Something for nothing: A model of gambling behavior
Section snippets
Model
The following model of the demand for gambles was first presented in Nyman (2004). To show how gambling winnings are evaluated from a labor supply perspective, it is useful first to describe the standard labor supply model where the consumer–worker derives utility from income, y, and leisure, l. At wage rate , he faces a constraint on his earnings based on the total amount of time available for both work and leisure. The total time available is normalized to unity, so the individual's problem
Data
The data come from the Survey of Gambling in the U.S., a random-digit-dial telephone survey of the U.S. population aged 18 and older (see Welte et al., 2002 for a detailed description of the data). This survey was conducted between August 1999 and October 2000, and represented an 84-page interview requesting information on the demographic and economic characteristics of the respondent, the respondent's drug and alcohol use, and the respondent's gambling history over the last 12 months. Like
Results
Descriptive statistics for those respondents included in the “decision to gamble” regression equation are presented in Table 1 and the results of the logistic regression are presented in Table 2. Coefficients, odd ratios and significance levels of the regression coefficients are reported. Workers were more likely to gamble, and this was even true of those who had worked at one time but were not now working. For the latter group, the significant regression coefficient suggests that past working
Discussion
Gambling can take many forms and may have a number of motivations, but one motivation appears to be the attraction of gaining “something for nothing.” The empirical results in this paper suggest that this motivation is a factor in determining whether a person participates in a wide variety of gambling games. Specifically, working appears to increase significantly the likelihood of gambling. Furthermore, among those who are not now working, those who have worked in the past have a significantly
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Morris Altman and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. Any remaining errors or oversights are solely the authors’ responsibility.
References (25)
- et al.
The impact of gambling on personal bankruptcy rates
Journal of Socio-Economics
(2002) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(1994)- et al.
The marginal utility of wealth does not increase: borrowing, lending, and Friedman–Savage gambles
American Economic Review
(1980) - et al.
State Lotteries at the Turn of the Century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission
(1999) The utility of gambling
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
(1993)Risk aversion, gambling and the labour-leisure choice
Scottish Journal of Political Economy
(1988)- et al.
An intertemporal analysis of the interdependence between risk preference, retirement, and work rate decisions
Journal of Political Economy
(1986) An expected utility function for the insurance buying gambler
Review of Economic Studies
(1979)The utility of wealth and the utility of windfalls
Review of Economic Studies
(1969)- et al.
The utility analysis of choices involving risk
Journal of Political Economy
(1948)
Friedman–Savage utility functions consistent with risk aversion
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Can expected utility theory explain gambling?
American Economic Review
Cited by (20)
Gambling behavior: Instant versus traditional lotteries
2018, Journal of Business ResearchCitation Excerpt :The last model is the theory of demand for gambles. It is based on the premise that individuals gamble to obtain potential income that they do not have to work to get, thus adding to the utility of winning the belief that costs are saved by not having to work to earn that additional income (Nyman, Welte, & Dowd, 2008). This theory suggests that gambling should be particularly appealing to economically vulnerable people.
Sports gambling as consumption: Evidence from demand for sports lottery
2015, Sport Management ReviewCitation Excerpt :Consumption utility of sports lottery. Whereas several theoretical accounts primarily rely on the derivation of local non-concavity in the utility function without assuming any utility in gambling itself (e.g., McCaffery, 1994; Ng, 1965; Nyman et al., 2008), the principal alternative explanation of gambling is that it offers direct consumption value (Conlisk, 1993). Conlisk contended that there is a tiny utility residing in the characteristics of gambling.
Anomaly, impulsivity, and addiction
2010, Journal of Socio-EconomicsBet against yourself: Integrating insurance and entrepreneurship
2021, Journal of Institutional EconomicsAn Economic Model of Gambling Behaviour: A Two-Stage Approach
2024, Journal of Gambling Studies