Abstract
AbstractGambling can cause significant harms and these can result in a net negative utility from participation, although lower levels of participation have potential benefits and can yield positive net utility. It is therefore important to understand and distinguish between these two stages of gambling behaviour. Currently, economic models have had limited focus on explaining why someone would gamble despite it yielding a negative utility. Here, we present a two-stage model, motivated by empirical literature and intuitive assumptions, that improves on existing economic models by distinguishing between the likelihood of gambling participation and of gambling that yields a negative utility. The model’s predictions are empirically testable, consistent with existing literature, and add new insights. The model’s ability to distinguish between the two stages helps to inform interventions that aim to reduce the prevalence of gambling-related harm while avoiding the need for restrictive approaches that aim to eliminate gambling altogether.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Sociology and Political Science
Reference32 articles.
1. Ashrafioun, L., Kostek, J., & Ziegelmeyer, E. (2013). Assessing post-cue exposure craving and its association with amount wagered in an optional betting task. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(3), 133–137.
2. Association, A. P. et al. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (dsm-5®). American Psychiatric Publication.
3. Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (1988). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of political Economy, 96(4), 675–700.
4. Binde, P. (2009). Exploring the impact of gambling advertising: An interview study of problem gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(4), 541.
5. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97(5), 487–499.