| Abstract | Results |
| Acknowledgments | Discussion |
| Method | References |
Abstract
Gambling in contemporary society is a huge enterprise which is
wide-spread
and affects not only adults, but teenagers as well. Because of
the
ever-growing popularity of gambling, problems related to gambling have
also risen, causing serious health and emotional issues due to the
individual's
lack of control. Many studies have been done on gambling
behavior,
but many more issues need to be examined. The purpose of this
study
was to explore the relationship between personality style, gender
differences,
and attitudes and beliefs on gambling behavior. The NEO-FFI
(Costa
& McCrae, 1992) questionnaire was used to evaluate
impulsivity.
The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (Seligman, 1984) was used
to
assess optimism/pessimism. The Gambling Attitude and Beliefs
Survey
(GABS) (Breen & Zuckerman, 1994) was used to evaluate cognitive
processes,
such as degree of arousal and irrational beliefs. Participants
also
answered a customized questionnaire on frequency of gambling, the types
of gambling that they enjoy, the age at which they first began to
gamble,
and how much they would be willing to wager in a game of "Texas Hold
'em" Poker if either given money to play, or if they used their own
money.
Participants used for this study were 19 male and 20 female
undergraduate
college students. It has been suggested that a person who is
impulsive
is more likely to gamble. However, because only one participant
scored
high on impulsivity level, no relationship could be demonstrated.
The ASQ classified only 3 participants as moderately low pessimists, so
it was not possible to show a relationship between optimism/pessimism
and
gambling. Previous studies have shown that optimists gamble
longer
than a pessimist, view gambling more favorably, and see their losses as
near-wins. This study did show that males gamble more frequently
than females, start at an earlier age, and prefer different types of
gambling
than females do.
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor
McKenna for her wonderful insight and guidance through each process in
the completion of my study. Also, Professor Flannery, who
patiently
assisted me when I first began my research. Another terrific
person
who has gone above and beyond her call to duty is Barbara Bartlett, who
helped me in all the small details that were so important in this
study.
Also thanks to my best friend Angie, who has not only struggled along
with
me for the past seven years to pursue a lifetime dream of a college
degree,
but was always there for me through thick and thin, encouraging me
every
step of the way. Lastly, to my wonderful husband Bruce, who was
always
there for me. Without his words of encouragement and his shoulder
to cry on, I would never have made it this far. Everyone of you has
been
an inspiration to me. Thank you!
Method
The participants involved in this study were
39 college students who signed up to fulfill a requirement in their
introductory
psychology class at a small, Catholic, liberal arts college in the
northeastern
United States. All participants were treated in accordance with
the
American Psychological Association's standard of ethical treatment of
participants
in research studies. The participants all signed a consent form
and
were given a debriefing form at the conclusion of the research
experiment.
Participants were asked to fill out three
questionnaires. The NEO-five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) is a 60
item
questionnaire with 12 item scales measuring each of the five major
personality
domains: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness.
The test is self administered, and each item is scored on a 0-5 point
basis.
The participants responded to each statement by indicating their level
of agreement: SD = Strongly disagree, D= Disagree, N= Neutral, A=
Agree, and SA= Strongly agree. Reliability, validity, and
consistency
are high for the NEO-FFI. The main focus on this test was on the
N, the E, and the C factors, as these show strong signs of a
personality
that is prone to impulsivity, according to Costa & McCrae, when
high
on the N and E factors, but low on the C factor. Time to complete was
estimated
at 10-15 minutes (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Also at this time,
participants
were to complete the Gambling Attitude and Beliefs Survey (GABS; Breen
& Zuckerman (1994), a 35 item choice instrument asking questions
that
focus on gambling. Questions target cognitive factors in which
responses
are recorded on a four point scale ranging from "strongly agree" to
"strongly
disagree". GABS items were constructed with a wide range of
cognitive
biases in mind, including irrational beliefs as well as positively
valued
attitudes to gambling. Also, GABS inquires about the degree of
subjective
arousal and excitement that is experienced when gambling. Higher
GABS scores indicate that gambling is believed to be exciting and
socially
meaningful and that strategies (illusory ones also), as well as luck,
are
important. The third questionnaire that each participant was
asked
to fill out was The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Seligman,
1984).
It is a self report measure of different attribution styles, 6
hypothetical
questions of positive events, and 6 hypothetical questions of negative
events, both involving achievement and affiliation. Each question
allows the participant to interpret the event and its probable
cause.
Participants were asked to think of a cause for every event and to rate
each one on a 7-point scale which measures dimensions of locus,
stability,
and globality. High score on this questionnaire show more
internal,
global, and stable attributions, while lower scores show more unstable,
external and specific attributions. Each dimension is then
averaged
or summed out across the positive events, and then the negative events
to arrive at an overall score for each type of event. This test
shows
that optimists have low negative scores and high positive scores, while
pessimists have high negative scores and low positive ones (Seliman,
1984).
Each participant also was asked to fill out the Gambling Frequency,
Preference,
and Reason Survey, an instrument constructed to ask such questions as
level
of gambling, frequency and gaming preference, the age of onset of
gambling,
and if they would like to play in an upcoming psychology club event
tournament
of "Texas Hold 'em" poker, which is a very popular card game well-known
among the college crowd. The room was set up in a gambling
atmosphere
with cards and poker chips. Then each participant was told that
if
they are given $25 each, how much they would be willing to gamble, if
they
had a chance to triple their winnings. Also each participant was
asked how much they would be willing to gamble with their own money, if
they were chosen to be in a tournament in which the second place winner
would win back the money they bought into the tournament and the winner
takes the remainder of the pot. The participant who wishes not to
play could walk away with the $25 originally given to him if he was
chosen
to be in the game, but would rather not participate.
Results
Each participant received a packet of
questionnaires
including the NEO-five factor inventory (NEO-FFI), the Attributional
Style
Questionnaire (ASQ), the Gambling Attitudes and Beliefs Survey (GABS),
and the Gambling Frequency, Preference, and Reason Survey
(GFPRS).
Fourteen males and fifteen female college students participated for a
total
of N=29. Each score on the NEO-FFI was tabulated, and the mean
scores
and the standard deviation for each of the following scales were as
follows:
N (Neuroticism) M= 42.345, SD = 8.037; E (Extraversion) M=
55.965,
SD = 9.186; O (Openness) M= 47.103, SD = 10.380; A (Agreeableness) M=
54.345,
SD = 10.376; and C (Conscientiousness) M= 49.276, SD = 7.582. Out
of the N, E, and C scores, only one participant scored high on the N
(61)
and E (65) and low on the C (41), which is a measure of Impulsivity
(high
N and E but low C according to Costa & McCrae, 1992). Because
of this finding of only one participant with high impulsivity, it was
not
possible to examine the correlation between impulsivity and
gambling.
Scores of the second questionnaire, the GABS, ranged from 35 (low) to
140
(high) with M= 80.241, and SD= 14.493. When the GABS was
correlated
with each domain of the NEO-FFI, a significant correlation was found on
the A domain (r = -.374, p = .046). The other NEO
domains
showed no significant relationship with the GABS. The ASQ
questionnaire
consists of a CoPos (6 positive events) and a CoNeg (6 negative events)
which is combined to an overall score CPCN, which ranged from -18 to
18.
Scores from this sample ranged from -2 to 11, with M= 2.862, SD =
2.682.
Scores from this instrument were converted into two groups, those with
<0 were grouped as optimists, and those with >0 were grouped as
pessimists.
Unfortunately, only 3 participants fell into the pessimist group, so
difficult
to compare optimism level to gambling with such a small sample.
Scores
on the Gambling Frequency, Preference, and Reason Survey showed a
significant
difference between males and females on frequency of game play (r
= -.402, p = .031). Also a significant gender difference
was
found on the classification of high/low gambler (r = -.455, p
= .013). This shows that males gamble more than females (total
games,
male M = 5.500, SD = 3.180; female M = 3.067, SD = s.549.
The
t-test on gender and the GABS show no significant difference.
This
indicates that women and men did not differ significantly on attitudes
and beliefs on gambling. The age of onset of gambling ranged from
11-18, of which 4 of the 29 never gambled, with a M = 15.800, SD =
2.273.
Discussion
The data indicated that there are gender
differences
in gambling behavior. Males gamble more frequently than women,
and
prefer different types of gambling than women do. The data
obtained
from the NEO-FFI questionnaire was insufficient to apply to this study
because only one participant showed impulsivity, which is classified as
high N (Neuroticism), high E (Extraversion), and low C
(Conscientiousness)
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). The ASQ data was also difficult to
apply
to this study because only 3 participants showed moderate (and no
participants
were strongly pessimistic) pessimism. Because of these factors,
no
significant differences were found on any of the variables included
except
for those involving gender. When correlating the GABS with the
various
domains of the NEO-FFI, no significant correlation was found with any
of
the domains except, interestingly, the A (Agreeableness) domain.
A person high on the A domain is described as sympathetic, altruistic,
helpful to others, and believe that others will equally return the help
when needed. A person very high on this domain may be egocentric,
competitive, disagreeable, and skeptical of the intentions of
others.
A significant negative correlation was found in which the higher the A
domain, the lower the GABS score. This means that the more
agreeable
and understanding a person is toward others, the less likely that
person
will have irrational beliefs and attitudes toward gambling. More
research could be done in the area of beliefs and attitudes of gambling
with the A domain of the NEO-FFI with a larger sample of participants
to
extend the findings in this study.
Because the participants were all Caucasian
students from a small Catholic college in the northeast, and the sample
size was small, results from this study may not be generalized to the
general
population. A more diverse group of participants from different
economic
and social settings might have resulted in more varied responses.
For example, optimism was found to be high with most of the
participants
which may be due to the favorable conditions and attitudes of a young,
education-seeking adult with the high possibility of a bright
future.
Also, most students at this college seemed agreeable and
well-disciplined,
possibly due to being raised in families with strong moral values and
coming
from well-structured education backgrounds. This would explain
their
interest more in continuing to receive a good education, and focusing
their
attention more on studying than expending valuable time on pursuing
gambling
behavior.
When each participant was asked what would
be the most likely reason they would gamble, 62% said they would gamble
for fun/entertainment, 20% answered that they would gamble to win
money,
and 18% said they would gamble out of curiosity. Four
participants
who answered that they would gamble out of curiosity said that they had
never gambled. A study done by Adebayo (1998) on a sample of
students
attending a rural community college in Canada showed that more than
half
the students surveyed gambled to win money, followed by gambling for
fun/entertainment,
then lastly, gambling out of curiosity. The reason that these
findings
differ from each other is possibly because Adebayo used a much larger
sample
(N = 521), the age span used in his study was more wide-spread (M = 28,
ages ranging from 17-62), and Adebayo used a more diverse sample of
students
instead of one from a small rural Catholic college. This seems to
suggest that overall, young students attending a small rural private
college
would gamble, not to make monetary gains, but for the sheer enjoyment
of
it.
When participants were asked if they were
given $25 in which to gamble for a chance to triple their winnings, how
much of the $25 were they willing to gamble, 14% answered that they
would
gamble all of it, 55% said they would gamble some of it, and 31% said
that
they would walk away with the $25. This shows that there is not
much
of a tendency toward problem gambling in this sample.
A question was also asked on how much of their
own
money (choices were from 0-$100) that they were willing to bet if they
had a chance to win the pot, the most frequent answer was $10
(31%).
Only one participant said he would bet the maximum of $100. Four
participants (14%) answered that they would not gamble any of their own
money. This shows that problem gambling is not a huge issue among
the majority of students in this sample.
Although gambling has been a major issue in
today's society in reference to our youth being vulnerable and the ease
to which they may gain access to different types of gambling, this does
not seem to be the case at this college. For Example, Orford
(2003)
pointed out in his study the alarming problem of the British government
in allowing juveniles under the age of 18 to gamble. In this
country,
we have seen the rise of internet gambling, in which anyone at any age,
who has access to the computer, can easily play online bingo and win or
lose money. Also, the rise in popularity of television poker
tournaments
have found its way into homes, influencing weekly games of "Texas
Hold's"
Poker tournaments among young teenagers. Maybe there is more of a
social interaction with this new craze, as opposed to the fad of maybe
5 or more years ago, when a juvenile would spend hours playing a video
game in solitude, rarely interacting with others. Parents may
prefer
there children socializing with their peers, even though they may be
exposing
them to future problematic gambling behavior be allowing them to host
week-end
poker events in their own homes, as opposed to countless hours facing a
violent video screen, with no social interaction.
Although this study did not show problem
gambling
at this college, maybe because the majority of participants were
freshmen,
who on the most part need to spend most of their time adjusting to the
rigorous demands of studying to succeed at this difficult college, they
do not have time for many other activities. My results may have
been
different if I had used upperclassmen, who possibly may have more of a
social life due to learning how to balance school demands with outside
interests, which may have included activities such as weekly, or even
daily
gambling behavior. Future studies should be done on college
students
of all ages to see if there is a growing problem with young people and
gambling, looking at the age of onset and the possibility of a
relationship
between these variables.
References
Adebayo, B. (1998). Luck of the dice: gambling attitudes of a sample
of community college students. College Student
Journal, 32(2).
Breen, R.B. & Zuckerman, M. (1994). The gambling beliefs and
attitudes
survey. Unpublished instrument: University of
Delaware.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEOPI-R. Odessa,
Florida:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Orford, J. (2003). Why the British government is wrong to continue
to allow juvenile gaming machine playing. Addiction
Research and Theory, 11(6).
Seligman, M. (1984). The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ).
Any Questions or for a full copy of my thesis, please e-mail me at Jangc1@aol.com
Related links:
www.compusblues.com/gambling.asp
www.gamblingsolutions.net/
HomePage:www.anselm.edu/
www.alternet.org/story/12489