effects of poverty and

A study on gambling

behaviour: Investigating the

effects of poverty and

personal relative

deprivation on gambling

1. Research Topic & Question 2. Key Literature

3. Conceptual Model 4. Method

5. Survey & Manipulations 6. Results

7. Other Samples

8. Findings & Implications

9. Limitations & Future Research

Research Topic & Questions

▪ Focused primarily on the relationship between poverty and gambling behaviour. « Does poverty affect gambling behaviour?»

▪ Used Personal Relative Deprivation as a moderator.

Key Literature

▪ Matheson et al. (2014)-> Study based on homeless people and gambling behaviour.

▪ Elgar et al. (2008) -> Study based on youth gambling in Italy.

Method

▪ 2 (no poverty, poverty) x 2 Study Design (no prd, prd)

▪ Used Lottery Ticket purchasing as DV, Poverty Manipulation as IV and PRD Manipulation as a moderator.

▪ Scenario based survey.

▪ Used three scales that have been formed by previous studies: ▪ GABS -> Strong et al. (2004)

▪ PRDS ->Callan et al. (2008) ▪ GUS -> Raylu et al. (2004)

▪ Used ANOVA to test whether manipulations are working.

Survey & Manipulations

No poverty Poverty _{No PRD PRD}

Results

54% 46%

GENDER

Female Male ▪ There were 379 responses for the survey, after extraction it has

decreased to 289. (n=289)

▪ Majority of the participants were Turkish. (n=230)

▪ 172 of the participants took the opportunity to gamble.

▪ Both of the hypotheses were not supported for the general sample.

▪ PRD manipulation found to be effective but poverty wasn’t.

▪ Control variables found to be significant; GABS, GUS, Master’s Degree, Gender and Age.

Education Level

Other Samples

GUS SAMPLE

▪ This sample created

with partcipants who have scored higher than 1.

▪ 98 of them decided to take the lottery. (n= 146) ▪ H1 and H2 were

rejected.

▪ Age, gender and

Master’s degree found to be significant.

GIFT-CARD SAMPLE

▪ For this sample the DV was changed to

participation for the draw. ▪ 159 participants have participated in the draw. (n=289)

▪H1 and H2 were rejected. ▪Only age found to be

singificant.

TURKISH SAMPLE

▪ Sample consisted only Turkish participants. (n= 230)

▪ 145 participants decided to take the lottery

Findings & Implications

▪ Poverty manipulation found to be ineffective for predicting gambling behaviour.

▪ Personal relative deprivation also couldn’t predict gambling behaviour.

▪ Age, being negatively correlated, predicted gambling behaviour for all samples.

▪ Males have found to be more than twice as prone to gambling than the females.

▪ Gender’s role was similar to the previous studies from Malaysia, Finland and Italy.

Limitations & Future Research

▪ Poverty manipulation has not worked as intended.

▪ The given odds to win the lottery was not realistic and it may acted as a bias. ▪ A lowered version for the odds could be used fo further research.