See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356812911

A comparative analysis of sports gambling in the United States

Article  in  International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship · December 2021

DOI: 10.1108/IJSMS-03-2021-0074

CITATIONS READS

0 281

3 authors, including:

Brendan Dwyer Ted Hayduk III

Virginia Commonwealth University New York University
41 PUBLICATIONS   561 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Call for Papers: Sport, fitness and lifestyle entrepreneurship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ted Hayduk III on 09 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1464-6668.htm

A comparative analysis of sports Sports

gambling in
gambling in the United States the United
States
Brendan Dwyer
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
Ted Hayduk III
New York University, New York, New York, USA, and Received 25 March 2021
Joris Drayer Revised 10 August 2021
21 September 2021
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Accepted 22 September 2021

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the study was to explore differences in demographic, self-concept and fan behavior
factors that predict sports fans who bet and those who do not in legal and illegal gambling jurisdictions in the
United States (US).
Design/methodology/approach – Seven hundred and eighty-nine sports fans and bettors from 47 states
were surveyed through a partnership with a major media provider in the US. A number of demographic items,
theoretically defined factors and fan behaviors were measured, and several two-way MANOVAs with
interaction effects were conducted to determine differences between those who gamble and those who do not in
legal and illegal jurisdictions.
Findings – Statistically significant differences between those who bet and those who do not were found.
Bettors look different and come from different backgrounds and locations. Psychographically, they were
clearly more narcissistic. They also indicated a higher social identity and self-worth, yet perceived themselves
as less worthy members of important social institutions. In general, sports bettors out consumed non-bettors as
it relates sports spectatorship. In terms of differences between the groups across legal and illegal states, only a
few factors were impacted. Self-worth and personal identity were factors that were found to be different
between groups and jurisdictions as well as DFS participation.
Originality/value – The US sports gambling market is expected to grow US$6.5 billion in the next five years,
yet very little is known, psychographically, about the US sports bettor. Sports gambling research, especially
from a marketing perspective, has primarily been limited to Australia and the United Kingdom. This paper
contributes to what we know about sports gambling and the emerging US market. In particular, the results
uncovered fundamental trait, demographic and behavioral differences between US sports fans and sports
bettors. The findings also provide similar foundational differences and similarities between those who bet in
states with legal and illegal gambling.
Keywords Self-concept, Sport marketing, Sport consumer behavior, Sport fan behavior, Sports betting,
Sports gambling
Paper type Research paper

The sports gambling landscape in the United States (US) was altered drastically in May 2018,
and it is expected that the market will open up rapidly among the individual states (Matheson,
2021). As of early 2021, 19 states are operating some form of legalized sports wagering; an
additional five will be operational by the end of the year. Since 2018, another 20 states have
filed some form of sports wagering legislation in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision
to deregulate sports betting (Rodenberg, 2020). That means nearly 90% of states already
participate or proposed a bill to participate in sports betting since 2018. With more states in
the fold and more customers in the market, investors and technology firms are betting on the
financial return of a multi-billion-dollar windfall. The implications of sports betting in the US
are hard to know ex ante, but if states newly introduced legal structures emulate other major
betting markets like the United Kingdom (UK), the US market may expand by as much as
$600 billion in wagers, with sportsbooks competing to earn $32 billion in profit (Matheson,
2021). Clearly, there are huge implications for executing this market expansion optimally. International Journal of Sports
Marketing and Sponsorship
To do so, states’ legislation will need to properly incent individuals to learn about and try © Emerald Publishing Limited
1464-6668
their hand at sports betting – still largely a taboo practice in the US (Hing et al., 2017a). DOI 10.1108/IJSMS-03-2021-0074
IJSMS Research has explored the motivations and determinants of betting behavior (Deutscher et al.,
2019; Dwyer et al., 2019; Lamont and Hing, 2020; Paul and Weinbach, 2010, among others), but
rarely has there been a focus on understanding how impediments to sports betting such as
legality affect the consumer typologies that engage in the activity. For non-bettors, there
remain a number of barriers for participation. These include, but are not limited to, a lack of
understanding, lack of access and technological hurdles (Gainsbury et al., 2020; Hing et al.,
2017a). Furthermore, sports gambling is frequently connected with “problem gambling” in
the US, meaning both come with a negative stigma in this expanding market (Lopez-Gonzalez
et al., 2019). For decades, it was operated in very few places legally and a number of places
illegally (e.g. bookmakers, off-shore websites). Sports gambling was associated with financial
ruin, social isolation and other forms of dependency (e.g. alcohol or drug-use; Hing et al.,
2017a). As a result of this stigma, general sports fans and potential customers may now be
reluctant to participate.
Despite the rapidly evolving legal landscape, sports gambling is still only legal in 38% of
states. Thus, those who gamble in illegal jurisdictions must make additional sacrifices to
gamble, such as travel across state lines or face the risk of fines or jail time to bet illegally
within their jurisdiction. The difference between legal and illegal gambling is not overtly clear
in the US. In most states, some form of gambling is likely legal; however, it is still highly
regulated. For instance, private betting establishments (e.g. bookies) are illegal though they
remain widely accessible. Sport betting pools (e.g. March Madness), small-time poker clubs
and some forms of fantasy sports are also technically illegal in most jurisdictions; however,
the enforcement is difficult. Taken together, there are a number of people who gamble
regardless of legality and jurisdiction, and the illegal market is substantial. Holden (2018)
estimated illegal sports bettors spent $150 billion in 2017. In addition, according to a 2020
study by the American Gaming Association (AGA), illegal markets remain a prominent
vehicle for sports gamblers. To account for these nebulous gambling concepts, the current
study directly asked participants if they bet on a game through a sportsbook or bookie. In
addition, states were categorized as legal or illegal based on the state law associated with this
form of gambling (State Gambling Laws, 2021).
Despite an unequal access to legalized sports gambling, content related to the activity is
becoming increasingly mainstream. One can see betting content on sport analysis shows like
ESPN’s SportsCenter or GameDay, and sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel are also
major sponsors to professional sports teams and leagues. This mixture of unique barriers and
incentives has the sports gambling industry in a distinct position of growth that provide both
a challenge and an opportunity for providers and regulators looking to understand who
makes the jump from sports fan to sports bettor.
As a result of this opportunity, the purpose of the study was twofold: (1) to explore
differences in the demographics, psychographics and sport fan behaviors in those who
gamble and those who do not, and (2) to examine the interactional differences in the same
factors between those who gamble and those who do not and in states where gambling is legal
and illegal. In other words, this consumer-focused study investigates the traits, values and
attitudes that predict gambling behavior under the varying legal conditions.
To understand these potential differences in betting behavior holistically, it was
important to examine the idea of self-concept, and as a result, the current study followed self-
concept theory. The decision to gamble is multidimensional, and one’s self-concept is broad; it
encompasses factors including personal and social identity, personality traits and self-worth
(Gecas, 1982; Marsh and Ayotte, 2003). Self-concept also guides behavior, as individuals tend
to behave in ways that reinforce one’s perceptions of self (Gration et al., 2011). Previous
gambling research has explored the self-concept in unison with betting behavior while
studying financially-focused gamblers, impulsivity and the stigma of gambling (Hing et al.,
2016a; Hodgins and Holub, 2015; Tabri et al., 2017, 2019). However, as the landscape changes
and more consumers enter the sports gambling market, there presents a new opportunity to Sports
learn more about the fundamental and holistic make-up of sports gamblers. gambling in
Given the consumer focus of the study and the intention to study demographic factors,
self-concept factors and sport fan behaviors, these items were collectively defined and
the United
discussed as sport consumer traits for the remainder of the study. To guide this study, the States
following research questions were developed:
RQ1. To what extent are there differences in demographic factors between those who
gamble and those who do not?
RQ2. To what extent are there differences in self-concept factors between those who
gamble and those who do not?
RQ3. To what extent are there differences in sport fan behaviors between those who
gamble and those who do not?
RQ4. To what extent does the current legal status of sport gambling in one’s home state
moderate the relationship between sport consumer traits and gambling behavior?
The US stands on the precipice of widespread sports gambling adoption, yet much can be
learned about the differences between those who gamble and those who do not. Also, given
the additional barriers facing bettors in illegal states, the differences between legal and illegal
jurisdictions may provide useful information for those stakeholders looking to both protect
consumers while growing sports betting’s popularity.

Review of literature
The self-concept
One’s self-concept has many definitions, and has been studied for decades in the fields of
education, psychology, social psychology and marketing. In general, it is viewed as the
perspective individuals hold of themselves, and there are a few components agreed upon
across disciplines. They include: it is displayed uniquely with each individual, it ranges from
negative to positive, it changes over time and with context, and it influences one’s life (Turner,
2010). Self-concept is also multidimensional, and while the context may determine which
dimension requires examination, the overarching factors confirmed by researchers over time
include: self-esteem, self-worth, self-image, ideal-self, identities (personal and social), and
personal traits and values (Elliot, 1984; Gecas, 1982; Marsh and Ayotte, 2003).
Self-concept impacts an individual in many ways. It reinforces preconceived notions
positively and negatively, it builds confidence, and it influences behavior (Kr€oner and
Biermann, 2007; Swann et al., 2007). It is the behavioral impact that has led to the most
academic inquiry. From standardized testing to social media obsession, self-concept theory
has been applied to a number of contexts. The areas of educational achievement, social
psychology, personality have received a great deal of attention. In 1982, Gecas reviewed the
application of self-concept theory in the field of social psychology and found a number of
challenges related to dimensionality, measurement and maintenance over time. A few
dimensions of self-concept reported by Gecas included, personal and social identities, self-
esteem, and self-efficacy. Around the same time, Elliot (1984) tested a multidimensional model
of self-concept and found factors in a one’s life could impact their internal self-concept and
social self-concept independently as well as in parallel.
Researchers Marsh and Ayotte (2003) and Marsh et al. (2006) among others continued to
examine and validate the multidimensional impact of self-concept paired with personality
traits on well-being and behavior. In 2011, McConnell proposed the multiple self-aspects
framework (MSF) which accounts for self-concept representation while emphasizing one’s
multiple, context dependent self-aspects determined by past experiences. Therefore, between
IJSMS an individual and the multiple dimensions of self-concept, there are several self-aspects such
as father, teacher, coach, neighbor, and son. This framework has specific meaning in the
current context, as gambling is only one of several possible self-aspects an individual may
possess.
As extension of this line beyond academics and social psychology, marketing researchers
have explored how one’s perception of self impacts their consumer behavior. Gration et al.
(2011) found that “festivalgoers,” driven by the potential negative self-image, differentiate
themselves from the “tourist” tag. A “tourist” in their mind is less authentic; this
differentiation was not only in their head, it led to more avid consumption. Fox et al. (2018)
utilized the concept of narcissism as a mechanism to measure and represent one’s self-
concept, and found narcissism positively relates to millennials’ attitudes and intent to interact
with selfie-marketing.
In gambling specifically, a financially focused self-concept has been examined (Tabri et al.,
2017, 2019). Tabri et al. (2017) developed the Financially Focused Scale (FFS), as a mechanism
for one’s financially focused self-concept, and paired it with the Big Five personality traits to
examine disordered gambling. The authors found a positive relationship between one’s
financially focused self-concept and problem gambling; they also found one’s personality
traits appear to be independent to the degree to which an individual is financially focused.
Within the context of gambling, personality traits, identity and self-worth have been explored
in parallel with behavior and self-concept (Hing et al., 2016a; Tabri et al., 2017). Thus,
opportunities exist to utilize these and other dimensions of the self-concept to examine
gambling behavior.
The following sections highlight the self-concept factors supported by the literature that
may impact one’s decision to gamble. For instance, dimensions of narcissism relate directly to
one’s self-concept and have been found to impact one’s competitiveness and coping skills
while gambling (Pace et al., 2020). Identity, in its many forms, and self-worth are also
foundational to one’s self-concept and have been linked to gambling behavior. Lastly,
personal values such as political ideology not only drive one’s self-perception, they also
provide evidence of divisive behavior including gambling activities (Jost, 2017). Taken
together, self-concept has played an important role to this point in examining gambling, but
there remains a need to explore self-concept under varying contexts like sports gambling,
product adoption and legal status. The latter context is particularly important when one
considers the inherent risks of punishment, money retrieval and the effort it takes to bet in
illegal jurisdictions.

Narcissism and gambling

Narcissism has been a long-standing construct in the psychological literature, first
introduced by Ellis (1889). In this initial form, it was used to describe a tendency for
individuals to become absorbed in self-admiration. The construct was subsequently adopted
by Freud (1957), who utilized it to motivate much of his work related to the id, the ego and the
superego. Narcissism is classified by a number of behavioral and psychological phenomena
such as self-aggrandizement, a fragile self-esteem, megalomania, striving to be loved via a
perfectionist orientation, exhibitionism, feelings of entitlement, intolerance of criticism, and
suspiciousness and jealousy of others.
Research has shown that narcissistic personality traits are linked with foundational
personality characteristics like sensation-seeking (Emmons, 1981) and impulsivity (Foster
and Trimm, 2008; Vazire and Funder, 2006). As a consequent of that relationship, research
has also linked narcissism with behaviors that are risky in nature, as narcissistic individuals
seek to stimulate elevated levels of self-admiration or perceived task competence after
successfully navigating a risky situation (Foster et al., 2009b). Examples of such behaviors
include aggressive driving (Britt and Garrity, 2006), binge drinking (Wood, 2010), and Sports
making precarious investments (Foster et al., 2009a). gambling in
Most applicable to the present study, prior research rendered a positive and significant
linkage between narcissism and gambling behavior (Britt and Garrity, 2006; Lakey et al.,
the United
2008). In particular, Pace et al. (2020) studied young adults and adolescents in Italy and found States
narcissism was a significant predictor of sports gambling behavior. Overall, this research
establishes that narcissistic individuals continually glorify the attainment of superficial
rewards such as money or popularity as justification for their self-aggrandizement. They also
seek to develop and engrain an internal locus of control. Thus, reward-orientation and
overconfidence are important factors impacting the narcissism – gambling relationship
(Lakey et al., 2008). Gambling offers the chance for narcistic individuals to prevail under
uncertainty. Importantly, the short duration and repetitive nature of games leverages
impulsivity while also ensuring a nonzero likelihood of isolated “success” instances.

Identity and gambling

Narcissism presents an extreme view of one’s self-concept. Indeed, success at gambling,
particularly in skill-based games, may enhance one’s self-esteem and overall self-concept
(Volberg et al., 1997). However, in the context of gambling, both positive and negative self-
concept can play an important role in the formation of specific gambling behaviors. In a
preliminary analysis of self-concept factors, Lamont and Hing (2020) uncovered the nine
overlapping themes that drive sports betting: Demonstrating competence, Sociability,
Winning money, Heightened involvement, Excitement, Cultural influences, Habit, and
Inducements. From a self-esteem perspective, low self-esteem has long been associated
with problem gambling and has been found to be one of the most predictive psychological
states for problem gamblers (Volberg et al., 1997; Walters, 1994). For some, especially men,
gambling is seen as an activity which might increase one’s self-confidence (Wu et al., 2012).
Mageau et al. (2005) stated that “people who seldom feel competent or accepted in their daily
lives might cling to gambling as their only source of competence or self-worth” (p. 115).
The concept of self-worth also connects to one’s perceived worth specifically within social
groups (Hing et al., 2016a). In other words, gamblers may feel a lack of belonging at home or in
their professional environmental but may find a heightened sense of self-worth while
gambling. Research suggests that problem gamblers are often “embedded in a subculture
where gambling is acceptable” (p. 336, Volberg et al., 1997). Within this subculture, gamblers
earn valuable social status and a boost to overall self-worth. In a study of Chinese gamblers,
Tao et al. (2011) found earning recognition from others was a primary reason for gamblers to
play. They further found respondents considered the casino a place where people could
express their “true selves.” Ultimately, the research suggests that one’s self-concept can be
context-dependent and that one’s primary and secondary social group play a crucial role in
one’s self-concept.

Political ideology and gambling

The construct of political ideology has commanded attention from a range of researchers in
social, personality and political psychology (Jost et al., 2009). Political ideology refers to the
extent to which an individual identifies with one end of the conservative-progressive
ideological spectrum. In developed nations, ideologies are rooted in consistent sets of moral
and ethical philosophies that provide individuals scaffolding for their perceptions, behaviors
and attitudes (Hutton et al., 2014). The area’s most salient to defining one’s political ideology
are economic individuality, civil rights, tolerance, equity, and inclusion, the structure and
regulation of markets, and environmental sustainability/conservation (Jost, 2017). Political
ideology is also regarded as a fluid construct at the individual level (McClosky and Zaller,
IJSMS 1984), meaning that one’s degree of identification can wax and wane over time, or may in fact
re-orient itself around the alternate set of philosophical “anchors.”
Importantly, recent work in consumer psychology has highlighted the central role of
political ideology to consumer behavior and perceptions. Political conservatives and
progressives diverge on a wide range of psychological factors relevant to consumer behavior,
such as the “big five” personality traits (Sibley et al., 2012), preferences for cognitive
processing (Jost et al., 2017), consumer ethos and values (Braithwaite, 1998; Jost, 2017) and
even neurological and physiological responses to marketing stimuli (Smith et al., 2011a, b). In
sum, a consumer’s political ideology impacts their consumption tastes, patterns of behavior
and leisure activity preferences in more significant ways than originally thought (Jost, 2017).
Research has explored the link between individuals’ political ideology and their gambling
attitudes and behaviors. In one sense, gambling violates the philosophical tenants of
traditional conservativism in a number of ways. First, gambling leverages high uncertainty
to motivate the exchange of capital, and as such it is antithetical to traditional conservative
values around financial management (Giacopassi et al., 1997). This work stresses that
ideological conservatives are less likely to support or participate in risky investment
strategies. Second, gambling is typically regarded as a “vice” activity, akin to alcohol
consumption or drug use (Orford et al., 2009; Youn et al., 2000). As such, it could be said to be
inconsistent with conservative ideologies endorsing personal responsibility and
accountability and the subjugation of hedonism and frivolity.

Political ideology and sports betting

Importantly, the general act of “sports betting” is frequently investigated as a disparate, and
in fact a special case of, the more general construct of “gambling” (e.g. Fang and Mowen, 2009;
Hing et al., 2017a; Lopez-Gonzalez et al., 2017, etc.). Thus, sport consumers could display
different inclinations towards gambling than consumers at large.
Traditional sport consumption behaviors are typically tied to ideological conservativism
(e.g. Carney et al., 2008; Jost, 2017). In these studies, researchers unobtrusively examined the
personal belongings of individuals’ homes and work places, coding objects according to the
Personal Living Space Cue Inventory. This work documented that conservatives’ belongings
were more likely to include sports memorabilia and merchandise than were progressives’
personal spaces. Other work documented that watching sports on TV was highly predictive
of individuals’ self-perceived patriotism and conservativism (Prisuta, 1979). Recent work
found that sports consumption was positively associated with conservative ideologies such
as individualistic attributions for career success and support for the US military (Thorson
and Serazio, 2018).
Overall, the positive linkage between traditional sport consumption behaviors and
conservative sentiments suggests that, if viewed as a simple extension of traditional sport
consumption behaviors, ideological conservatives could be more amenable to sports betting
than progressives, who may be less likely to follow sports in the first place.

Sports gambling in illegal environments

The debate around legalized sports betting in the US typically revolves around several
common dimensions. Vacca (2014) mentions positive impacts on employment, revenue for
government and service-related industries, and a reported decrease in crime associated with
the deregulation of gambling. Among the negatives, Vacca and others have suggested that
sports betting jeopardizes the integrity of sport contests and creates public health concerns
(Holden, 2018; Humphreys and Perez, 2012).
Despite this ongoing debate, the internet has made illegal gambling quite accessible.
Spapens (2014) stated: “Nowadays, an operator only needs to acquire a license for online
gambling in a single country to attract players from all over the world, although it may be Sports
formally illegal for it to do so in jurisdictions that prohibit Internet gambling” (p. 403). As gambling in
such, Holden (2018) claimed that $150 billion in illegal sports bets was placed in 2017 and
Jawad and Griffiths (2008) found that there were as many as 2,500 gambling websites in
the United
operation including nearly 600 sports and race books (as cited in Humphreys and States
Perez, 2012).
Research on the aforementioned public health concerns is limited and there is little
research on the characteristics of people who place illegal bets. However, Spapens (2014)
stated “it is much more difficult to prevent addiction when players can access gambling
websites at any given hour of the day” (p. 403). The monitoring of online problem gambling is
further complicated when the gambling occurs via offshore websites that are often funded by
organized crime groups (Spapens, 2014).
Research by Humphreys and Perez (2012) and Mahan et al. (2012) did not specifically focus
on illegal gambling but examined the attitude and behaviors of sports bettors prior to the
overturning of PASPA. Together, they suggested that sports gamblers are
disproportionately young, affluent males, and they engage in sports gambling as a
complement to their traditional sports fandom. More recently, Shapiro et al. (2020) examined
consumers responses to gambling restrictions using a scenario-based experimental design.
Despite the prominence of illegal online sports betting, their research found some evidence
that anti-gambling laws were indeed effective. They further suggested that legalization
would have a dramatic impact on sports betting participation. Given the rapidly changing
legal landscape in the United States, more research is needed on the differences between
attributes and attitudes of sports bettors and how those might trigger unique behaviors
based on the legal status of the activity in their location.

Method
Sample and procedures
A stratified sample of 789 sports fans (both bettors and non-bettors) were selected from a
larger national data collection on sports gambling, fandom and media consumption
(N 5 4,206). The strata for the current study included (1) previous gambling experience and
(2) state residence by sports gambling legality. From the larger pool of 4,206 participants, 186
had gambling experience and resided in a legal state. With that total in mind, we created three
stratified random subsamples of similar sizes from the remaining respondents (191 non-
bettors from legal states, 201 bettors from legal states, and 201 non-bettors from illegal
states). The sum of the four subsamples equal 789 participants.
Table 1 provides sample sport consumer traits for bettors and non-bettors. Table 2
provides the same for those in legal and illegal states. As a manipulation check, the bettor
subsample scored significantly higher on a six-point interest in gambling scale, 5.23 and 2.75
respectively. Yet, there was no statistical difference between those in legal and illegal states.
The data were collected online via survey questionnaire between September 2019 and
January 2020 in collaboration with a major media partner.

Materials
The survey questionnaire consisted of 95 questions of which 77 were from four scaled
instruments. Narcissism was measured using Raskin and Hall’s (1979) 40-item Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI) [1]. As noted previously, narcissism is associated to gambling
behavior especially as it relates to risky behavior such as participating in illegal gambling
(Lakey et al., 2008). This seven-factor instrument has been utilized for decades and has
provided valid and reliable scale scores in a variety of contexts including, but not limited to
 IJSMS

Table 1.

non-bettors
– bettors and
Sample demographics
Bettors (N 5 377) Non-bettors (N 5 402)

Age Mean 41.2 Relationship Married 53% Age Mean 50.9 Relationship Married 52%
Median 42 Status Single 37% Median 50 Status Single 30%
St. Dev 11.9 Divorced 7% St. Dev 16.0 Divorced 13%
Generation Baby Boomer 9% Widowed 2% Generation Baby Boomer 39% Widowed 4%
Gen X 57% Income Under $50,000 31% Gen X 43% Income Under $50,000 42%
Millennial 23% $50,000–99,999 38% Millennial 11% $50,000–99,999 39%
Gen Z 10% $100,000–149,999 17% Gen Z 7% $100,000–149,999 12%
Sex Male 81% $150,000 or more 14% Sex Male 69% $150,000 or more 8%
Race/ Caucasian 64% Children Under 18 59% Race/ Caucasian 77% Children Under 18 30%
Ethnicity Black 27% Employment Full-time 75% Ethnicity Black 17% Employment Full-time 46%
Asian 3% Part-time 10% Asian 3% Part-time 8%
Hispanic/Latino 5% Not employed 8% Hispanic/Latino 2% Not employed 12%
Other 1% Retired 6% Other 1% Retired 27%
Region Northeast 20% Education High School 18% Region Northeast 34% Education High School 21%
Midwest 20% Some college 23% Midwest 20% Some college 24%
South 40% Vocational 3% South 33% Vocational 6%
West 20% Bachelors 11% West 13% Bachelors 31%
Interest in Mean* 5.23 Post-graduate 23% Interest in Mean* 2.75 Post-graduate 16%
Gambling St. Dev 1.06 Gambling St. Dev 1.86
Note(s): *Measured on a 6-point scale from “not at all interested” to “very interested”
Legal states (N 5 377) Illegal states (N 5 402)

Age Mean 47.3 Relationship Married 52% Age Mean 45.0 Relationship Married 53%
Median 46 Status Single 32% Median 43 Status Single 34%
St. Dev 14.6 Divorced 12% St. Dev 15.0 Divorced 10%
Generation Baby Boomer 27% Widowed 4% Generation Baby Boomer 23% Widowed 3%
Gen X 51% Income Under $50,000 35% Gen X 49% Income Under $50,000 33%
Millennial 17% $50,000–99,999 41% Millennial 17% $50,000–99,999 56%
Gen Z 6% $100,000– 14% Gen Z 10% $100,000– 16%
149,999 149,999
Sex Male 78% $150,000 or more
9% Sex Male 72% $150,000 or more 12%
Race/ Caucasian 75% Children Under 18 43% Race/ Caucasian 68% Children Under 18 44%
Ethnicity Black 17% Employment Full-time 60% Ethnicity Black 23% Employment Full-time 62%
Asian 3% Part-time 9% Asian 3% Part-time 9%
Hispanic/ 4% Not employed 12% Hispanic/ 4% Not employed 13%
Latino Latino
Other 1% Retired 19% Other 2% Retired 15%
Region Northeast 65% Education High School 20% Region Northeast 4% Education High School 21%
Midwest 10% Some college 24% Midwest 23% Some college 4%
South 14% Vocational 5% South 51% Vocational 21%
West 11% Bachelors 31% West 21% Bachelors 35%
Interest in Mean* 3.94 Post-graduate 19% Interest in Mean* 3.97 Post-graduate 19%
Gambling St. Dev 1.95 Gambling St. Dev 1.99
Note(s): *Measured on a 6-point scale from “not at all interested” to “very interested”
the United
States
gambling in
Sports

states
Sample demographics
Table 2.

– legal and illegal

IJSMS medicine, education and sport. The seven factors include Authority, Self-sufficiency,
Superiority, Exhibitionism, Exploitativeness, Vanity and Entitlement.
Identity was measured using a seven item, two-dimensional instrument (personal and
social) created specifically for this study. Participants were asked to rate the importance
of each of the following personal identities: (1) Relationship, spouse, partner, (2) family,
(3) student or employee, and social identities: (1) American, (2) sports, (3) religion and
(4) political. As noted previously, self-concept is multi-factorial and the relationship
between gambling and identity factors has proven impactful. Thus, personal affiliations
such as close relationships and profession and social institutions like sports, religion,
politics and national identity were chosen as research suggests these self-representations
may impact one’s gambling behavior (Uecker and Stokes, 2016; Westberg et al., 2017).
To measure Self-worth, the same items and factors were utilized; however, participants
were asked to rate their level of worth for each personal affiliation and level of uselessness
for each social affiliation. Scale development comes in many forms (Morgado et al., 2017)
and while the potential to utilize an existing scale was there, our goal was to examine
common personal and social identities and institutions. In other words, it was paramount
for the purposes of this study that the same identity items (personal and social) were
assessed as it relates to self-worth. Defining the intended use of a scale is an initial, and for
us, it was a clear need to remain consistent between constructs (Danner et al., 2016). In
addition, parsimony was important. This was a large data collection in conjunction with a
major media partner. In particular, given the focus on self-concept and the
multidimensional aspects surrounding personal and social identity and self-worth, it
was important to ensure items that matched our particular needs and protected
respondents from survey fatigue (DeVellis, 2016). As a result, items were chosen
deductively and two confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were run to validate the factor
structures. Both of these processes represent the two most popular procedures for
creating and utilizing new items (Morgado et al., 2017).
Political Values were measured using an adapted version of the Pew Research Center’s
Ideological Consistency Scale (ICS; available in the Appendix). A version of this scale has
been utilized since 1994 to measure liberal and conservative values. Given the purpose of the
study, items were removed from the original scale that were directly related to the
government’s use of power. Scores were cumulated and ranged from 0–9, where 0 was a more
liberal position and 9 a conservative position.
General sport and media consumption items were also included. For instance, participants
were asked to indicate the number of hours of general television viewership, sports
programming viewership, and live game viewership. Attending live events, attending
tailgates, playing daily fantasy sports (DFS), and going to restaurant or bar to watch a game
were also asked. Each of these behaviors are tied directly to sports fandom and the
comparison of actions between bettors and non-bettors should help regulators and media
providers establish patterns of behavior. Lastly, demographic questions were included in the
survey questionnaire.

Data analyses
Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure the reliability and validity of the scaled
measures. Cronbach’s alpha scores were assessed to ensure internal consistency on all four
scaled instruments, and two CFAs were run on the newly-created Identity and Self-Worth
scales to ensure factor validity of the two dimensions. Several fit indices, including χ 2 and
χ 2/df were interpreted for goodness-of-fit; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) were utilized to
examine the component fit.
 Following the preliminary analyses, three two-way MANOVAs were conducted to answer Sports
the four research questions. The independent variables remained the same for each analysis: gambling in
(1) betting behavior and (2) legality of betting by jurisdiction. To answer RQ1, the main effects
results for betting behavior was under investigation The dependent variables were included
the United
age, gender, income, relationship status and regional location (northeast, midwest, west and States
south). Household income was measured in $25,000 increments from less than $25,000 to
$150,000 or more. Relationship status was binary, where (1) married or living as married was
contrasted with (2) single (never married), divorced/separated and widowed.
Additional MANOVAs were run to answer RQ2 and RQ3. The betting behavior main
effects results were explored for each MANOVA; however, the dependent variables were
different. The dependent variables for RQ2 included the Self-concept factors of Self-
Sufficiency, Superiority, Exploitativeness, Vanity, Entitlement, Authority, Exhibitionism,
Identity, Self-Worth and Political Values. The dependent variables for RQ3 included game
attendance, tailgate attendance, restaurant/bar patronage to watch live events, DFS
participation, hours of sports television viewership per week, percentage of sports viewership
as a function of all television viewership, hours per week of live event viewership, and the
percentage of live event viewership as a function of all sports viewership.
Research question four explored the interaction effect between betting behavior and
legality of betting by jurisdiction. Interactions related to each of the three MANOVAs were
examined to assess demographic, self-concept and sports fan behavior differences in betting
behavior by jurisdiction.

Results
Two CFAs were conducted on the combined samples for the identity and self-worth
measures, and the fit indices scores supported the two-factor structure for both constructs [2].
Similarly, the Cronbach’s alpha scores all met the minimum threshold of 0.70 for a
satisfactory measure (Cortina, 1993). The NPI results were standard for a generalizable
population. Five percent of the legal states group scored above the 30-point threshold for
narcissism and 3% of the illegal states group. Similarly, the ICS data were normally
distributed. Eleven percent scored zero as completely liberal, while 5% of the sample scored a
nine as completely conservative; 55% of the sample scored between three and six on the 0–9
point scale.
All three MANOVAs were statistically significant (see Tables 3–5 for the omnibus
results). Statistically significant demographic differences (RQ1) between bettors and non-
bettors were found for the attributes of Age, Gender, Income and Geographic Location (see
Table 3). Those who bet were younger, more likely to be male, and had a higher household
income. Also, there were more non-bettors than bettors in the Midwest and the opposite in
the West.
For RQ2, statistically significant differences were uncovered for each of the self-concept
factors except for Personal Identity and Political Values (see Table 3). In each case, bettors
scored higher than non-bettors. Statistically significant differences were also found related to
sport fan behaviors (RQ3). Those who bet were more likely to attend a game, tailgate at a
game, go to a restaurant or bar to watch games, and play DFS. Those who did not bet
consumed a higher percentage of televised sports and live sporting events per week. No
statistical difference was found, however, in the hours of televised sports and live sporting
events viewership.
Figure 1 provides the results of the statistically significant interaction effects from the
three MANOVAs. Four factors, three self-concept and one sports fan behavior, showed
interaction effects between betting behavior and jurisdiction. Personal Worthiness, or an
individual’s sense of worth related to their relationships and career, resulted in a clear
IJSMS Non-bettors Bettors
Mean SD Mean SD p

Age 50.91 15.56 41.23 11.93 <0.001

Gender1 69% 5% 81% 4% <0.001
Income 3.06 1.48 3.59 1.53 <0.001
Relationship2 53% 5% 54% 5% 0.658
Geographical Location
Northeast3 34% 5% 34% 5% 0.420
Midwest3 19% 4% 13% 3% 0.010
South3 33% 5% 33% 5% 0.681
3
West 14% 3% 20% 4% 0.024
Table 3. Note(s): 1Percentage of males
2
MANOVA results of Percentage of participants in a relationship
3
demographics (RQ1) Percentage of participants who reside in the geographical region

Non-bettors Bettors
Mean SD Mean SD p
1
Self-Sufficiency 2.43 1.29 2.80 1.23 <0.001
Superiority1 1.88 1.56 2.79 1.51 <0.001
1
Exploitativeness 1.61 1.29 2.35 1.25 <0.001
Vanity1 0.95 1.15 1.83 1.21 <0.001
Entitlement1 1.60 1.18 2.19 1.11 <0.001
Authority2 3.64 2.20 4.44 2.12 <0.001
1
Exhibitionism 1.48 1.65 2.75 1.82 <0.001
2
Personal Worthiness 4.98 0.94 5.12 0.89 0.033
Social Uselessness3 2.75 1.33 3.27 1.71 <0.001
Personal Identity3 5.04 0.97 5.14 0.90 0.154
3
Social Identity 3.85 1.10 4.57 1.00 <0.001
4
Political Values 3.79 2.55 4.04 2.15 0.139
Table 4. Note(s): 1Measured on four-point scale
2
MANOVA results Measured on a five-point scale
3
of self-concept Measured on seven-point scale
factors (RQ2) 4
Measured on nine-point scale (0 5 Liberal position; 9 5 Conservative position)

Non-bettors Bettors
Mean SD Mean SD p
1
Game Attendance 16% 11% 36% 11% <0.001
Tailgate Attendance1 10% 9% 26% 9% <0.001
Restaurant/Bar Patronage1 37% 14% 57% 13% <0.001
Daily Fantasy Sports1 14% 10% 31% 14% <0.001
Hours/wk of sports viewership 6.88 5.44 8.18 6.78 0.040
Table 5. % of viewership of sports 28% 9% 34% 11% <0.001
MANOVA results Hours/wk of live events viewership 5.42 4.53 4.86 4.78 0.110
of sport fan % of viewership of live events 82% 6% 61% 9% <0.001
behaviors (RQ3) Note(s): 1Percentage of individuals who participated in the activity
 Personal Worthiness Social Uselessness Sports
5.30 3.50
gambling in
Personal Worthinessa

Social Uselessnessa
5.20 3.25 the United
5.10 3.00 States
5.00 2.75

4.90 2.50
Legal* Illegal Legal Illegal*

Non-Bettor Bettor* Non-Bettor Bettor*

Personal Identity Daily Fantasy Sports

5.30
45%

DFS Participation
Personal Identitya

5.10 35%

25%
4.90
15%
Figure 1.
Statistically significant
4.70 5% interaction effects
Legal* Illegal* Legal* Illegal between betting
Non-Bettor Bettor* Non-Bettor Bettor* decision and betting
jurisdiction
Note(s): aMeasured on a seven-point scale; *p < 0.05

difference in legal states where non-bettors indicated a higher sense of personal worth.
However, in illegal states there was virtually no difference. Similarly, the gap in DFS
participation was large in legal jurisdictions, but in the illegal states, it was not significant.
Social Uselessness, or an individual’s perceived lack of worth related to social institutions,
resulted in relatively no difference between bettors and non-bettor in legal states. However, in
illegal states, the gap was statistically significant with bettors indicating a higher sense of
social uselessness. Lastly, Personal Identity, or the importance with which an individual
identifies with their relationships and career, resulted in a statistically significant difference
in both jurisdictions, yet the direction of gap changed. For instance, in legal states, bettors
scored higher on Personal Identity, but in illegal states, it was the opposite. Non-bettors scored
significantly higher.

Discussion
The landscape of sports gambling in the US has changed dramatically since 2018 (Matheson,
2021). As a result, more American sports fans have or will have access to sports betting in the
next few years. Differences between the average sports fan and sports bettors from a
consumer trait perspective have been hypothesized by commentators, yet the empirical
evidence remains nascent. Furthermore, the particular influence of hindrances to gambling –
such as legal status of the activity – are not sharply understood. The purpose of this study
was to explore differences between those who bet and those who do not, and to examine
differences in betting behavior in two different jurisdictions in the US: states where sports
betting is legal and illegal. By understanding differences between these groups and places,
there is hope legislators, gambling and media providers, and even sports teams and leagues
can better serve these populations.
Overall, the current results indicate statistically significant differences between those who
bet and those who do not. Bettors look different and come from different backgrounds and
IJSMS locations. Psychographically, they were clearly more narcissistic. They also indicated a
higher social identity and self-worth, yet perceived themselves as less worthy members of
important social institutions. In general, sports bettors out consumed non-bettors as it relates
sports spectatorship. In terms of differences between the groups across the two jurisdictions
(legal and illegal states) in the US, only a few factors were impacted. Self-worth and personal
identity were factors that were found to be different between groups and jurisdictions as well
as DFS participation. The following section discusses these results in greater detail and the
implications of these differences.

Interaction effects
While the differences between bettors and non-bettors provide important implications for
practitioners, it was the jurisdictional similarities and differences that provide the most
unique contribution. Keep in mind, the comparison group for the interaction models was the
legal, non-bettors. First, the major differences between the jurisdictions for bettors and non-
bettors were psychographic in nature. For instance, for those who bet in illegal states, their
Personal Identity and Personal Worthiness scores (importance and value of their relationships,
family and identity as a student/employee) was lower in illegal states while their Social
Uselessness score was higher (perceived worth as an American and as affiliated with sports,
religion and politics). This was significantly different from non-bettors. Their Personal
Identity score was higher in illegal states. For Social Uselessness and Personal Worthiness,
their scores remained constant between the jurisdictions, but were significantly different than
the bettors in the legal states for Personal Worthiness and in the illegal states for Social
Uselessness.
From a Personal Identity and Personal Worthiness perspective, previous work has
identified negative self-concept and self-worth as predictors of risky behavior such as illegal
gambling (Volberg et al., 1997; Walters, 1994). Wu et al. (2012) actually found gambling can
increase self-worth for men as they become more successful, yet it was Mageau et al.’s (2005)
findings about an individual’s perceived lack of competence or acceptance in their daily life
that may drive them to risky gambling behavior. These studies were not conducted in the
sports gambling context, yet they perhaps underscore the differences between legal and
illegal wagering in the US from a self-concept perspective. For the illegal gambling group,
however, the negative self-concept as it relates to social status is a unique contribution
especially considering the increase in personal identity. Perhaps the feeling of social
uselessness drives bettors to seek out gambling activities more even despite the
additional risk.
For practitioners, these results are important because it will be important to know who are
their primary consumers in newly legalized jurisdictions. If those who are currently betting
illegally in these jurisdictions tend to be less associated with their family/friends/coworkers,
and feel more useless as an individual, operators will need to think about how to manage the
negative repercussions of legalizing the activity in these consumers’ jurisdiction. Apart from
marketing and branding, operators will need to extensively incorporate strategies that
mitigate problem gambling, and gambling-related depression and isolation.
The major behavioral difference came from DFS participation, which was significantly
higher for bettors in legal states than illegal states and non-bettors in legal states. It was
surprising that bettors in illegal states do not participate at the same level. Since it emerged in
North America in 2015, DFS has been viewed by many as an alternate for sports betting
(Dwyer et al., 2019; Shapiro et al., 2020). However, much has changed since 2015 and it is more
of a mainstream activity with no legal risk of participation. Based on our results, DFS should
not be regarded as a substitute or complimentary service to sports betting. This contradicts
the work of Dwyer et al. (2018) that found attitudinal similarities between sports betting and
DFS participation among DFS participants, most notably, problem gambling behavior. The Sports
majority of states have legalized DFS participation at this point, but additional research gambling in
identifying potential similarities and differences in behavior and consumer trait makeup
could be beneficial for practitioners.
the United
Second, there were no demographic differences uncovered between the groups in the two States
state jurisdictions. This was somewhat unanticipated, as it was believed bettors in illegal
locations would be younger and have higher incomes as the activity is riskier and requires
more work/time to participate. Hing et al. (2016b) found that young males were most
vulnerable to risky gambling behavior in a national survey of Australian sports bettors.
Income, however, was not found to impact risky sports gambling behavior for that sample.
The results related to income and risky gambling behavior is mixed. Delfabbro (2012) found
those with higher income are likely to engage in risky sports gambling behavior, yet Hing
et al. (2017b) found the opposite. Nearly all of the previous research in this area has occurred
in countries outside of the US. Thus, this provides a unique contribution for US providers and
is an area for future exploration. Other noteworthy non-significant interaction effects
included all of the Narcissism factors, Political Values, and television viewership behaviors.
While the latter two groups are more understandable, the lack of statistically significant
results related to the dimensions of Narcissism was unexpected. More work in this area is
warranted.

Main effects
There were few interaction effects between the groups and jurisdictions, but there were
several statistically significant sport consumer trait differences between bettors and non-
bettors, generally. For each research question, it is not entirely surprising that sports bettors
and non-betting sports fans are heterogenous. Bettors were younger, more likely to be male,
and had a higher annual household income. This aligns with previous work within the sports
gambling literature (Hing et al., 2016b; Humphreys and Perez, 2012; Mahan et al., 2012).
Geography also mattered; of the sample, bettors were more common in the western states and
non-bettors in the midwestern states than their counterparts. This is likely tied to regional
proximity. The legalization of sports gambling has not made it to the middle of the country
and it appears sports fans in those states are not willing to gamble illegally. Meanwhile,
betting behavior was higher among those living in the Western US, which offers convenient
access to legal sports betting operations in Las Vegas, Nevada.
From a psychographic perspective, bettors scored significantly higher on each Narcissism
factor, and while some of the mean scores were lower (e.g. Vanity, Entitlement and
Exploitativeness), there was a difference between the groups. A relationship between
Narcissism and gambling has been established by previous researchers, as Pace et al. (2020)
found it positively predicted sport gambling behavior yet this study explored differences
between gamblers and non-gamblers and specifically examined the underlying dimensions of
the latent construct. The notion that sports bettors are more self-absorbed than non-gamblers
is understandable. Spectator sport is a context where everyone can feel like an expert, yet it
takes an elevated level of confidence to risk money on this perceived expertise. Research by
Cowley et al. (2015) suggests those with narcissistic tendencies are likely to believe they can
control games of chance, and when uncertainty is at the crux of an activity like sports
gambling, it is not surprising the current study’s sample of bettors indicated elevated
narcissism scores compared to non-bettors.
Sports bettors also indicated significantly higher levels of Personal Worthiness and Social
Identity, yet also significantly elevated scores of Social Uselessness. Personal Identity and
Political Values scores, however, were relatively similar among the groups. The contrast in
self-worth concepts (Personal and Social) is a unique finding. With higher narcissism scores,
IJSMS it is not surprising sports bettors scored higher as it relates to their perceived worth among
family, friends and coworkers. However, one would think they would also have a higher
perceived value among social institutions. The opposite was true. Combine this unique
disparity with an elevated Social Identity score among sports bettors, and this leads one to
believe sports bettors perceive themselves to be more socially unappreciated or even isolated
than general sports fans. The Social Identity items asked participants to rate the importance
of belonging to following groups/institutions: Sports, Religion, Political and American. Social
Uselessness asked them to disagree/agree with feeling useless as a member of the same
groups/institutions. Thus, while it may be important for sports bettors to belong to these
groups compared to non-bettors, they obviously feel their value within the groups is not as
high. It is important to note the overall mean scores for each group were below 3.5 on a seven-
point scale, so generally, both groups feel adequately valued, but the significant difference
between the groups suggests something is going on socially for bettors.
For decades, betting behavior and social isolation has received attention from
researchers (Porter et al., 2004; Trevorrow and Moore, 1998). Along with financial loss and
dependency issues, retreating from society is a potential outcome of problem gambling
and one of the major arguments opposing betting legislation (Thomsen, 2019). In a study
of Australian adults, McQuade and Gill (2012) found a significant positive relationship
between loneliness and gambling. Thus, understanding these psychographic differences
related to social status and identities could help marketers and media providers offer
products to meet the disparities. For instance, there is an opportunity to pair or even
market the activity alongside important social institutions. Utilizing public relations to
communicate the growth of sports betting among Americans and potentially identify it as
a pastime for the country. These are ways to sell the legitimacy and importance of the
game within the eyes of participants. There is also the opportunity to design physical
sportsbooks as welcoming, accredited spaces where social consumption and community-
building is encouraged, as opposed to solitary betting behaviors.
Lastly, behavioral differences were mostly expected. Sports bettors consume spectator
sport at a significantly higher rate than non-bettors. Whether it was game attendance factors,
television viewership or interactive competitions like DFS, sports bettors engage more with
sports services. The results confirm previous attendance and viewership research where the
opportunity to gamble positively impacted attendance at Japanese soccer events (Funk et al.,
2006), slightly improved a university student’s likelihood to attend a game (Wann et al., 2015),
and positively impacted sport media consumption (Cason et al., 2020). Restaurant and bar
patronage also was higher among bettors. Sports bars and restaurants are locations where
sports fans congregate to watch their favorite team, and in the case of sports betting, watch
several games at one time on the many screens within the venue. In a study done in Australia,
nearly half of sports bar patrons had bet on sports within the last 12 months (Pennay et al.,
2020). Similar to other forms of betting like poker, sports betting appears to have a stronger
social component and the sports bar/restaurant is a preferred location to enjoy the action if
one is not able to attend the game.
The only non-significant results and findings where non-bettors out consume bettors was
related to live event television viewership. However, this is easily explained, as bettors still
watched more sports coverage, in general. Bettors watch a greater percentage of analysis of
shows than non-bettors to gain a potential advantage in their decisions. The behavioral findings,
in general, are impactful for marketers, media providers, and managers as the popularity of the
activity continues to grow. At the time of data collection, sports betting is still limited to a quarter
of the US. Like fantasy sports participants, where previous research has found a significant
uptick in sport consumption as a result of participation, sports bettors are highly engaged. This
engagement will pay dividends for sports organizations willing to innovate and provide
additional research content, spectator services and communication media.
Limitations and future research Sports
Given the timely decisions that US states are currently having to make regarding legalizing gambling in
gambling or not, there is an opportunity for future research to use this study to aid in that
effort. Specifically, future research should consider developing a counterfactual model of
the United
betting behavior from states’ legal status. This would aid in isolating the causal effect of States
passing favorable gambling policies and would help states produce more specific revenue
projections from implemented policies.
Also, the social uselessness results potentially have far reaching impact. If feelings of
uselessness impact one’s propensity to bet on sports, there are important implications for
mental health professionals and sport properties looking to encourage harmonious
consumption behaviors and discourage obsessive consumption behaviors.
Because heavier sport consumers reported more betting behavior (RQ3), the analysis may
have illuminated some endogenous sources of betting outcomes. While we investigate these
two questions independently in this paper, future research can benefit from fitting
simultaneous equations of models that incorporate individuals’ sport fandom intensity.
Promising methods in this regard include Heckman’s (1979) two-step approach and the class
of hurdle models first introduced by Cragg (1971).

Notes
1. See the Appendix for complete list of items and scoring.
2. Identity: χ 2[df] 5 63.86 [28], χ 2/df 5 2.28, RMSEA 5 0.058, CFI 5 0.94, TLI 5 0.95;
Self-worth: χ 2[df] 5 51.21 [28], χ 2/df 5 1.82, RMSEA 5 0.061, CFI 5 0.91, TLI 5 0.93.

References
American Gaming Association (2020), “2020 survey of American sports bettors”, available at: https://
www.americangaming.org/resources/2020-survey-of-american-sports-bettors/.
Braithwaite, V. (1998), “The value balance model of political evaluations”, British Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 223-247.
Britt, T.W. and Garrity, M.J. (2006), “Attributions and personality as predictors of the road rage
response”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 127-147.
Carney, D.R., Jost, J.T., Gosling, S.D. and Potter, J. (2008), “The secret lives of liberals and
conservatives: personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind”,
Political Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 807-840.
Cason, D., Lee, M., Lee, J., Yeo, I.S. and Arner, E.J. (2020), “The impact of legalization of sports
gambling: how motivation, fandom, and gender influence sport-related consumption”,
International Journal of Sport Communication, Vol. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1123/ijsc.2020-0022.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, p. 98.
Cowley, E., Briley, D.A. and Farrell, C. (2015), “How do gamblers maintain an illusion of control?”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, pp. 2181-2188.
Cragg, J.G. (1971), “Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the
demand for durable goods”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, Vol. 39, pp. 829-844.
Danner, D., Blasius, J., Breyer, B., Eifler, S., Menold, N., Paulhus, D.L., Rammstedt, B., Roberts, R.D.,
Schmitt, M. and Ziegler, M. (2016), “Current challenges, new developments, and future
directions in scale construction”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 32,
pp. 175-180, doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000375.
Delfabbro, P.H. (2012), Australasian Gambling Review, 5th ed., Independent gambling. Adelaide:
Independent Gambling Authority, available at: http://iga.sa.gov.au/sites/default/files/
publication-documents/Australian%20Gambling% 20Review-5th%20Edition.pdf.
 €
Deutscher, C., Otting, M., Schneemann, S. and Scholten, H. (2019), “The demand for English premier
IJSMS
league soccer betting”, Journal of Sports Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 556-579.
DeVellis, R.F. (2016), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 4th ed., Sage publications, Los
Angeles.
Dwyer, B., Shapiro, S.L. and Drayer, J. (2018), “Daily fantasy football and self-reported problem
behavior in the United States”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 689-707, doi: 10.1007/
s10899-017-9720-4.
Dwyer, B., Drayer, J. and Shapiro, S.L. (2019), “To play or not to play? An analysis of dispositions,
gambling, and daily fantasy sport”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 33, pp. 174-188, doi: 10.
1123/jsm.2018-0115.
Elliot, G.C. (1984), “Dimensions of the self-concept: a source of further distinctions in the nature of self-
consciousness”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 13, pp. 285-307.
Ellis, H. (1889), “Auto-erotism: a psychological study”, The Alienist and the Neurologist, Vol. 19,
pp. 260-299.
Emmons, R.A. (1981), “Relationship between narcissism and sensation seeking”, Psychological Reports,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 247-250.
Fang, X. and Mowen, J.C. (2009), “Examining the trait and functional motive antecedents of four
gambling activities: slot machines, skilled card games, sports betting, and promotional games”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 121-131.
Foster, J.D. and Trimm IV, R.F. (2008), “On being eager and uninhibited: narcissism and approach–
avoidance motivation”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34, pp. 1004-1017.
Foster, J.D., Misra, T.A. and Reidy, D.E. (2009a), “Narcissists are approach-oriented toward their
money and their friends”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 43, pp. 764-769.
Foster, J.D., Shenesey, J.W. and Goff, J.S. (2009b), “Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing the
roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 47, pp. 885-889.
Fox, A.K., Bacile, T.J., Nakhata, C. and Weible, A. (2018), “Selfie-marketing: exploring narcissism and
self-concept in visual user-generated content on social media”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 35, pp. 11-21.
Freud, S. (1957), “On narcissism: an introduction”, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological
Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. XIV (1914-1916): on the History of the Psycho-Analytic
Movement, Papers on Metapsychology and Other Works, pp. 67-102.
Funk, D.L., Nakazawa, M., Mahony, D.F. and Thrasher, R. (2006), “The impact of the National Sports
Lottery and the FIFA World Cup on attendance, spectator motives and J. League marketing
strategies”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 8, pp. 267-285.
Gainsbury, S.M., Angus, D.J., Procter, L. and Blaszczynski, A. (2020), “Use of consumer protection
tools on Internet gambling sites: customer perceptions, motivators, and barriers to use”, Journal
of Gambling Studies, Vol. 36, pp. 259-276.
Gecas, V. (1982), “The self-concept”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 8, pp. 1-33.
Giacopassi, D., Vandiver, M. and Stitt, B.G. (1997), “College student perceptions of crime and
casino gambling: a preliminary investigation”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 13,
pp. 353-361.
Gration, D., Raciti, M. and Arcodia, C. (2011), “The role of consumer self-concept in marketing
festivals”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 28, pp. 644-655.
Heckman, J.J. (1979), “Sample selection bias as a specification error”, Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 153-161.
Hing, N., Nuske, E., Gainsbury, S.M. and Russell, A.M. (2016a), “Perceived stigma and self-stigma of
problem gambling: perspectives of people with gambling problems”, International Gambling
Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 31-48.
Hing, N., Russell, A.M., Vitartas, P. and Lamont, M. (2016b), “Demographic, behavioural and Sports
normative risk factors for gambling problems amongst sports bettors”, Journal of Gambling
Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 625-641. gambling in
Hing, N., Russell, A.M. and Browne, M. (2017a), “Risk factors for gambling problems on online electronic
the United
gaming machines, race betting and sports betting”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 779-789. States
Hing, N., Russell, A.M., Lamont, M. and Vitartas, P. (2017b), “Bet anywhere, anytime: an analysis of
Internet sports bettors’ responses to gambling promotions during sports broadcasts by
problem gambling severity”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 1051-1065, doi: 10.1007/
s10899-017-9671-9.
Hodgins, D.C. and Holub, A. (2015), “Components of impulsivity in gambling disorder”, International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, Vol. 13, pp. 699-711.
Holden, J.T. (2018), “Prohibitive failure: the demise of the ban on sports betting”, Georgia State
University Law Review, Vol. 35, p. 329.
Humphreys, B.R. and Perez, L. (2012), “Who bets on sports? Characteristics of sports bettors and the
consequences of expanding sports betting opportunities”, Studies of Applied Economics, Vol. 30,
pp. 579-598.
Hutton, I., Jiang, D. and Kumar, A. (2014), “Corporate policies of Republican managers”, Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 49, pp. 1279-1310.
Jawad, C. and Griffiths, S. (2008), “Preventing problem gambling on the Internet through the use of
social responsibility mechanisms”, in Nijhoff’s, B. (Ed.), Crime, Addiction and the Regulation of
Gambling, pp. 181-215.
Jost, J.T. (2017), “Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology”, Political Psychology,
Vol. 38, pp. 167-208.
Jost, J.T., Federico, C.M. and Napier, J.L. (2009), “Political ideology: its structure, functions, and elective
affinities”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 307-337.
Jost, J.T., Sterling, J. and Stern, C. (2017), “Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic
and existential motivation”, The Motivation-Cognition Interface, Routledge, pp. 56-87.
Kr€oner, S. and Biermann, A. (2007), “The relationship between confidence and self-concept—towards
a model of response confidence”, Intelligence, Vol. 35, pp. 580-590.
Lakey, C.E., Rose, P., Campbell, W.K. and Goodie, A.S. (2008), “Probing the link between narcissism
and gambling: the mediating role of judgment and decision-making biases”, Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 113-137.
Lamont, M. and Hing, N. (2020), “Sports betting motivations among young men: an adaptive theory
analysis”, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 42, pp. 185-204.
Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estevez, A. and Griffiths, M.D. (2017), “Marketing and advertising online sports
betting: a problem gambling perspective”, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 41,
pp. 256-272.
Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estevez, A. and Griffiths, M.D. (2019), “Can positive social perception and reduced
stigma be a problem in sports betting? A qualitative focus group study with Spanish sports bettors
undergoing treatment for gambling disorder”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 571-585.
Mageau, G.A., Vallerand, R.J., Rousseau, F.L., Ratelle, C.F. and Provencher, P.J. (2005), “Passion and
gambling: investigating the Divergent affective and cognitive consequences of gambling 1”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 100-118.
Mahan, J.E. III, Drayer, J. and Sparvero, E. (2012), “Gambling and fantasy: an examination of the
influence of money on fan attitudes and behaviors”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 21,
pp. 159-173.
Marsh, H.W. and Ayotte, V. (2003), “Do multiple dimensions of self-concept become more
differentiated with age? The differential distinctiveness hypothesis”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 687-706.
IJSMS Marsh, H.W., Trautwein, U., L€ udtke, O., K€oller, O. and Baumert, J. (2006), “Integration of
multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: construct validation and
relations to well-being and achievement”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 74, pp. 403-456.
Matheson, V. (2021), “An overview of the economics of sports gambling and an introduction to the
symposium”, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 1-8.
McClosky, H. and Zaller, J. (1984), The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and
Democracy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
McConnell, A.R. (2011), “The multiple self-aspects framework: self-concept representation and its
implications”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 15, pp. 3-27.
McQuade, A. and Gill, P. (2012), “The role of loneliness and self-control in predicting problem
gambling behaviour”, Gambling Research: Journal of the National Association for Gambling
Studies (Australia), Vol. 24, pp. 18-30.
Morgado, F.F., Meireles, J.F., Neves, C.M., Amaral, A. and Ferreira, M.E. (2017), “Scale development:
ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices”, Psicologia:
Reflex~ao e Crıtica, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1-20.
Orford, J., Griffiths, M., Wardle, H., Sproston, K. and Erens, B. (2009), “Negative public attitudes
towards gambling: findings from the 2007 British gambling prevalence survey using a new
attitude scale”, International Gambling Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 39-54.
Pace, U., D’Urso, G., Ruggieri, S., Schimmenti, A. and Passanisi, A. (2020), “The role of narcissism,
hyper-competitiveness and maladaptive coping strategies on male adolescent regular gamblers:
two mediation models”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 1-12.
Paul, R.J. and Weinbach, A.P. (2010), “The determinants of betting volume for sports in North
America: evidence of sports betting as consumption in the NBA and NHL”, International
Journal of Sport Finance, Vol. 5, pp. 128-139.
Pennay, A., Livingston, M., Cook, M., Room, R., Dwyer, R., MacLean, S., O’brien, N., Nicholson, M. and
Kuntsche, E. (2020), “Sports bars: environmental design, drinking, and sports betting”,
Addiction Research and Theory, Vol. 63, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1080/16066359.2020.1830071.
Porter, J., Ungar, J., Frisch, G.R. and Chopra, R. (2004), “Loneliness and life dissatisfaction in
gamblers”, Journal of Gambling Issues, Vol. 11, doi: 10.4309/jgi.2004.11.13.
Prisuta, R.H. (1979), “Televised sports and political values”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 28,
pp. 94-102.
Raskin, R.N. and Hall, C.S. (1979), A Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Psychological reports.
Rodenberg, R. (2020), United States of Sports Betting: an Updated Map of where Every State Stands,
ESPN.com, available at: https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/19740480/the-united-states-
sports-betting-where-all-50-states-stand-legalization.
Shapiro, S.L., Drayer, J. and Dwyer, B. (2020), “An examination of consumer reactance to daily fantasy
sport and sport gambling regulatory restrictions”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 23,
pp. 797-809, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.006.
Sibley, C.G., Osborne, D. and Duckitt, J. (2012), “Personality and political orientation: meta-analysis
and test of a threat-constraint model”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 664-677.
Smith, K.B., Oxley, D.R., Hibbing, M.V., Alford, J.R. and Hibbing, J.R. (2011a), “Disgust sensitivity and
the neurophysiology of left-right political orientations”, PloS One, Vol. 6 No. 10, e25552.
Smith, K.B., Oxley, D.R., Hibbing, M.V., Alford, J.R. and Hibbing, J.R. (2011b), “Linking genetics and
political attitudes: reconceptualizing political ideology”, Political Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 369-397.
Spapens, T. (2014), “Illegal gambling. The Oxford handbook of organized crime”, in Paoli’s, L. (Ed.),
Organized Crime, Oxford Press, Oxford, pp. 402-418.
State Gambling Laws (2021), “LetsGambleUSA”, available at: https://www.letsgambleusa.com/state-
gambling-laws/.
Swann, W.B. Jr, Chang-Schneider, C. and Larsen McClarty, K. (2007), “Do people’s self-views matter? Sports
Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 84-94,
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.84. gambling in
Tabri, N., Wohl, M.J., Eddy, K.T. and Thomas, J.J. (2017), “Me, myself and money: having a financially
the United
focused self-concept and its consequences for disordered gambling”, International Gambling States
Studies, Vol. 17, pp. 30-50.
Tabri, N., Hollingshead, S.J. and Wohl, M.J. (2019), “A limit approaching pop-up message reduces
gambling expenditures, except among players with a financially focused self-concept”,
International Gambling Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 327-338.
Tao, V.Y.K., Wu, A.M.S., Cheung, S.F. and Tong, K.K. (2011), “Development of an indigenous
inventory GMAB (Gambling Motives, Attitudes and Behaviours) for Chinese gamblers: an
exploratory study”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 99-113.
Thomsen, I. (2019), Will Betting on Sports Be the Next Public Health Menace?, News@Northeastern,
available at: https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/04/12/legalized-sports-betting-will-create-a-
public-health-risk-predicts-northeastern-university-professor/.
Thorson, E.A. and Serazio, M. (2018), “Sports fandom and political attitudes”, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 82, pp. 391-403.
Trevorrow, K. and Moore, S. (1998), “The association between loneliness, social isolation and
women’s electronic gaming machine gambling”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 14,
pp. 263-284.
Turner, J.C. (2010), “Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group
behavior”, in Postmes, T. and Branscombe, N.R. (Eds), Key Readings in Social Psychology.
Rediscovering Social Identity, Psychology Press, pp. 243-272.
Uecker, J.E. and Stokes, C.E. (2016), “Religious background and gambling among young adults in the
United States”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 341-361.
Vacca, A. (2014), Sports betting: why the United States should go all in, Willamette Sports Law Jounal,
available at: https://libmedia.willamette.edu/ds-api/bitstream/23369/11%20WSLJ%20no.%
202%20spring%202014%20Vacca.pdf.
Vazire, S. and Funder, D.C. (2006), “Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 10, pp. 154-165.
Volberg, R.A., Reitzes, D.C. and Boles, J. (1997), “Exploring the links between gambling, problem
gambling, and self-esteem”, Deviant Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 321-342.
Walters, G.D. (1994), “The gambling lifestyle: I. Theory”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 10,
pp. 159-182.
Wann, D.L., Zapalac, R.K., Grieve, F.G., Partridge, J.A. and Lanter, J.R. (2015), “An examination of
sport fans’ perceptions of the impact of the legalization of sport wagering on their fan
experience”, UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 21-40.
Westberg, K., Beverland, M.B. and Thomas, S.L. (2017), “The unintended normalization of gambling:
family identity influences on the adoption of harmful consumption practices”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 37, pp. 426-443.
Wood, A.M. (2010), Narcissism and Binge Drinking: Exploring the Role of Overconfidence and
Confidence-Based Risk-Taking, Unpublished Thesis, East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City, TN.
Wu, A.M., Tao, V.Y., Tong, K.K. and Cheung, S.F. (2012), “Psychometric evaluation of the inventory of
gambling motives, attitudes and behaviours (GMAB) among Chinese gamblers”, International
Gambling Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 331-347.
Youn, S., Faber, R.J. and Shah, D.V. (2000), “Restricting gambling advertising and the third-person
effect”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17, pp. 633-649.
IJSMS Appendix
A B
I have a natural talent for influencing people
Modesty does not become me
I would do almost anything on a dare
When people compliment me, I sometimes get
embarrassed
The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of
me
I can usually talk my way out of anything
I prefer to blend in with the crowd
I will be a success
I am no better or worse than most people
I am not sure if I would make a good leader
I am assertive
I like to have authority over other people
I find it easy to manipulate people
I insist upon getting the respect that is due me
I do not particularly like to show off my body
I can read people like a book
If I feel competent, I am willing to take responsibility for
making decisions
I just want to be reasonably happy
My body is nothing special
I try not to be a show off
I always know what I am doing
I sometimes depend on people to get things done
Sometimes I tell good stories
I expect a great deal from other people
I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve
Compliments embarrass me
I have a strong will to power
I do not care about new fads and fashions
I like to look at myself in the mirror
I really like to be the center of attention
I can live my life in any way I want to
Being an authority does not mean that much to me
I would prefer to be a leader
I am going to be a great person
People sometimes believe what I tell them
Table A1.
Narcissistic
personality inventory
I am not good at influencing people
I am essentially a modest person
I tend to be a fairly cautious person
I know that I am good because everybody keeps
telling me so
If I ruled the world it would be a better place
I try to accept the consequences of my behavior
I like to be the center of attention
I am not too concerned about success
I think I am a special person
I see myself as a good leader
I wish I were more assertive
I do not mind following orders
I do not like it when I find myself manipulating
people
I usually get the respect that I deserve
I like to show off my body
People are sometimes hard to understand
I like to take responsibility for making decisions
I want to amount to something in the eyes of the
world
I like to look at my body
I will usually show off if I get the chance
Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing
I rarely depend on anyone else to get things done
Everybody likes to hear my stories
I like to do things for other people
I take my satisfactions as they come
I like to be complimented
Power for its own sake does not interest me
I like to start new fads and fashions
I am not particularly interested in looking at
myself in the mirror
It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of
attention
People cannot always live their lives in terms of
what they want
People always seem to recognize my authority
It makes little difference to me whether I am a
leader or not
I hope I am going to be successful
I can make anybody believe anything I want
them to
(continued )
A B
Sports
gambling in
I am a born leader Leadership is a quality that takes a long time to the United
develop
I wish somebody would someday write my biography I do not like people to pry into my life for any States
reason
I get upset when people do not notice how I look when I I do not mind blending into the crowd when I go
go out in public out in public
I am more capable than other people There is a lot that I can learn from other people
I am much like everybody else I am an extraordinary person
Note(s): To score: For each of the following where you answered A give yourself one point: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12,
13, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 For each of the following where you answered B give
yourself one point: 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 32, 35, 40
Source(s): Raskin and Hall (1979) Table A1.

Describes Describes
Conservative position me me Liberal position

Blacks who cannot get ahead in this O O Racial discrimination is the main
country are mostly responsible for their reason why many black people cannot
own condition get ahead these days
Homosexuality should be discouraged O O Homosexuality should be accepted by
by society society
Most corporations make a fair and O O Business corporations make too much
reasonable amount of profit profit
Stricter environmental laws and O O Stricter environmental laws and
regulations cost too many jobs and hurt regulations are worth the cost
the economy
Immigrants today are a burden on our O O Immigrants today strengthen our
country because they take our jobs, country because of their hard work
housing and health care and talents
Poor people today have it easy because O O Poor people have hard lives because
they can get government benefits government benefits do not go far
without doing anything in return enough to help them live decently
The economic system in this country is O O The economic system in this country
generally fair to most Americans unfairly favors powerful interests
Our country has made the changes O O Our country needs to continue making
needed to give blacks equal rights with changes to give blacks equal rights
whites with whites Table A2.
The obstacles that once made it harder O O There are still significant obstacles Ideological consistency
for women than men to get ahead are that make it harder for women to get scale (Pew Research
now largely gone ahead than men Center)

Corresponding author
Brendan Dwyer can be contacted at: bdwyer@vcu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats