• Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.177-203
• /
• 2015

The aims of this study were 1) to compare irrational gambling beliefs of gamblers and non-gamblers, 2) to investigate the role of cognitive error on winning probability thinking error, and 3) to examine the relationship between attributional bias and gambling behavior. A total of 248 subjects were recruited for this study. All subjects were classified into non-gamblers, social gamblers and pathological gamblers, and administered self-report questionnaires to measure irrational gambling beliefs, the probability inference error, the attriburional style, and the attributional bias. A pathological gambler group scored highest on irrational gambling beliefs, especially the overestimation of self-ability factor, and a social gambler group and a non-gambler group follow. All three groups scored higher on the magnification of gambling skills than the mean (4.0) of the scale. Pathological gamblers and social gamblers scored higher on the probability thinking error than non-gamblers. Pathological gamblers displayed higher external attribution, lower internal attribution in their daily life events and higher internal attribution in failure situation than social gamblers and non-gamblers. The results indicate that cognitive errors would be a factor that differentiates pathological gamblers from social gamblers and non-gamblers. In predicting gambling behaviors, overestimation of self-ability of irrational gambling beliefs, internal attribution in failure situation, external attribution in daily live event, and probability thinking error were identified as significant factors. It is concluded that a public education about common cognitive bias featured in gamblers might be important in prevention of pathological gambling behaviors.

• Korean System Dynamics Review
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.157-175
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to find out the effects of the gambler's fallacy bias on the supply chain. For this study, the simulation was based on a casual structure of the Beer Distribution Game from Sterman(2000)'s Business Dynamics and designed into 2 different models : the first model carries the exact same structure as the reference mentioned above and for the second model, the comparison model is used reflecting gambler's fallacy bias. Each model has 2 different demand patterns. The 4 cases of models was tested with 1,000 different random number seeds. The results for the simulation are following : In the aspect of the inventory and out of stock, the basic model resulted better than the comparison. However, in the bullwhip effect, the comparison model has less than the basic in terms of the level demand pattern. But there was no significant difference in the cycle demand.