IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uea/ueaeco/2021-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender and Gambling Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Philomena Bacon

    (University of East Anglia, Norwich)

  • Anna Conte

    (Department of Statistical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Peter G Moffatt

    (University of East Anglia, Norwich)

Abstract

Gambling preferences are analysed using survey data from the wider population. Respondents were confronted with a hypothetical lottery question, in which they were asked to imagine having just won a large prize, and asked how much of this prize they would be willing to invest in a further gamble. We observe the majority of respondents avoiding the gamble altogether. We demonstrate that such behaviour cannot easily be explained by standard models of choice under risk, since it implies implausible degrees of risk aversion. We propose that the observed behaviour can instead be explained in terms of gambling aversion. Since the decision variable takes the form of the number of \units" of the prize that the respondent wishes to invest in the gamble, and since the decision is observed twice for some respondents, we adopt the panel version of the Zero-In ated Poisson model as an econometric framework. We assume that individual characteristics a ect both stages of the decision-making process. We are particularly interested in the effect of gender, and we find that males have a signficantly higher probability of participating in the gamble, and are also (conditional on gambling) prepared to gamble significantly larger amounts.

Suggested Citation

  • Philomena Bacon & Anna Conte & Peter G Moffatt, 2021. "Gender and Gambling Preference," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2021-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  • Handle: RePEc:uea:ueaeco:2021-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/ueaeco/UEA-ECO-21-01.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Rainer Winkelmann, 2008. "Econometric Analysis of Count Data," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-78389-3, January.
    4. Anna Conte & Peter Moffatt, 2014. "The econometric modelling of social preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 119-145, January.
    5. Crepon, Bruno & Duguet, Emmanuel, 1997. "Research and development, competition and innovation pseudo-maximum likelihood and simulated maximum likelihood methods applied to count data models with heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 355-378, August.
    6. John W. Welte & Grace M. Barnes & William F. Wieczorek & Marie-Cecile O. Tidwell & Joseph H. Hoffman, 2007. "Type of Gambling and Availability as Risk Factors for Problem Gambling: A Tobit Regression Analysis by Age and Gender," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 183-198, August.
    7. Gert G. Wagner & Joachim R. Frick & Jürgen Schupp, 2007. "The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) – Scope, Evolution and Enhancements," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 127(1), pages 139-169.
    8. Brochado, Ana & Santos, Maria & Oliveira, Fernando & Esperança, José, 2018. "Gambling behavior: Instant versus traditional lotteries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 560-567.
    9. Vishal Chandr Jaunky & Bhooshan Ramchurn, 2014. "Consumer behaviour in the scratch card market: a double-hurdle approach," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 96-114, August.
    10. Halko, Marja-Liisa & Kaustia, Markku & Alanko, Elias, 2012. "The gender effect in risky asset holdings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 66-81.
    11. Philomena M. Bacon & Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt, 2020. "A test of risk vulnerability in the wider population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 37-50, February.
    12. Gollier, Christian & Pratt, John W, 1996. "Risk Vulnerability and the Tempering Effect of Background Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(5), pages 1109-1123, September.
    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. Anna Conte & Paola Paiardini & Jacopo Temperini, 2024. "Dealing with “Do Not Know” Responses in the Assessment of Financial Literacy: The Use of a Sample Selection Model," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, August.

    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. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    2. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    3. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Delphine Boutin & Laurène Petifour & Haris Megzari, 2022. "Instability of preferences due to Covid-19 Crisis and emotions: a natural experiment from urban Burkina Faso," Working Papers hal-03623601, HAL.
    5. Irene Mussio & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés & Abdul H Kidwai, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes in the time of COVID-19: an experimental study," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 163-182.
    6. Page, Lionel & Savage, David A. & Torgler, Benno, 2014. "Variation in risk seeking behaviour following large losses: A natural experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 121-131.
    7. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    8. Renate Strobl & Conny Wunsch, 2017. "Does Voluntary Risk Taking Affect Solidarity? Experimental Evidence from Kenya," CESifo Working Paper Series 6578, CESifo.
    9. Strobl, Renate & Wunsch, Conny, 2018. "Risky Choices and Solidarity: Why Experimental Design Matters," Working papers 2018/17, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    10. Schneider, Sebastian O. & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Higher Order Risk Preferences: Experimental Measures, Determinants and Related Field Behavior," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224643, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Aragón, Fernando M. & Molina, Oswaldo & Outes-León, Ingo W., 2020. "Property rights and risk aversion: Evidence from a titling program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    12. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 547, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    13. Strobl, Renate, 2022. "Background risk, insurance and investment behaviour: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 34-68.
    14. Fred Schroyen & Karl Ove Aarbu, 2018. "Attitudes Towards Large Income Risk in Welfare States: An International Comparison," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(340), pages 846-872, October.
    15. Hetschko, Clemens & Preuss, Malte, 2020. "Income in jeopardy: How losing employment affects the willingness to take risks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    16. Boutin, Delphine & Petifour, Laurene & Megzari, Haris, 2023. "Permanent Instability of Preferences after COVID-19 Crisis: A Natural Experiment from Urban Burkina Faso," IZA Discussion Papers 16075, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2016. "A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 613-641, September.
    18. Meraner, Manuela & Musshoff, Oliver & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 22-33.
    19. Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman & Cathleen Johnson & Angela Oliveira & Christian Rojas & Rick Wilson, 2012. "School environment and risk preferences: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 265-292, December.
    20. Delphine BOUTIN & Laurène PETIFOUR & Haris MEGZARI, 2022. "Instability of preferences due to Covid-19 Crisis and emotions: a natural experiment from urban Burkina Faso," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2022-05, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gambling behaviour; Gender; Panel Zero-Inated Poisson model; Survey Data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uea:ueaeco:2021-01. 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: Cara Liggins (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esueauk.html .

    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.