Abstract
This study tested social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) hypotheses of reciprocal and sequential effects among person, environment variables and behavior. The study examined the impact of hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors on the frequency, amounts of lottery gambling and chasing of particular numbers among Thai lottery gamblers. One hundred and fifty gamblers who visited two temples in Bangkok to search for number clues before buying tickets and 150 gamblers who simply bought lottery tickets from the stalls were recruited for the study. Models were constructed to test the effect of hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors on gambling behavior, and the reciprocal effect of gambling behavior on hope, superstitious belief and environmental factors. Results confirmed the theoretical reciprocal effects. A sequential effect model showing the effects of environmental factors on superstitious belief, hope and gambling behavior was also constructed and hope was found to be the result of superstitious belief. To reduce lottery gambling, the players need to be warned of their distorted hope and the small chance of winning lottery.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: APA.
Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2006). A test of social cognitive model of lottery gambling in Thailand. International Gambling Studies, 6, 7–93.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Browne, B.A., & Brown, D.J. (1994). Predictors of lottery gambling among American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 339–347.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen, J. S. Long(Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Casey, E. (2006). Domesticating gambling: Gender, caring and the U.K. national lottery. Leisure Studies, 25, 3–16.
Coups, E., Haddock, G., & Webley, P. (1998). Correlates and predictors of lottery play in the United Kingdom. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 285–303.
‘Poh Pool’ numbers create sensation. Numbers clearly seen in teardrops. (2005, [B.E. 2548], July 30). Daily News, pp. 1, 11. In Thai.
Amazed ‘Poh Pool’ body un-decomposed. (2005 [B.E. 2548], August 31). Daily News, pp. 1, 16. In Thai.
Gamblers excited at winning numbers in water bowl at Wat Pailom (2005 [B.E. 2548], October 1). Daily News, pp. 1, 16. In Thai.
Lucky Grandpa almost lost. Dealer stole jackpot ticket. (2006 [B.E. 2549], February 18). Daily News, pp. 1, 14. Thai.
Davies, D. (2001). It could be you. The Lancet, 357(9256), 730.
Felsher, J. R., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2003). Parental influences and social modeling of youth lottery participation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13, 361–377.
Felsher, J. R., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2004). Lottery participation by youth with gambling problems: Are lottery tickets a gateway to other gambling venues? International Gambling Studies, 4, 109–125.
Farrell, L., & Walker, I. (1999). The welfare effects of lotto: Evidence from the U.K. Journal of Public Economics, 72, 99–120.
Forrest, D., Simmons, R., & Chesters, N. (2002). Buying a dream: Alternative models of demand for lotto. Economic Inquiry, 40, 485–496.
Gillespie, M. (1999). Lotteries most popular form of gambling for Americans. The Gallup Poll Monthly, 205, 55.
Griffiths, M. (2000). Scratchard gambling among adolescent males. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 79–91.
Grun, L., & McKeigue, P. (2000). Prevalence of excessive gambling before and after introduction of a national lottery in the United Kingdom: Another example of the single distribution theory. Addiction, 95, 959–966.
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, 92, 335–346.
Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 171–180.
Jacobs, D. F. (2000). Juvenile gambling in North America: An analysis of long term trends and future prospects. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 119–152.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: SSI Scientific Software International.
Lange, M. A. (2001). Brief communication: “If you do not gamble, check this box”: Perceptions of gambling behaviors. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 247–254.
McConkey, C. W., & Warren, W. E. (1987). Phychographic and demographic profiles of state lottery ticket purchasers. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21, 314–327.
Moltmann, J. (2002). Theology of hope. London: SCM-Canterbury Press.
National Statistical Office (2006a). Table 1 Average incomes and expenses per household and debts per household, classified by households’ economic and social conditions, Buddhist Era 2539, 2541, 2542, 2543, 2544, 2545 and 254 . Ministry of Information Technology and Communication, Bangkok, Thailand.
National Statistical Office (2006b). Table 4 Registered population, areas, density and house-holds, classified by regions and provinces, BE 2548. Ministry of Information Technology and Communication, Bangkok, Thailand.
Neufeldt, V., & Guralnik, D. B. (1994). Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English. Third College Edition. New York: Prentice Hall.
Quiggin, J. (1991). On the optimal design of lotteries. Economica, 58, 1–16.
Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22. 1009–1061.
Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 111–134.
Rogers, P., & Webley, P. (2001). “It could be us!”: Cognitive and social psychological factors in U.K. national lottery play. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 181–199.
Shapira, Z., & Venezia, I. (1992). Size and frequency of prizes as determinants of the demand for lotteries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 307–318.
Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In: C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–276). London: Oxford University Press.
Sylvain, C., Ladouceur, R., & Boisvert, J.-M. (1997). Cognitive and behavioral treatment of pathological gambling: A controlled study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 727–732.
Walker, I., & Young, J. (2001). An economists’s guide to lottery design. The Economic Journal, 111, F700–F722.
Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M-C., & Parker, J. (2002). Gambling Participation in the U.S.—Results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 313–337.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier draft of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ariyabuddhiphongs, V., Chanchalermporn, N. A Test of Social Cognitive Theory Reciprocal and Sequential Effects: Hope, Superstitious Belief and Environmental Factors among Lottery Gamblers in Thailand. J Gambl Stud 23, 201–214 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-006-9035-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-006-9035-3