| Title |
Work and Non-Pathological Gambling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10899-011-9290-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John A. Nyman, Bryan E. Dowd, Jahn K. Hakes, Ken C. Winters, Serena King |
| Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#692
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,777
of 251,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.