IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i1p2158244019899436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Self-Reported Propensity for Everyday Illusions of Control Higher in Gamblers and Is It Associated With Gambling-Specific Erroneous Beliefs?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Delfabbro
  • Neophytos Georgiou
  • Catia Malvaso
  • Daniel King

Abstract

People who engage in gambling are known to hold erroneous views about the nature of gambling. One of the most commonly observed cognitive biases is the illusion of control, where people’s subjective appraisal of contingency between behavior and events is greater than the objective contingency. Such beliefs have been found to be strongest in problem gamblers and can lead to over-confidence in the ability to win money from gambling. A question, however, is whether such perceptions are (a) specific to gambling and whether gamblers display a tendency to over-estimate contingencies in everyday life and (b) if a tendency to endorse everyday illusion of control beliefs is related to specific gambling-related beliefs among those who gamble. Answers to these questions might provide insights into whether some people are potentially more vulnerable to beliefs that might have implications for gambling. An online sample of 788 adults completed a survey about simple everyday situations where people might attempt to exert control (e.g., pressing elevator buttons more often, throwing dice in games). The survey included a scale that captured everyday situations as well as established measures of illusion of control and superstition in gambling. The results showed that those who report greater control in everyday tasks scored higher on standardized measures of beliefs about chance and gambling-related cognitions relating to illusory control. Scores on both types of measures were higher in gamblers than non-gamblers. The findings suggest that gamblers may differ in how they generally perceive and respond to situations involving tasks largely dominated by chance or limited opportunities for genuine control.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Delfabbro & Neophytos Georgiou & Catia Malvaso & Daniel King, 2020. "Is Self-Reported Propensity for Everyday Illusions of Control Higher in Gamblers and Is It Associated With Gambling-Specific Erroneous Beliefs?," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244019899436
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244019899436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244019899436
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244019899436?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christoph Bartneck & Andreas Duenser & Elena Moltchanova & Karolina Zawieska, 2015. "Comparing the Similarity of Responses Received from Studies in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to Studies Conducted Online and with Direct Recruitment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Chrisi Lambos & Paul Delfabbro, 2007. "Numerical Reasoning Ability and Irrational Beliefs in Problem Gambling," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 157-171, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Debra A. Hoffmann & Jenna M. Marx & Jacob M. Burmeister & Dara R. Musher-Eizenman, 2018. "Friday Night Is Pizza Night: A Comparison of Children’s Dietary Intake and Maternal Perceptions and Feeding Goals on Weekdays and Weekends," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Feenstra, Sanne & Jordan, Jennifer & Walter, Frank & Stoker, Janka I., 2020. "Antecedents of leaders' power sharing: The roles of power instability and distrust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 115-128.
    3. Scott, Carol F. & Bay-Cheng, Laina Y. & Nochajski, Thomas H. & Lorraine Collins, R., 2024. "Emerging adults’ social media engagement & alcohol misuse: A multidimensional, person-centered analysis of risk," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    4. Collin Weigel & Laura A. Paul & Paul J. Ferraro & Kent D. Messer, 2021. "Challenges in Recruiting U.S. Farmers for Policy‐Relevant Economic Field Experiments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 556-572, June.
    5. Young Kim & Hyojung Park, 2017. "Is there Still a PR Problem Online? Exploring the Effects of Different Sources and Crisis Response Strategies in Online Crisis Communication Via Social Media," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(1), pages 76-104, February.
    6. Tasci, Asli D.A., 2018. "Testing the cross-brand and cross-market validity of a consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) model for destination brands," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 143-159.
    7. Casella, Alessandra & Sanchez, Luis, 2019. "Storable Votes and Quadratic Voting. An Experiment on Four California Propositions," CEPR Discussion Papers 13479, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Ksenia Koroleva & Jasminko Novak, 2020. "How to Engage with Sustainability Issues We Rarely Experience? A Gamification Model for Collective Awareness Platforms in Water-Related Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Kamryn S. Morris & Eleanor K. Seaton & Masumi Iida & Sarah Lindstrom Johnson, 2020. "Racial Discrimination Stress, School Belonging, and School Racial Composition on Academic Attitudes and Beliefs among Black Youth," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, October.
    10. Laura Biziou-van-Pol & Jana Haenen & Arianna Novaro & Andrés Occhipinti & Valerio Capraro, 2015. "Does telling white lies signal pro-social preferences?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 538-548, November.
    11. Oliver Hahl, 2016. "Turning Back the Clock in Baseball: The Increased Prominence of Extrinsic Rewards and Demand for Authenticity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 929-953, August.
    12. Hongsha Wang & Qihui Chen & Bhagyashree Katare, 2023. "Nudging Chinese consumers to embrace sustainable milk consumption: How should information be provided?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(S1), pages 1512-1534, December.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:538-548 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Cristian M Ruiz de Lara & Juan F Navas & José C Perales, 2019. "The paradoxical relationship between emotion regulation and gambling-related cognitive biases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Oliver Hahl & Jaekyung Ha, 2020. "Committed Diversification: Why Authenticity Insulates Against Penalties for Diversification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 1-22, January.

    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:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244019899436. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.