IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v68y2015i10p2181-2188.html

How do gamblers maintain an illusion of control?

Author

Listed:
  • Cowley, Elizabeth
  • Briley, Donnel A.
  • Farrell, Colin

Abstract

Introduction: Gamblers' enduring illusions of control (IOC) may be one reason why they continue to gamble in the face of sustained losses. If gamblers persist in the belief that they have special skills, knowledge and other advantages when gambling, they may be able to convince themselves it is worth doing again. Maintaining an IOC requires selective attention of the illusion supporting moments during the construction of an evaluation of a gambling session.Objective: Test the hypothesis that selected moments, specifically the moment of the highest win and the last moment of the gaming session, explain the retrospective evaluation of the session for gamblers high in the illusion of control.Method: A total of 102 and 35 experienced gamblers were recruited from gambling venues and participated in two studies by gambling on 20 occasions on coin toss outcomes. Participants were asked to evaluate their enjoyment of the gambling experience they had just completed, and completed an IOC Beliefs Questionnaire designed to measure the extent to which they believe they are good at influencing gambling outcomes.Results: Gamblers with a high IOC use the largest win in their evaluation when they lose. This is consistent with the motivated selective attention hypothesis. Non-threatened gamblers, those with a low IOC or winners, use the final outcome as the determinant of their evaluation of the gaming session.Conclusion: The results suggest that instead of altering an important characteristic of self, gamblers instead reflect on the moment of a gambling episode that does not threaten, and in fact supports, their ability to find patterns in random events. Indicators of the illusion could be used to assist gamblers in controlling their own behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Cowley, Elizabeth & Briley, Donnel A. & Farrell, Colin, 2015. "How do gamblers maintain an illusion of control?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2181-2188.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:68:y:2015:i:10:p:2181-2188
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296315001320
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    2. Cowley, Elizabeth, 2008. "Looking back at an experience through rose-colored glasses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 1046-1052, October.
    3. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    4. Elizabeth Cowley, 2008. "The Perils of Hedonic Editing," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 71-84, January.
    5. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    6. David Forrest, 2013. "An Economic And Social Review Of Gambling In Great Britain," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 7(3), pages 1-33.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    2. Dickinson, David L. & Reid, Parker, 2023. "Gambling Habits and Probability Judgements in a Bayesian Task Environment," IZA Discussion Papers 16306, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barrafrem, Kinga & Västfjäll, Daniel & Tinghög, Gustav, 2021. "The arithmetic of outcome editing in financial and social domains," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.
    3. Manel Baucells & Silvia Bellezza, 2017. "Temporal Profiles of Instant Utility During Anticipation, Event, and Recall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 729-748, March.
    4. Antonides, Gerrit & Manon de Groot, I. & Fred van Raaij, W., 2011. "Mental budgeting and the management of household finance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 546-555, August.
    5. Sunhae Sul & Jennifer Kim & Incheol Choi, 2013. "Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 1409-1430, August.
    6. Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Causes, Consequences, and Cures of Myopic Loss Aversion – An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 900-916, April.
    7. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    8. Schade, Christian & Steul, Martina & Schröder, Andreas, 2002. "Starting points' effects on risk-taking behavior," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,15, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    9. Luc Meunier & Sima Ohadi, 2023. "When are two portfolios better than one? A prospect theory approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 503-538, April.
    10. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    11. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    12. Benjamin Polak & Andreas Herrmann & Mark Heitmann & Marc Cäsar & Jan Landwehr, 2009. "„Radio oder Schiebedach?“–Wirkung von mentalen Budgets auf das individuelle Produktwahlverhalten," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 61(7), pages 783-803, November.
    13. Nobel Prize Committee, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    14. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    15. Aulona Ulqinaku & Gülen Sarial-Abi, 2025. "When sales promotions make consumers experiencing financial restrictions purchase more or less: the role of decisional conflict," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2025(2), pages 155-179, June.
    16. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    17. Philipp N. Herrmann & Dennis O. Kundisch & Mohammad S. Rahman, 2015. "Beating Irrationality: Does Delegating to IT Alleviate the Sunk Cost Effect?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(4), pages 831-850, April.
    18. White, Tiffany Barnett & Novak, Thomas P. & Hoffman, Donna L., 2014. "No Strings Attached: When Giving It Away Versus Making Them Pay Reduces Consumer Information Disclosure," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 184-195.
    19. Elias L. Khalil, 2024. "Mental accounting, heuristics, and the second‐best: Solving the calculator‐jacket puzzle," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(4), pages 2415-2427, June.
    20. Bernadette Kamleitner, 2008. "Coupling: the implicit assumption behind sunk cost effect and related phenomena," Working Papers 22, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:68:y:2015:i:10:p:2181-2188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.