However, because gamblers no doubt expect, or hope for, something tangible (money), gambling might be less similar to viewing a movie than to shopping for a luxury watch or car. Some authors argue that gambling represents the purchase of an intangible leisure good, like purchasing a ticket to the movies (Vogel, 1994). Such social processes surrounding the technology of gambling have obvious implications for the advent of home gambling and machine games that may also encourage solo gambling.Ī large body of research suggests that today's gambling technologies and venues take advantage of people's normal responses to reward contingencies and to people's cognitive biases, perceptions of risk, and tendency to compartmentalize mental accounts of their expenditures (e.g., Fischhoff et al., 1981 Wagenaar, 1988 Varey et al., 1990 Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 Tversky and Kahneman, 1992). For example, friends who gamble together may exert mutual social pressure to limit their gambling expenditures. It is possible that the subculture of some gambling domains buffers the effects of pathological and problem gambling. Rosecrance (1986) and Zurcher (1970) have also provided accounts of the role of social groups in gambling. Close social networks were formed among those who bet at the track or in offtrack venues they would trade tips and loans. In any event, there developed among these men a subculture of the track and racing lore. This demographic pattern, which is not as discernible in current studies, perhaps was related to the proximity of racetracks to Jewish communities. Kallick and colleagues (1979) noted that, in the United States, Jewish men were overrepresented at the racetracks and were also likely to have gambling problems. Social assertiveness than "male" domains (Kiesler et al., 1985). In general, "female" gambling domains are those in which gambling is likely to be less skill-based or to involve less For example, bingo has its callers and parlors and mainly women patrons. The system also gave rise to distinctive social roles (bookmaker, professional racetrack gambler, punter) and distinctive supporting technologies (e.g., the racing form).ĭifferent domains of gambling have evolved distinctive cultures, norms, technologies, and social groups who have dominated gambling markets in their respective domains. (The system survives today as "pari-mutuels.") The system allowed some bettors to improve their outcomes by predicting races more skillfully and/or by betting more wisely than most bettors, who underestimate the utility of betting on favorites compared with long shots (Griffiths, 1994 Metzger, 1985 Ladouceur et al., 1998). For example, according to Barrett (personal communication to the committee, 1998), the most significant early technological development in horse racing was the invention at the turn of the century of a wagering system and calculating machine called the Pari-Mutuel System. This work suggests a close relationship between the social context and technology of gambling, gambling behavior, and social outcomes. Much of what we know about the effects of earlier changes in the gambling industry and gambling technologies-such as the introduction of slot machines and the legalization of casinos in Nevada-comes from historical, biographical, and ethnographic narratives (e.g., Chavetz and Simon, 1967 Skolnick, 1978 Thompson, 1986 Fabian, 1990). Papers have been authored about how, at the level of society, legalization has potentially affected the prevalence of gambling and pathological gambling (Rose, 1995, 1998). At the level of games and betting, there is considerable experimental research on the effects of game structure and game presentation on people's propensity to take risks or to make "nonrational" gambles (e.g., Cole and Hastie, 1978 Mikesell and Zorn, 1987 Ladouceur and Gaboury, 1988). Most of the research on these questions is only indirectly related to pathological gambling. These are critical questions for developing sensible policies. From this perspective, we can ask whether changes in the organization of the gambling enterprise and technologies of gambling lead to more or fewer pathological or problem gamblers, or to new disorders associated with gambling. Another perspective examines changes in the social and technological environment surrounding gambling. Such research can lead to a better understanding of individual risk factors in pathological gambling and to better ways to predict and treat gambling problems. Most research on the causes of pathological gambling examines gamblers themselves-their family back grounds, personality traits, experiences with gambling, attitudes about risk, motivations to gamble, and genetic attributes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |