects of problem characteristics on experts’ and novices’ judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. Toulemonde, Q. (2011). Paris sportifs en ligne: Comprendre—jouer—gagner. France: Amphora.Google Scholar
  46. Vergin, R. C., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). No place like home: An examination of the home field advantage in gambling strategies in NFL football. Journal of Economics and Business, 51, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wagenaar, W. (1988). Paradoxes of gambling behaviour. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, R. J., & Wood, R. T. (2007). Internet gambling: A comprehensive review and synthesis of the literature. Guelph: Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
  49. Ziemba, W. T., & Hausch, D. B. (1984). Beat the racetrack. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HEC MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Loto QuébecMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations