A Test Of The Theory Of Planned Behavior In Underage Lottery Gambling

Rohan Miller, University of Sydney

Gwyneth Howell, University of Western Sydney

Abstract

Rational reasoning models such as the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour
propose that behaviour is a result of conscious intentions. It has been suggested that this
theory is especially applicable in high involvement decision making, including product
adoption by the young. The theory has also been widely used to interpret the consumption of
illicit products as well as adult only products by teens. However, a growing body of literature
casts doubts on application these theories. This study uses structural equation modeling to
test the application of the theory of planned behaviour in the adoption of a gambling product
by under age teens. The results reveal a model not suitable for predicting behaviour, with
acceptable fit found only for intentions.

Key Words: Planned Behavior, Gambling, Teens, Children, Structural Equation Modeling

Gambling and Rational Reasoning Models

Gambling is common among children and adolescents with an upward estimate that 90% of
adolescents gamble (Kelly, 1998). While it is a breach of law for teens under that age of 18
years of age to gamble, the literature indicates that levels of problem gambling among
children and teens exceed that of adults. Compared to the proportion of “pathological”
gamblers in the adult population of about 1.29%, gambling problems are thought to have
increased to 4% of teens and 5% of college students (Holden, 1998). Another estimate is that
about 6% of adolescents have gambling problems (Kelly, 1998). Shaffer (1998) considers as
many as 14.82 % of all adolescents could be problem gamblers. There are already reports
emerging that the number of compulsive gamblers is equivalent to the number of hard drug
users (Blaszczynski, 1998). It is also claimed that gambling could be taking over from alcohol
and drugs as a means of escaping the pressures of everyday life (Milton, 1998). Researchers
now call gambling the fastest growing teenage addiction (Jacobs, 1998).

Rational reasoning models such as the theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior
propose that behavioural outcomes are the result of conscious intentions (e.g. Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1987). These models have been applied to investigate and explain a wide
range of consumption behaviours, drugs, alcohol and other potentially damaging products.
They have also been used to understand and explain adolescent attitudes and behavior (e.g.,
Kelly and Edwards, 1998). Rational reasoning models have been used to specifically review
gambling behavior, as Figure 1, transposed from East (1997), is used as an example to explain
the Theory of Planned Behavior. In support of the application of this conceptual model to
gambling, Miyazaki et al. (1998) propose that general attitudes toward gambling are likely to
affect attitudes and behaviors related to lottery play. Similarly, Cummings and Corney (1987)
used attitudes and subjective norms (i.e. the Theory of Reasoned Action) to explain gambling
behavior.

The predecessor to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
is based on a person’s attitude toward the behavior and their perception of social pressures

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 211

from significant others to perform or not to perform the behavior in question (Lay and Burns,
1991; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). The rationale of the constructs of attitudes and social
pressure and their potential influence on human behavior has received widespread support in
the published literature (e.g. Kraus, 1995).

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was proposed by Ajzen (1985) and later Ajzen and
Maddern (1986) to more accurately predict consumer behaviour. Conceptually TPB is really
TRA with the addition of a construct called Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC). This is
shown in Figure 1 with TRA depicted with solid lines and PBC with broken lines. The
addition of PBC is supposed to be relevant to teens and product adoption as the level of
volitional control is unknown for many adolescent consumption decisions due to a number of
factors that may intervene between intent and performance. (cf., Bagozzi and Warshaw,
1990). Empirical support for TPB and the construct PBC can be found in studies that address
adolescent intentions and their behaviors (e.g. Clarry and Burns, 1991; Sideridis, Kaissidis
and Padeliadu, 1998). There is, however, some theoretical contention whether PBC is a
necessary addition to TRA for repeat or mature consumers (cf. Laflin et al., 1994).

Figure 1 - The Theory of Planned Behavior Applied To Lottery Products (East 1997)

Attitude to
Play Lottery

Subjective Norm Intention to

Playing Lottery
About Playing Lottery Play Lottery

Perceived Behavioural
Control of Playing Lottery

Conceptual Issues Arising with TPB and TRA

Over time a number of potential issues have been raised with the assumptions, design and
application of rational decision models. A cornerstone of this debate is the assumption that
intention equals behaviour. While it is clear that the intent-behaviour assumption in is
entrenched in much of marketing and psychological literature (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980;
Zufryden, 1996), a growing body of literature indicates that intentions are imperfect
predictors of behaviour (e.g., Oulette and Wood, 1998). Verplanken, Aarts, van Knippernberg
and Moonen (1998) add that the frequency of past behaviour is a significant moderator of the
intention-behaviour relationship. Indeed, the suggestion that intentions may become largely
irrelevant with a behaviour has been performed many times is supported by one of the authors
of TRA and TPB (Ajzen, 2001). In summarising that the inability of attitudinal data to predict
behaviour data is well known, Ostrom and Iacobucci (1995) observe that Fishbein (1967), the
other co-author of TRA, has commented that there is often little or no relationship between
measures of attitudes and behaviour. Ehrenberg (1997) advises that while it has long been

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 212

known that attitudes and behavioural brand performance measures are correlated, attitudes
often seem to follow behaviour.

A growing body of literature casts further doubt on rational reasoning models by questioning
the veracity of the multiplicative construction of rational decision measures. Using structural
equation modelling to test the multiplicative role of Behavioural Beliefs x Outcome
Evaluation and Normative Beliefs x Motivation to comply, Vallerand et al. (1992) found only
Outcome Evaluation and Subjective Norms were significant predictors in the model. Hankins,
French and Horne (2000) provide strong support that the product of the expectancy and value
measures does not result in useful measure of the item. This implies that only outcome
evaluation and subjective norms are required in TRA. In addition, Vallerand et al. (1992)
were able to improve the fit of TRA by adding correlations between the attitudinal and
normative structures and a causal path from normative beliefs to attitudes, further casting
doubt on the multiplicative method of the original TRA.

Further misgivings about the multiplicative methods commonly used with TRA and TPB are
suggested by Van den Putte and Hoogstraten (1997) who claim that the multiplicative natures
of two variables (e.g. Outcome Evaluation x Behavioral Beliefs) are highly dependent on
arbitrarily chosen scale values. To overcome this problem, these authors propose that the
motivation to comply and the evaluation of social consequences be omitted from the model.
To compensate for the model’s purpose now being compromised, Van den Putte and
Hoogstraten propose the addition of an extra variable, such as PBC, be added to the original
TRA model. This new variable does not seem to compromise the structural part of the model
that is of theoretical interest (e.g. attitudes and norms) and contributes towards the overall fit
of the model. Similarly, Hankins et al. (2000) propose a simple measure based on self-
reported beliefs to replace the multiplicative composites in TRA/TPB.

Methodology and Analyses

The research group consisted of secondary school students drawn from convenience samples
from three Australian secondary schools (n=170). In relation to the minimum acceptable
sample size, Anderson and Gerbing (1988) indicate that the minimum satisfactory sample size
for structural equation modelling is between 100 and 150 subjects.

The first step in this analysis was to screen the data for missing variables. To preserve as
many cases as possible, missing data was imputed (Hair et al., 1998). For ordinal variables
captured using a seven point likert scale, linear interpolation was applied and missing values
substituted. For dichotomous variables, median values were calculated and substituted. Next,
the data was reviewed for idiosyncratic responses beyond the reasonable range of results
(Schumaker and Lomax, 1996). Two students reporting excessive and unlikely levels of lotto
play were removed as truly aberrant and not representative of the population (Hair et al.,
1998).

A preliminary model was conceptualized consistent with the TPB. Exploratory factor
analyses were run in SPSS using principal component analyses with a varimax rotation was
used. Unless otherwise indicated, all measures used a seven point likert type scale using (1)
strongly disagree and (7) strongly agree. The measures identified and applied in the latent
variables are described below.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 213

Attitudes (Eigenvalue 3.86, % variance explained 25.7)
I would find playing lotto a very satisfying experience (.80).
I would find playing lotto very exciting (.87).
Thinking about playing lotto makes me happy (.86).
I would really enjoy playing lotto (.91)

Norms (Eigenvalue 2.19, % variance explained 14.6)

I frequently gather information from friends about a product before I buy (.85).
I frequently gather information from family about a product before I buy (.71).
If I have little experience about a product, I ask friends about the product (.69).
I often consult with other people to help choose the best product (.68).

Perceived Behavioural Control (Eigenvalue 1.36, % variance explained 9.1)

One day my lucky numbers will win lotto (.81).
Anyone can win lotto (.65).
Selecting winning lotto numbers requires skill (.65).

Intent (Eigenvalue 1.18, % variance explained 7.9)

Number of Lotto Tickets you intend to play in the next two weeks (.75)*.
It is easy to collect lotto prizes (.68).

Play (Eigenvalue 1.16, % variance explained 7.7)

Have you ever played one lotto game for money? *
Behave – whether the respondent participated in the experimental game of lotto (yes/no)*
*Denotes: questions not scaled (1) to (7).

Testing the Structural Model of TPB

The structural model was tested using the program LISREL 8.52. This methodology allows
the influence of several independent variables on one dependent variable to be examined, as
well as the interaction of each independent variable with each other and an assessment of the
extent that the theoretical model fits the data (Hankins, French and Horne, 2000). The data’s
correlation and asymptotic covariance matrixes were calculated using weighted least squares.
This method was used because the data was a combination of ordinal and continuous
variables, and there was some evidence of skewness in the data. The initial analyses of the
data indicated that the conceptual model of TPB did not converge.

A series of alternative models were run to isolate and identify potential problems with the
theoretical model. The reason why the model did not converge was isolated to the behavioural
variable called Play. A number of different of measures, and combinations of measures
relating to Play were then trialed in an attempt to find a fit between the conceptual model and
the data. No measure or combination of measures within the latent construct of Play led to the
convergence of the overall model of TPB. Accordingly, the latent construct of Play was
deleted from the TPB model.

The abbreviated model of predicted intentions to consume lotto tickets was tested using the
methodology described above. Following Schumacker and Lomax’s (1996) criteria for model
fit, the abbreviated conceptual model of planning to intend to consume lotto tickets indicated
a good fit (X2= 124 {p<.001}, df=59, GFI=.98, AGFI =.973, and RMR=.193 {RMSEA<.05}).

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 214

 Discussion

These results are consistent with a growing body of literature that indicates premeditated
decision making does not necessarily lead to purchase (e.g. East, 1997; Ajzen, 2001;
MacDonald and Sharp, 2000). They are also consistent with the literature indicating that
intentions are not necessary good predictors of purchase (Ouellette and Wood 1998). As
lotteries are generally characterized as stable markets, much of the consumption behavior may
be explained by a habit paradigm where intentions are largely irrelevant when behavior has
been performed many times (e.g., Mizerski, Miller, Mizerski and Lam, 2004) or a jackpot
effect (Heiens, 1993).

Lotto is a familiar household product consumed in a majority of households, is advertised

extensively on television and in other media and has wide distribution networks with point of
sale materials. It is possible that teens have been widely exposed to lotto since childhood and
are fully aware of the product. This may have resulted in low levels of cognition preceding
the actual purchase of lotto tickets. It advances the theory that purchasing a product does not
necessarily need to be a function of repetitive behaviour, but exposure to a product over a
period of time may also lead to low cognition. In this research, a rational consumption model
has shown that attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control can be used to predict
intentions, a measure of cognitive intent to play lotto. These cognitive measures, however, do
not predict actual behavior in teenage consumption of lotto. Further research is planned on the
role of previous and vicarious exposure to products such as lotto, and the impact that may
have on levels of cognition preceding purchase.

Testing the Theory of Planned Behavior using structural equation modeling on teenage
gambling did not predict actual behavior in this instance. This outcome could result from
deficient measures or indicate the model was not applicable to teenagers learning to consume
lotto. It may also imply that the used sample is idiosyncratic and atypical. As a number of
different measures were used to assess actual play (including behavioral measures facilitated
by the structure of the experiment), it is unlikely that the measures failed capture lotto play.
This suggests that norms, attitudes and perceived behavioural control are predictors of
intention in teenage lotto play, not actual behavior. This further implies that intentions to
consume lotto are not good predictors of lotto consumption in teenagers.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 215

 References

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice Hall, NJ.

____, ____ (1999), Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Milton Keynes. Open University
Press.

----, ---- (1985), “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior,” Action-
Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Heidelberg: Springer, p11-39.

----,---- and Maddern (1986), “Prediction of Goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, Intentions and
Perceived Behavioral Control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol.21, p1-9.

----,---- (2001), “Nature and Operation of Attitudes,” Annual Review of Psychology.

American Academy of Paediatrics (1995), “Alcohol Use and Abuse: A Peadeatric Concern,”
American Academy of Pediatrics, 95(3), 439-442.

Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988), “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A

Review and Two-step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol.103, p.411-423.

Bagozzi, R. P. and P. R. Warshaw (1990), “Trying to Consume,” Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 17, September, p127-140.

Cummings, W. T and W. Corney (1987), “A Conceptual Model of Gambling Behavior:

Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action”, Journal of Gambling Behavior, Vol 3(3), Fall

East, R. (1997), Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall, U.K..

Ehrenberg, A. (1997), “In search of Two Holy Grails”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Jan/Feb,

----,----(1972), Repeat-Buying: Theory and Applications, London: North-Holland Publishing.

Hair, J., R.E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W. C. Black (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed., Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Hankins, M., D. French and R. Horne (2000), “Statistical Guidelines for Studies of the
Theory of Reasoned Action and The Theory of Planned Behaviour,” Psychology and Health,
Vol.15, 151-161.

Heiens, R., (1993) “The Influence of Newspaper, Radio and Television Publicity on Sales of
the State of Colorado’s Lottery Product, Lotto”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida
State University.

Jacobs, D. F. (1989) “A General Theory of Addictions: Rationale for and Evidence

Supporting a New Approach for Understanding and Treating Addictive Behaviors”
Compulsive Gambling Lexington Books, MA, , Shaffer H.J., Stein, S.A, Gambino, B., and
Cummings, T.N., (eds.), pp225-248

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 216

----,---- and M. Walker (1996), “A Cognitive Perspective on Gambling,” Trends in Cognitive
and Behavioural Therapies, Pau M Salkovskis (ed), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Jacobs, K. (1998), “Instant Gratification for the Impulse Gambler” New York Times; New
York; Sept 17, 1998

Kelly, R. (1998) “Our new breed of gamblers” The Advertiser (South Australia) 20 November

Kelly, K. J., and R. W. Edwards (1998), “Image Advertisements for Alcohol Products: Is their
Appeal Associated with Adolescents’ Intention to Consume Alcohol?” Adolescence, Vol.33
(129), (Spring), p47-59.

Laflin, M. T., S. Moore-Hirschi, David L. Weis and B. E. Hays, (1994), “Use of The theory
of Reasoned Action to Predict Drug and Alcohol Use,” The International Journal of
Addictions, Vol. 29(7), p927-040.

Lay, C. H. and P. Burns (1991) “Intentions and Behavior in Studying for an Examination: The
Role of Trait Procrastination and its Interaction with Optimism,” Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, Vol 6(3), 605-617.

MacDonald, E. K. and B. M. Sharp (2000), “Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision

Making for a Common, Repeat Purchase Product: A Replication,” Journal of Business
Research, 48, 5-15.

Miller, R., R. Mizerski and K. Mizerski (2003), “Comparing the Causal Effects of TV
Advertising for Lotto and Beer in the Responses of an Underage Australian Audience,”
Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Summer Conference, Chicago.

Mizerski, R., R. Miller, K. Mizerski and D. Lam (2004), “The Stochastic Nature of
Purchasing a State’s Lottery Products,” Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(3), 56-70.

Miyazaki, A. D., A. Hansen and D. E. Sprott (1998), “A Longitudinal Analysis of Income

Based Tax Regressivity,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Fall, Vol 17(2), 161-172.

Ostram, A. and D. Iacobucci (1995), “Consumer Trade-Offs and the Evaluation of Services,”
Journal of Marketing, 59(January), 17-28.

Ouellette, Judith A. and Wendy Wood (1998), “Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The
Multiple Processes by Which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior,” Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 124(1), 54-74.

Schumaker, R. E. and R. G. Lomax (1996), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation

Modeling, Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, NJ.

Shaffer, H. (1998), “Let’s help gambling addicts, not fret about statistics,” Sun Herald online,
May 13.

Sideridis, G. D., A. Kaissidis and S. Padeliadu (1998), “Comparison of the Therories of

Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.68,
p.563-580.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 217

Vallerand, R. J., P. Deshaies, J. Cuerrier, L. G. Pelletier and C. Mongeau (1992), “Ajzen and
Fishbein’s Theory of Reasoned Action as Applied to Moral Behavior: A Confirmatory
Analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.62(1), 98-109.

Van den Putte, B. and J. Hoogstraten (1997), “Applying Structural Equation Modeling in the
Context of the Theory of Reasoned Action: Some Problems and Solutions,” 4(4), 320-337.

Verplanken, B., H. Aarts, A. van Knippenberg and A. Moonen (1998), “Habit versus planned
behavior: A field experiment,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 111-128.

Zufryden, F.S. (1996), “Linking Advertising to Box Office Performance of New Film
Releases,” Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, p29-41.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour 218