The Lottery part 2: Understanding

This is  a continuation of the discussion in the last post, The Lottery part 1: Where's the source?
in which I responded to a Facebook post shared on the Sociological Life page, which was an article with the attention grabbing title, "Poor Households Earning $13K Per Year Spend Over $1K On Lottery Tickets."

In the last post, I gave my first response to this article, which was: Where's the source for this provocative statistic?

In this post I move on to my second response to the article, which is to say that we need to be careful not to make the "fundamental attribution error." We should carefully look at why the poor might spend money on the lottery, instead of just dismissing all poor lottery players as irrational, irresponsible, and wasteful. Homans suggested that all behavior was rational to the person acting it out, and I think that poor lottery players make rational decisions to play the lottery. The point is to try and understand their logic, even if we do not agree with it.

There are couple of sources I came across that offer some insight into this question that I want to share:

The first is an academic paper that analyzes the issue sociologically, using a macro - quant approach:  "Why the Poor Play the Lottery: Sociological Approaches to Explaining Class-based Lottery Play"
The authors found that social networks played the strongest role in influencing this behavior, and a positive correlation was found between having feelings of futility in one's work or life and playing the lottery. There results help refute the idea of poor lottery players simply being dumb or wasteful. They suggest that social factors play an important role here.

The second source I want to share with you touches on this same social network idea. This is a much more informal online article at dailyfinance.com that discusses the issue anecdotally, and it is titled, "Poor people spend 9% of income on lottery tickets; here's why." (Notice that this article refers to the same statistic I went looking for). This is not an academic text, but the author makes some valid points that relate to the results found in the academic source above. I also find his points valid based upon my experience coming from a working class poor background.

There are both social and rational influences behind the decisions of the poor to "waste" money on the lottery. The experience attached to playing the lottery may be considered worth the price regardless of outcome. As the second source mentions, for some it has become a socialized ritual that may hold a place of high value in the family, much like dinner around the table or holiday rituals for many families. Also, for a lot of people whose overall life situation feels imprisoning and hopeless, buying a ticket inspires euphoric what-if daydreams about a life free from their current stress and limits, and these daydreams provide a much needed break from harsh realities. Seeing it from these perspectives highlights the complexity involved and the problem with dismissing this whole group as irresponsible and wasteful.

From this viewpoint we can see that poor people buying lotto tickets is not much different from the middle class spending money on Christmas decorations for their family holiday rituals or vacations for that much needed get away. The middle class might spend thousands or even tens of thousands to be a beach bum or a mountain recluse while the poor people shell out $2 a pop for a small taste of the escape they will likely never get.

Again, I certainly agree that the lottery has a negative financial impact on the poor, but who am I to say that it is all just wasteful spending that has no value and serves no purpose. To dismiss this as simple stupidity or irresponsibility seems at best inconsiderate and at worse ignorant. Instead, I find myself looking at the bigger picture and asking: In the land of opportunity, what causes so many people to feel so uninspired and doubtful about their future that they find their source of hope in a gamble with impossible odds???  ... Now, there is a discussion worth having. Maybe next time.

D. Matthew Ray