Casino operators strive to motivate gamblers to wager to maximize their gaming revenue. This motivation may be achieved by increasing gamblers’ perceived likelihood of winning, which stems from cognitive bias. Therefore, it is important for casino operators to understand the components that promote cognitive bias in gambling. This study introduces and demonstrates the existence of a bias of size in gambling decisions using a casino game referred to as Cussec. Specifically, participants are expected to bias their choice toward the option of Big (vs. Small) in the game; however, these two options are of equal chance. In the present research, a field observational study and two experimental studies were conducted. In the observational study, the bias was identified using 4,565 Cussec bets that were recorded in a casino in Macao. The bias was further demonstrated in experimental studies that involved Chinese participants (389 participants in the laboratory and 1,000 participants through an online survey platform). The bias is robust against the order of appearance (i.e., Big is displayed before or after Small). The online experiment contributes knowledge to the literature by indicating that gamblers’ bias toward Big distorts their perceived likelihood of winning. It is recommended that casino operators provide more games that feature size cues, and gaming designers incorporate these cues in the design of casino games.
AriyabuddhiphongsV.PhengpholV. (2008). Near miss, gambler’s fallacy and entrapment: Their influence on lottery gamblers in Thailand. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 295-305.
2.
CôtéD.CaronA.AubertJ.DesrochersV.LadouceurR. (2003). Near wins prolong gambling on a video lottery terminal. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 433-438.
3.
CrosonR.SundaliJ. (2005). The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: Empirical data from casinos. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30, 195-209.
4.
DixonM. R. (2000). Manipulating the illusion of control: Variations in gambling as a function of perceived control over chance outcomes. Psychological Record, 50, 705-719.
5.
DixonM. R.SchreiberJ. E. (2004). Near-miss effects on response latencies and win estimations of slot machine players. Psychological Record, 54, 335-348.
6.
DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2010). The accentuation bias: Money literally looms larger (and sometimes smaller) to the powerless. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 1, 199-205.
7.
DuBoisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2012). Super size me: Product size as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 1047-1062.
8.
FongL. H. N.LamL. W.LawR. (2017). How locus of control shapes intention to reuse mobile apps for making hotel reservations: Evidence from Chinese consumers. Tourism Management, 61, 331-342.
9.
FongL. H. N.LawR.LamD. (2014). An examination of factors driving Chinese gamblers’ fallacy bias. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30, 757-770.
10.
FongL. H. N.SoA. S. I.LawR. (2016). Betting decision under break-streak pattern: Evidence from casino gaming. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32, 171-185.
11.
GoodieA. S.FortuneE. E. (2013). Measuring cognitive distortions in pathological gambling: Review and meta-analyses. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 730-743.
12.
HaseltonM. G.NettleD.MurrayD. R. (2015). The evolution of cognitive bias. In BussD.M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 968-987). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
13.
HuhY. E.VosgerauJ.MorewedgeC. K. (2014). Social defaults: Observed choices become choice defaults. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 746-760.
14.
HurewitzF.GelmanR.SchnitzerB. (2006). Sometimes area counts more than number. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 19599-19604.
15.
InesiM. E.BottiS.DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2011). Power and choice: Their dynamic interplay in quenching the thirst for personal control. Psychological Science, 22, 1042-1048.
KimK. J.SundarS. S. (2014). Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 466-473.
18.
KimS.McGillA. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 94-107.
KyungE. J.ThomasM.KrishnaA. (2017). When bigger Is better (and when it is not): Implicit bias in numeric judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 62-79.
21.
LadouceurR.SévignyS. (2005). Structural characteristics of video lotteries: Effects of a stopping device on illusion of control and gambling persistence. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 117-131.
22.
LamD.OzorioB. (2013). The effect of prior outcomes on gender risk-taking differences. Journal of Risk Research, 16, 791-802.
23.
LangerE. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.
24.
LetarteA.LadouceurR.MayrandM. (1986). Primary and secondary illusory control and risk-taking in gambling (Roulette). Psychological Reports, 58, 299-302.
25.
MeierB. P.RobinsonM. D.CavenA. J. (2008). Why a big Mac is a good mac: Associations between affect and size. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 46-55.
26.
MishraH.MishraA.NayakankuppamD. (2006). Money: A bias for the whole. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 541-549.
27.
PeetzJ.SolimanM. (2016). Big money: The effect of money size on value perceptions and saving motivation. Perception, 45, 631-641.
28.
PressonP. K.BenassiV. A. (1996). Illusion of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 493-510.
29.
RayluN.OeiT. P. S. (2004). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): Development, confirmatory factor validation and psychometric properties. Addiction, 99, 757-769.
30.
RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D.DuboisD. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 352-368.
31.
SchubertT. W.WaldzusS.GiessnerS. R. (2009). Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition, 27(1), 1-19.
32.
SilveraD. H.JosephsR. A.GieslerR. B. (2002). Bigger is better: The influence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 189-202.
33.
StefanS.DavidD. (2013). Recent developments in the experimental investigation of the illusion of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 377-386.
34.
ToneattoT. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 1593-1604.
35.
WrightW. F.BowerG. H. (1992). Mood effects on subjective probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 276-291.
36.
XuZ. X.MaH. K. (2016). How can a deontological decision lead to moral behavior? The moderating role of moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 537-549.
