Top

Published in:

01-09-2008 | Original Paper

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

Authors: Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs, Varich Phengphol

Published in: Journal of Gambling Studies | Issue 3/2008

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.

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.PubMedCrossRef

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 Unpublished technical report, The Graduate School, Bangkok University.

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.

Burns, B. D., & Corpus, B. (2004). Randomness and inductions from streaks: “Gambler’s fallacy” versus “hot hand”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 179–184.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

Griffiths, M., & Wood, R. (2001). The psychology of lottery gambling. International Gambling Studies, 1, 27–45. doi:10.1080/14459800108732286.CrossRef

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.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: SSI Scientific Software International.

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.CrossRef

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.

Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.

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.PubMedCrossRef

McConkey, C. W., & Warren, W. E. (1987). Psychographic and demographic profiles of state lottery ticket purchases. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21, 314–327.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Reid, R. L. (1986). The psychology of the near miss. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2(1), 32–39. doi:10.1007/BF01019932.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Thames, E. A. (1996). The sunk-cost effect: The importance of context. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 817–826.

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.CrossRef

Title: Near Miss, Gambler’s Fallacy and Entrapment: Their Influence on Lottery Gamblers in Thailand
Authors: Vanchai Ariyabuddhiphongs
Varich Phengphol
Publication date: 01-09-2008
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Gambling Studies / Issue 3/2008
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3602
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-008-9098-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2008

SOGS and CGPI: Parallel Comparison on a Diverse Population

The Desire to Gamble: The Influence of Outcomes on the Priming Effects of a Gambling Episode

Quality of Web-based Information on Pathological Gambling

The Impact of Social Desirability Biases on Self-Report Among College Student and Problem Gamblers

Adapted Couple Therapy (ACT) for Pathological Gamblers: A Promising Avenue

Significant Others and Gambling Treatment Outcomes