Syndication, Institutionalization, and Lottery Play

Garvía, Roberto

doi:10.1086/521847

Cited by 51 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with all other factors, network variables have the largest impact on lottery play. This finding is consistent with previous work on syndicate play (Garvía, 2007;Guillén et al, 2011). It adds to the literature by pointing to the 'social embeddedness' (Granovetter, 1985) of gambling: the greater the involvement of an individual's social surrounding in lottery gambling, the greater the expenditure by that individual on lottery tickets.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

“…In the literature on gambling, the network perspective has been explored in qualitative studies mainly on other games of chance and rarely in studies on the lottery. Exceptions include the works of Light (1977), Adams (1996) and especially Roberto Garvía (2007Garvía ( , 2008, who emphasizes peer play in his study of the Spanish lottery market. According to Garvía (2007), the exceptionally high demand for lottery tickets in Spain can be traced back to the widespread tradition of sharing lottery tickets by playing in syndicates among friends, relatives or colleagues.…”

Section: Network Factors: Lottery Play As a Results Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exceptions include the works of Light (1977), Adams (1996) and especially Roberto Garvía (2007Garvía ( , 2008, who emphasizes peer play in his study of the Spanish lottery market. According to Garvía (2007), the exceptionally high demand for lottery tickets in Spain can be traced back to the widespread tradition of sharing lottery tickets by playing in syndicates among friends, relatives or colleagues. In a recent study, Guillén et al (2012) analyse the motives for playing in syndicates.…”

Section: Network Factors: Lottery Play As a Results Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Casey (2003: 246) states that 'it is extremely difficult to find any sociological analysis' on lottery play. Yet a small body of sociological research does actually exist (Casey, 2003(Casey, , 2006(Casey, , 2008Garvía, 2007;Hedenus, 2011;Light, 1977;Nibert, 2000;Reith, 1999;Sallaz, 2009). However, while most of this research provides insightful historical or ethnographic accounts on lottery gambling, quantitative approaches that test sociological theories on why people play the lottery have been scant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Why the Poor Play the Lottery: Sociological Approaches to Explaining Class-based Lottery Play

Beckert

Lutter

2012

Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do the poor spend more on lottery tickets than their wealthier and better educated peers? While social scientists generally agree that there is an inverse relationship between socioeconomic position and patterns of lottery play, there is debate on what factors cause lottery gambling. Using survey data from a nationwide probability sample, we test three sociological approaches -socio-structural, cultural and social network accounts -to explain why the poor play the lottery. While controlling for cognitive bias theory, we find that peer play, educational attainment and self-perceived social deprivation have strong effects on lottery play. Culture, the study finds, plays a much lesser role. Although lottery players demonstrate fatalistic value orientations, it is not a lack of a 'Protestant' work ethic that makes the poor spend proportionally more on lottery tickets. The findings of this study generally point to the importance of social structures in explaining lottery gambling.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Network Factors: Lottery Play As a Results Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Network Factors: Lottery Play As a Results Of Peer Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why the Poor Play the Lottery: Sociological Approaches to Explaining Class-based Lottery Play

Beckert

Lutter

2012

Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In three of the remaining seven articles that specify the number of focus groups, it is unclear how many individuals participated. In some cases (Gibson 2004, Garvía 2007, the articles incorporate data from focus groups undertaken previously. Even here, the researcher does not always cite the publication where information regarding the focus groups can be found.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pitfalls and Promise of Focus Groups as a Data Collection Method

Cyr

2015

Sociological Methods & Research

212

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their long trajectory in the social sciences, few systematic works analyze how often and for what purposes focus groups appear in published works. This study fills this gap by undertaking a meta-analysis of focus group use over the last ten years. It makes several contributions to our understanding of when and why focus groups are used in the social sciences. First, the study explains that focus groups generate data at three units of analysis: the individual, the group, and the interaction. While most researchers rely upon the individual unit of analysis, the method's comparative advantage lies in the group and interactive units. Second, it reveals strong affinities between each unit of analysis and the primary motivation for using focus groups as a data collection method. The individual unit of analysis is appropriate for triangulation; the group unit is appropriate as a pretest; and the interactive unit is appropriate for exploration. Finally, it offers a set of guidelines that researchers should adopt when presenting focus groups as part of their research design. Researchers should, first, state the main purpose of the focus group in a research design; second, identify the primary unit of analysis exploited; and finally, list the questions used to collect data in the focus group. When, where, and how are they used? Focus groups were introduced to the social sciences in the early 1940s and have since grown in popularity (Liamputtong 2011:9).They are useful for studying socially marginalized groups (Madriz 1998; Liamputtong 2011), understanding community dynamics (Lloyd-Evans 2006), and eliciting feedback on sensitive issues (Madriz 2003). Despite their long trajectory and specific applications in the social sciences, we know very little about the general frequency of focus group use and the methodological ends that these help to meet. In the 1990s, a host of articles and books addressed how to undertake focus groups (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990; Morgan 1993, Krueger andCasey 1994). Few works, however, have analyzed how focus groups are currently used in practice and how often and for what purposes the data collection method appears in published works. 1This dearth in the literature has come with great costs. First, until we understand how and when social scientists currently use focus groups, we cannot properly assess the advantages that these provide for high-level social science research. Scholars are increasingly motivated to build bridges between different methodologies in their research. One way to do this is to specify the unique added value that each method provides (Munck 2007:56-7). Theoretically, focus groups may simultaneously produce data at the individual, group, and interactive levels (Kidd and Parshall 2000). A principle contribution of this piece is to stipulate how each unit of data is used in practice. I demonstrate that each unit can serve distinct research purposes and is motivated by different objectives. The individual unit of analysis is appropriate for triangulating ...

show abstract