Journal of Sport Management, 2019, 33, 174-188 https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0115 © 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE

To Play or Not to Play? An Analysis of Dispositions, , and Daily

Brendan Dwyer Commonwealth University

Joris Drayer Temple University

Stephen L. Shapiro University of South Carolina

Following a mega-advertising blitz in the late summer of 2015, (DFSs) entered a maturing fantasy sports market as a new, highly accessible, and potentially lucrative alternative to traditional, season-long fantasy sports. The two activities share a name but represent substantially different business models. In the view of some policy makers and state legislatures, DFS appeared to resemble a new form of sports wagering and as a result, several U.S. states banned the activity. The current study examined the consumption behavior differences and gambling-related dispositions of those fantasy participants who play DFS and those who do not. A total of 314 fantasy football participants were surveyed, and the results contribute to what we know about gambling and DFS participation. Although distinct differences were found between the two groups, the overall assessment of the findings suggest DFS participation appears to align more with highly involved traditional, season-long fantasy sports participation than other forms of gambling.

Keywords: cognitive distortions, fantasy sports, personality, wagering

Traditional, season-long fantasy sports (TFSs) have been Guided by the cognitive-affective model of personality around for nearly 60 years, and although gambling associations (C-AMP), the purpose of the current study was to explore gambling- have existed since the beginning, there is ample evidence to suggest related differences, dispositionally, attitudinally, and behaviorally, the activity does not meet the criteria for gambling (cf., Bernard & between those fantasy participants who chose to play DFS and Eade, 2005; Boswell, 2008; Drayer, Dwyer, & Shapiro, 2013; those who only play TFS. As a new service with enticing, yet Holleman, 2006). Daily fantasy sports (DFSs), however, have potentially harmful outcomes, DFS participation is still relatively reignited the gambling concerns. The new version of the popular unknown from a public policy perspective. TFS participation, on activity includes no commitment, a simple interface, several entry the contrary, has been studied extensively for more than a decade. points, and fast payouts. As a result, 10 states, including Nevada, do Therefore, TFS participation provides a baseline for understanding not allow DFS participation or DFS providers choose not to operate the potential uniqueness of DFS participation. Further, with similar due to negative attorney general feedback (Rodenberg, 2017). Other inputs and outcomes, understanding DFS participation could help states have chosen to regulate the activity to protect consumers, and inform an upcoming sports wagering legal debate. Mahan, Drayer, several other states are awaiting legislative decisions. and Sparvero (2012) found that the key relationship when explor- Of chief concern among policy makers is the potential for ing gambling and fantasy sports was the decision to participate. problem behavior, namely problem gambling among participants. Thus, this examination should contribute to what we know The gambling literature has uncovered certain personality traits about the current fantasy football landscape and provide a window (e.g., impulsivity) and biased cognitions (e.g., gambling-related into the psychographics of TFS and DFS participants. These results cognitive distortions) that positively predict risky and/or poten- should aid sport managers and media providers in their strategic tially problem-based gambling behavior (Harris, Newby, & Klein, conceptualization of the marketplace, as theoretically tied psycho- 2015; Marmurek, Switzer, & D’Alvise, 2015). If DFS is a step graphics and behaviors were examined. For legal commentators closer to gambling as some suggest (Dwyer, Shapiro, & Drayer, and policy makers, this study may signify potential risks associated 2018), it is vital to explore these traits and competencies among with the promotion of the activity as the explanatory variables fantasy participants. under examination directly relate to problem behavior. The fol- lowing research questions (RQs) were devised to guide the study:

RQ1: Do differences exist between those who play DFS and Dwyer is with Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Drayer is with those who only play TFS as it relates to time spent consuming Temple University. Shapiro is with the University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. sport, time and money spent participating in fantasy contents, Address author correspondence to Brendan Dwyer at [email protected]. and the self-reported likelihood of playing DFS next year?

174 Dispositions of DFS 175

RQ2: Do DFS participants exhibit differing levels of gam- determine the legality in their jurisdiction. As mentioned above, the bling-related dispositional and attitudinal factors than TFS- UIGEA exemption has not stopped a number of states from only participants? prohibiting DFS participation (Rodenberg, 2017). While it remains to be seen what will happen to the UIGEA given the recent Supreme Court decision, states are now beginning the process Literature Review of debating the merits of sports gambling. The primary concerns Differences in TFS and DFS Participation are related to maintaining the integrity of American sports as well as protecting consumers participating in gambling activities (Purdum, Although TFS and DFS are both fantasy sport games, the structures 2018). Ultimately, with this political uncertainty, research is needed of these activities are distinct in many ways. TFS has a season-long to understand the connection between TFS, DFS, and gambling. format where participants are competing on a week-to-week basis, In his chronology of gambling in Western society, Reith generally in a head-to-head competition against another individual (2005)defined gambling as a distinct activity wherein chance is in their league. The majority of fantasy leagues are made of utilized as the mechanism to redistribute wealth among participants individuals who know each other (i.e., friends, family, coworkers; as well as a commercial interest (i.e., “the house”). The legal Dwyer, 2011). Player statistics for each team are compiled through- definition is slightly more complex, as the U.S. legal code includes out the season and the best teams in the league qualify for a 11 major sections, 65 subsections, and ranges from the term bet or postseason playoff as measured by a total number of fantasy points wager to unlawful Internet gambling and intertribal transactions or a win/loss record. A winner is crowned at the end of the season (31 U.S.C. § 5362, 2018). In general, to gamble means to risk for a particular sport. Dwyer and Kim (2011) found that entertain- something of value on the outcome of a contest, a sporting event, or ment/escape, competition, and social interaction were driving TFS a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that participation. Although it is common for prize money to be someone will receive something of value based on a given outcome awarded in a TFS league, the evidence of gambling motivations (31 U.S.C. § 5362, 2018). There are several caveats to this for TFS is tenuous (Drayer et al., 2013). definition including the exclusion of certain activities like securities Daily fantasy sport has a different structure. Although statistics exchange and fantasy sports. However, the components of the and corresponding fantasy points are accumulated in the same definition are simple: assets, risk, chance, and a transaction. Each of fashion, competition takes place over the course of one day or one these components is encompassed in fantasy sports leagues that weekend instead of the majority of a season. Additionally, DFS has require an entry fee (≈70% of leagues according to the FSTA, a fee-based structure where money is changing hands daily. 2016b). DFS, in particular, also includes a commercial interest or Although head-to-head competition is available, participants gen- “house,” as defined by Reith (2005). That said the exemption erally compete in large pools with the top point scorers winning a remains unchallenged from a legal perspective despite evidence percentage of the prize money. The performance of a participant’s that the exemption was created hastily and not meant to cover DFS selection of players on 1 day has no bearing on future competitions participation (Holden, 2018). As of 2018, 29 state-level legislative as in TFS. bills from different 19 states are pending or are under consideration Previous TFS-related research, on the other hand, has found in the (Legal Sports Report, 2018). that participants are highly engaged, lucrative, and loyal consumers of the activities in which they play (Dwyer, 2011; Dwyer, Achen, What Is at Stake? & Lupinek, 2016; Fisher, 2008). And in 2015, TFS participants were the target market for the DFS advertising blitz, as the two As a result of the legal uncertainty, much is at stake for the fantasy major providers hoped to hook a portion of the nearly 60 million sport industry. It is currently estimated to be a multibillion dollar North American participants (Fantasy Sports Trade Association per year enterprise (FSTA, 2016b), and as a whole, it has felt the [FSTA], 2016b). TFS participants and their intense consumption impact of increased political scrutiny. Despite the mega-advertising habits are also an important target market for professional sport push of 2015, only a small percentage of TFS participants are teams and leagues (Fisher, 2008), and as a result, the transition playing DFS. The majority of DFS participants (83%), however, between TFS and DFS participation is a significant phenomenon are playing season-long contests (Gouker, 2015a; Heitner, 2015). for sport managers. Furthermore, given the similarities between Even with this discrepancy, Krejcik (2014) projected 10-fold DFS and more traditional forms of , it is increasingly growth for DFS through 2020, as the major DFS providers continue important to understand the disparate attitudes and behaviors of to lure in more TFS participants. Any deregulation at the state level DFS participants, particularly given the Supreme Court’s recent would seem likely to accelerate this growth. decision. Much is also at stake for sport practitioners, as the push for widespread, legalized sports betting is gaining momentum. Sports Fantasy Sports Regulation betting or wagering is prohibited in much of the United States, and while the reasons vary, the conversation has changed because In 2018, the Supreme Court determined that states could determine of the recent Supreme Court ruling. States will now begin the on their own whether to legalize sports gambling. This ruling will process of debating the merits of legalized sports betting. Previous have a dramatic impact on the future of sports gambling and likely anti-sports gambling legislation has been fueled by professional on DFS as well. However, it remains unclear as of this writing league lobbying, as arguments against sports wagering, thanks to whether states will consider provisions related to TFS and/or DFS scandals like the 1919 Chicago White Sox, Pete Rose, and Tim as part of any sports gambling legislation. Currently, all of fantasy Donaghy, are directly related to the “character” and “integrity” of sports, including both TFS and DFS, are exempt from gambling the game (Bernard, 2013, p. 275). However, as it pertains to the enforcement in the United States due to a carve out in the 2006 current study, federal and state legislators have added traditional Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Thus, it is gambling risks to the sports wagering conversation, such as social legal at the federal level, and it is up to the individual states to depravity, financial ruin, problem behavior, and dependency

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 176 Dwyer, Drayer, and Shapiro

(Holleman, 2006; Pietrzak & Petry, 2005). Thus, leagues and gambling continues, additional empirical research is needed to legislators must now revisit the state-by-state restrictions on the explore contemporary fantasy sports participation from a disposi- industry given the revenue generating potential of sports wagering tional and attitudinal perspective. (Purdum, 2018). This trickles down to sport industry practitioners in the United States, as opportunities to collaborate with sports betting organiza- Theoretical Framework tions will likely become more similar to what already occurs in other western countries with legalized and regulated sports gam- The decision to play DFS (a new activity) as opposed to TFS-only bling. Over the past 2 years, the regulation of DFS in the United participation or any form of gambling for that matter does not occur States has been at the forefront of this conversation. Similar to in a vacuum. Several personal, social, and situational antecedents other, more restricted forms of gambling (e.g., and influence a participant’s decision to engage in an activity. From a blackjack), DFS games are highly accessible, unpredictable, marketing perspective, understanding these antecedents to engage- and provide instant payouts. The connection between gambling ment are vital to bundling products and services to better entice and DFS is so close that a number of U.S. state attorney generals consumer decision making (Joshi & Sharma, 2004). From a public hold an opinion that the activity is illegal gambling. Despite these policy perspective, the gambling literature has highlighted a num- opinions, no restrictions on partnerships and advertising with DFS ber of specific personality traits and cognitive competencies that providers are in place, which directly impacts sport managers and significantly predict risky behavior (Harris et al., 2015; Marmurek marketers. FanDuel and/or DraftKings have partnerships with three et al., 2015; Pietrzak & Petry, 2005). As a result, the current study North American leagues and 86 individual explicitly selected theoretical work from the fields of personality, teams (DFS Partnership/Sponsorship Tracker, 2017). social psychology, and risk to best provide comprehensive knowl- However, given the legal uncertainties, associations with edge of current fantasy sports participants for marketers and policy illegal forms of gambling in the Unites States and lucrative growth makers alike. Stemming from the work of Mischel (1968), the potential in both participation and sponsorships, there is an oppor- C-AMP was a controversial response to trait theory. tunity to understand differences and similarities between TFS and The C-AMP framework represents an important model DFS participants. More specifically, do gambling-related tenden- because it encompasses the interplay of a disposition and a situation cies and/or dispositional differences exist between these segments to explain how and why individuals behave in a dynamic environ- of the market? The current fantasy sports literature, however, is ment (Tracy, Robins, & Sherman, 2009). Thus, the C-AMP mixed, as it relates to differences and similarities. provides a comprehensive approach to understanding decisions In an examination of DFS and TFS motives, Billings, Ruihley, driven by the individual, the situation, and the interaction between and Yang (2017) found few motivational differences between the person and the situation. In the formulation of the current study, participants. Yet, Weiner and Dwyer (2017) found higher financial the decision to play or not play DFS was the primary action under motive scores for those who played DFS and higher social inter- investigation, and while individual personality traits were likely to action scores for those who played both formats and those who only play a role in this decision, advances in systems psychology of played TFS. In addition, the motives of entertainment and escape personality led the research team to utilize the C-AMP framework, positively predicted DFS-only consumption where they did not which does not separate dispositions from cognitive processes affect hybrid or TFS-only participation. Dwyer and Weiner (2018) (Engler, 2008). found perceived skill, anxiety, and enjoyment positively impacted In particular, the C-AMP framework was conceptualized consumption for TFS-only participants. For DFS participants, through the following connections: A participant made the decision perceived chance negatively impacted and anxiety positively to participate in DFS for a number of potential reasons including impacted consumption (Dwyer & Weiner, 2018). Mahan et al. personal disposition (impulsivity), cognitive strategy (gambling- (2012), however, found that fantasy participants were more similar related cognitions and perceived skill), situational expectancy to their gambling counterparts as it relates to team identification (perceived competitiveness), and normative belief (attachment to and consumption habits than traditional, nonfantasy participating football). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation. The following sport fans. As the comparison to other forms of highly regulated sections explain each aspect of the framework.

Figure 1 — Cognitive-affective model of personality applied to the decision to play DFS (RQ2). DFS = daily fantasy sport; RQ = research question.

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 Dispositions of DFS 177

Disposition: Impulsivity significantly increase their chance of winning through skilled gameplay (Miller & Singer, 2015). The importance of these Dispositions are a person’s individualized qualities of mind and designations is that both Mitrovic and Brown (2009) and Bjerg character. Within the gambling literature, studies consistently iden- (2010) suggested that the unique characteristics of poker might tify impulsivity as a key personality trait tied to pathological result in a new understanding of cognitive distortions and problem gamblers (Myrseth, Pallesen, Molde, Johnsen, & Lorvik, 2009). gambling among participants. Indeed, it appears that DFS shares However, Myrseth et al. (2009)stated,“impulsivity may not be these characteristics, as it should be considered both a social game specific for gambling addiction but rather associated with addictions as well as (arguably) a skill-based game. in general” (p. 933). Impulsivity, as measured by Whiteside and Among the concerns commonly cited in regard to problem Lynam (2001), includes the following dimensions: (lack of) Pre- gambling are the negative financial consequences of extended meditation, Urgency, Sensation Seeking, and (lack of) Perseverance. gameplay. However, Bjerg (2010) argued that in a skill-based The importance of impulsivity as it relates to cognitive game, “the correlation between gambling frequency and financial distortions and problem gambling is that “gamblers with more ‘ ’ situation is much less deterministic” (p. 244). For example, In myopic (i.e., focused on the present) decision making and a ’ fi reduced capacity to defer gratification are more susceptible to the Bjerg s study, he found participants who were successful nan- diverse range of complex distortions that occur during play, such as cially but still displayed some signs of problematic behavior most beliefs in superstitions and rituals . . .” (Michalczuk, Bowden-Jones, frequently related to time spent on the activity. He stated that in skill-based games “we find also problem gamblers who break even, Verdejo-Garcia, & Clark, 2011, p. 2630). It is important to note fi that the impulsivity scale is a single scale but it is made up of or who may even pro t continuously from winning, but still experience that the game has detrimental effects on their mental, four distinct dimensions, which may connect uniquely to cognitive ” distortions and problem behavior (Michalczuk et al., 2011). For emotional and social life (p. 245). Conversely, the author also example, although the relationship between impulsivity and prob- argued that not all players who win money should be considered lem gambling is fairly well established in the literature, the link problem gamblers, only that other measures may be necessary to understand the cognitive and behavioral characteristics of these between sensation seeking and problem gambling is mixed “ (Canale, Vieno, Griffiths, Rubaltelli, & Sentinello, 2015; Myrseth players. He stated: In relation to skill-based social games . . . the et al., 2009). However, overall, Myrseth et al. (2009) stated issue of cognitive distortions is complicated to a point where we “ need to reconsider the concept itself” (Bjerg, 2010, p. 246). pathological gamblers are characterized by higher rates of impul- “ sivity than non-(pathological) gamblers” (p. 933). In the case of Mitrovic and Brown (2009)stated: Considering that poker fantasy sports, there may be specific personality traits drawn to the involves an element of skill, it seems more conceivable that factors activity, and those traits could be shared between players of TFS such as irrational beliefs and illusions of control have a stronger ” and players of DFS. Given the unique aspects of both games impact as maintenance factors for this type of activity (p. 490). ’ compared to traditional gambling activities, research is needed to Interestingly, the authors results supported the relationship understand the role of impulsivity in fantasy sports participation. between cognitive distortions and involvement in gambling; how- ever, once they controlled for involvement in nonskill gambling fi Cognitive Strategy: Cognitive Distortions and activities, the signi cance of that result disappeared. In other words, “distorted cognitions may not be central to the develop- Perceived Skill ment or existence of problem gambling in poker players” Cognitive strategies signify how an individual perceives a given (Mitrovic & Brown, 2009, p. 499). This result runs counter to situation. Within the gambling literature, the cognitive abilities of the findings of Toneatto et al.’s(1997) research on sports betting. gamblers are often referred to as “cognitive distortions” because the However, although sports betting is considered a skill-based game mental shortcuts, or heuristics, that people use to assess risk and like poker, it is not a social game as players place their bets against probability are frequently erroneous, particularly for those defined the house. as problem gamblers (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Raylu & Oei, This result does not imply that cognitive distortions are 2004). Furthermore, these cognitions may be more pronounced absent in poker and other skill-based social games. Instead, it with games that are considered to involve more elements of may simply suggest that other distortions are more prominent and skill, such as sports betting (Toneatto, Blitz-Miller, Calderwood, that the negative outcomes associated with these distortions may Dragonetti, & Tsanos, 1997). vary based on different games. Bjerg (2010) describes a common More recently, studies by Mitrovic and Brown (2009) and distortion where players attribute wins to skill and losses to Bjerg (2010) have examined cognitive distortions in poker players. chance. This distorted belief along with the positive reinforcement Poker is also classified as a social game (Bjerg, 2010), which from intermittent wins results in players having an inflated sense profiles quite similarly to DFS. In social games, participants of skill relative to other players (Bjerg, 2010). Bjerg concludes compete against each other, rather than against “the house,” and that this cognitive distortion is much more common in poker although take a rake in of each hand of poker, they are not players than players of traditional gambling activities. affected by who wins or loses. In DFS, the same phenomenon The perception of skill in fantasy football is at the heart of the occurs where the players compete directly against each other and DFS debate and has received attention from researchers and legal the DFS sites (i.e., FanDuel and DraftKings) take a small percent- commentators in recent years (Melone, 2016). Dwyer (2011) found age of each entry fee. that one’s level of fantasy football involvement increased when the Beyond the social component, Bjerg (2010) also suggests that game was perceived as more skill than chance. Dwyer and LeCrom poker is a skill-based game. While the author makes clear that even (2013) not only found novice participants were specifically drawn skill-based games do contain elements of chance, players are able to the perceived skill aspect of fantasy football, but that media to affect their likelihood of winning through strategic gameplay. In consumption of NFL games and programming was also driven by DFS, 91% of all player profits were won by only 1.3% of all players this perception of skill. All of this work, however, has been suggesting that certain high-skilled players were able to exploratory and in the domain of TFS. Given the newly formed

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 178 Dwyer, Drayer, and Shapiro and hotly debated DFS platform, an opportunity exists to under- of personality. This broad approach is representative of the phe- stand how one’s perception of skill impacts DFS participation. nomenon of fantasy sports. Previous research on the activity has established the outcomes and consequences related to each of these Situational Expectancy: Perceived facets (cf., Davis & Duncan, 2006; Dwyer & Kim, 2011), yet much of the previous research is mixed when it comes to gambling. In Competitiveness other words, some researchers have found evidence of gambling- Situational expectancies represent the anticipated results of differ- related motives and/or behaviors within TFS or DFS participation ent behavior within a person’s mind (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). For (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Dwyer, Shapiro, & Drayer, 2018), yet other example, prior to acting, an individual will predict the outcome of a studies have concluded the activities are more prosocial than number of potential choices (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). DFS is a traditional gambling (Drayer et al., 2013; Weiner & Dwyer, competition, and measuring one’s ability prior to an event (situa- 2017) or resemble activities closer to playing the stock market tional expectancy) is a common precompetition process for athletes (Bernard & Eade, 2005). Additionally, the growth of DFS as a (Bray, Martin, & Widmeyer, 2000). Perceived competitiveness or unique subset of fantasy sport participation warrants further inves- winning expectancy has been found to be an important indicator of tigation. Therefore, the current study should contribute to several both TFS participation and chance-related gaming (Kwak, Lim, literature bases by providing a better understanding of both TFS Lee, & Mahan, 2010; Langer, 1975). Guided by aspects of control, and DFS consumers along with empirical evidence of gambling Langer (1975) cited that overconfidence is a cognitive distortion attitudes and subsequent participation behaviors within the context among gamblers and an influential antecedent to behavior. Kwak of fantasy sport. et al. (2010) studied TFS participants and found that winning expectancy positively impacted the amount of time and money spent engaged with the activity. Furthermore, Mills, Kwak, Lee, Methods and Lee (2014) confirmed this relationship and found that an individual’s perception of the quality of their opponent did not Participants influence their winning expectancy. This result would seem to defy Data collection for this study took place in February and March logic and reason and may suggest the presence of some form of 2016 through an online survey protocol. Qualtrics panel solicitation cognitive distortion. was utilized to attract active TFS-only and DFS participants in North As it relates to the current study, one’s perceived competitive- America. The participant pool for a Qualtrics panel is made up of ness or winning expectancy has yet to be examined in the context of more than 3 million participants. Qualtrics recruitment involves a DFS participation. Two recent reports have seriously called into participant invitation-only protocol to reduce self-selection, which question the level playing field of DFS competition. First, the provides a cross-section of participants that increases representa- previously mentioned study by Miller and Singer (2015), and tiveness (Hagtvedt, 2011). Invitation-only panels are a form of second, insider trading allegations emerged as employees at one probability sampling, and while this form cannot completely elimi- of the two major providers used private data to gain a competitive nate bias, invitation-only panels include only members with a given advantage (Culhane, 2015). As a result of these reports, there is an attribute, which if representative of the population, in this case opportunity to understand the perceived competitiveness among fantasy sports participants, can reduce self-selection bias (Callegaro fantasy participants. et al., 2014). Furthermore, when this form of sampling is combined with screening questions and attention checks, it further limits the Normative Value: Attachment to Sport possibility of self-selection and professional survey takers. According to the current study’s project manager at Qualtrics, Normative values include the regulatory system through which our 2,000 individuals who identified as fantasy football players within past experiences impact our current perceptions. Drayer, Shapiro, Qualtrics participant pool were invited to take the survey. Potential Dwyer, Morse, and White (2010) introduced the first model that respondents were offered a small incentive to complete the online indicated how fantasy football participation impacted overall NFL questionnaire. Branching questions and screening questions were consumption. While the authors reported small effects on event utilized to ensure participants were in fact fantasy participants. See attendance and merchandise, the primary increases in consumption Table 1 for the seven screening questions utilized. Survey quotas were in the form of mediated consumption. This behavior, how- were utilized to ensure equal representation between the two ever, was determined by Dwyer (2011, 2013) to come at the groups (TFS only and DFS). The first 150 participants to complete expense of following one’s favorite team. Previous studies have the survey with only playing TFS or playing DFS were kept. Two also found that fantasy sport participants were more likely to attend reminder invitations were sent over the course of 3 weeks by games and watch more televised games than nonparticipants (Karg Qualtrics. The TFS-only quota was reached in 16 days. The DFS & McDonald, 2011; Nesbit & King, 2010). Thus, the relationship quota was reached at 22 days. DFS participants could have also between team fandom and fantasy sports has been established. played TFS. TFS participants were the primary target of FanDuel However, to what extent is overall sport fandom related to DFS and DraftKings advertising (Gouker, 2015b); thus, the research participation? Are individual participants who engage in the activ- team expected a majority of DFS participants to also play TFS. As ity just more avid football fans than those who do not? Dwyer the primary purpose of the study was to understand the decision to (2011) found that avid fantasy participants had higher levels of play DFS, the limitation of respondents participating in both team attachment than less involved participants; however, team activities was accounted for and deemed acceptable a priori. attachment is different than sport attachment (Robinson & Three hundred and fourteen respondents finished the online Trail, 2005). survey (157 DFS and 157 TFS). Demographically, the TFS-only In summary, the current study draws from a number of and DFS groups were relatively similar (see Table 2 for more domains. The conceptual framework provides a comprehensive information). Consistent with the industry research reported by view that accounts for the variability of a situation and the stability Gouker (2015a), 86% of this sample’s DFS participants also played

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 Dispositions of DFS 179

Table 1 Screening Questions for Survey Protocol Screening Question Answer Purpose Have you ever played traditional, season-long fantasy sports? Yes/No Yes Branching Have you played DAILY fantasy football this NFL season? Yes/No Yes Branching When playing daily fantasy sport the common practice is to: Draft players and Create a new roster each time Knowledge of daily keep your same roster throughout the season. Create a new roster each time you you play (with a ) fantasy sports play (with a salary cap). (DFS only) As it relates to fantasy football, what does PPR stand for? Pass per reception, Point per reception Knowledge of fan- Punt pass receiver, Point per reception, Play pass returnera tasy sports For quality assurance, please select “somewhat disagree” for this line. Somewhat disagree Quality assurance For quality assurance, please select “strongly agree” for this line. Strongly agree Quality assurance For quality assurance, please select “strongly disagree” for this line. Strongly disagree Quality assurance Note. NFL = ; DFS = daily fantasy sport; TFS = traditional, season-long fantasy sport. aWith PPR scoring the default for all DFSs participation and for TFS on ESPN and Yahoo!, it was deemed an acceptable screening question for all of fantasy sports.

Table 2 Sample Demographics important to report. The current sample deviated from industry research, however, as it relates to gender of DFS participants All DFS TFS only (Klinski, 2017). The current study’s sampling procedure did not (N = 314) (N = 157) (N = 157) stratify for a certain percentage of males or females. It was an open Age call to a sample of fantasy sports users, and it is this sampling frame Mean 34 33 34 that potentially explains the discrepancy. Regardless, academic SD 10.18 10.66 9.66 research by Weiner and Dwyer (2017) had a similar ratio at 7:3 male to female. Gender Male 66% 63% 69% Materials and Analysis Education High school or below 29% 31% 28% The questionnaire consisted of 73 items including demographics, Associates 10% 9% 11% perceptions of the activity, consumption behavior, and scaled personality trait instruments. Impulsivity was measured via White- Bachelors 40% 41% 40% side and Lynam’s(2001) four-factor impulsivity scale. Cognitive Masters and above 18% 17% 18% strategies were measured using Raylu and Oei’s(2004) five-factor Income instrument for measuring the various types of cognitive distortions Less than $50,000 46% 49% 44% established in the existing literature: Gambling Expectations, Illu- $50,000–$99,999 38% 38% 40% sion of Control, Predictive Control, Inability to Stop Gambling, $100,000–149,999 10% 10% 9% and Interpretive Bias. Raylu and Oei (2004) conceptualized the Gambling Expecta- $150,000 or more 5% 3% 7% tions factor as an individual’s expectancies about the effects of an Ethnicity object of interest (i.e., gambling). In the current study, gambling was Asian/Pacific Islander 13% 7% 20% replaced with daily or traditional fantasy football depending on the Black/African American 7% 7% 8% subsample. Previous addiction research has found that the expecta- White 69% 74% 63% tion of an outcome (i.e., having fun, calming nerves, or reducing Hispanic 3% 4% 2% boredom) comes from past experience, and it has been found that an individual will maintain an activity despite continuous losses if it is Multiracial 4% 4% 4% believed the activity is the only way to achieve these outcomes Would rather not say 4% 4% 4% (Beck, Wright, Newman, & Liese, 1993; Murray, 1993; Raylu & Note. DFS = daily fantasy sport; TFS = traditional, season-long fantasy sport. Oei, 2004). Inability to Stop Gambling was also theorized based on addiction research (Beck et al., 1993), as a helplessness to control TFS, managing just over three teams per year. The average DFS gaming behavior. According to Raylu and Oei (2004), the inability participant entered four DFS lineups and spent $60 on entry fees to control gaming behavior is directly related to problem behavior, as it has manifested in instances of irrational borrowing or theft. per week. Interestingly, only 26% reported winning on a weekly The other three cognitions in Raylu and Oei’s(2004) gam- basis; 23% reported losing, and 51% indicated they break even bling-related cognition scale (GRCS) stem from the work of each week. This could indicate one of two circumstances for the Toneatto et al. (1997) and Toneatto (1999). Illusion of Control sample: (a) the sample skews toward successful, highly engaged represents a belief in superstitious behaviors or systems that are DFS participants or (b) these participants are overreporting their believed to influence gaming outcomes (Raylu & Oei, 2004). success. Drayer, Dwyer, and Shapiro (2016) found participants Illusion of Control, as cognitive strategy, has been previously overreported winning or breaking even compared with industry extended to fantasy sports participation by Kwak et al. (2010). research data by Miller and Singer (2015) that indicates otherwise. These researchers found that Illusion of Control in the form of Miller and Singer (2015) found that the average DFS participant winning expectancy was directly and positively related to the spent $49 on entry fees and lost $25 per week. Regardless, it is amount of time and money spent engaged with fantasy sport.

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 180 Dwyer, Drayer, and Shapiro

Kwak, Lee, and Mahan (2013) found that Illusion of Control could within the model were also examined by investigating variance be manipulated based on in-game advertisements and directly inflation factors and tolerance statistics. The results suggested that impacted the decision to participate and perceived competitiveness. there were no multicollinearity issues in the final logistic regression Taken together, these studies provide evidence of the impact of equation used in the analysis. All analyses were conducted in either Illusion of Control in fantasy sport. However, these studies were Mplus 7.0 (Los Angeles, CA) or SPSS 24 (Armonk, NY). limited to TFS participation without direct gambling associations of DFS. Predictive Control is the perceived ability to make accurate predictions about gaming outcomes, and Interpretative Bias is the Results reframing of gaming outcomes (i.e., wins are due to skill and losses fi ’ A second-order con rmatory factor analysis was conducted on the to bad luck, or an individual s ability to recall wins more easily than scaled instruments to assess factor reliability and validity. Driven by losses). All multi-item measures, including the adapted GRCS, are the desire to utilize the most parsimonious model (Iacobucci, 2010), provided in the Appendix. nine items were dropped from the impulsivity instrument for factor Participants were also asked to provide their level of sport ’ loading lower than .50, and three were dropped from the GRCS. attachment per Robinson and Trail s(2005) Points of Attachment Table 3 provides the reliability and validity results. The scale scores scale, future participation in DFS, the amount of chance and skill in also for each instrument also met additional thresholds for reliability the activity, and their perceived competitiveness. Prior to running and validity, as the composite reliability, mean interitem correla- the analyses to answer the RQs, reliability and validity of the scaled tions, average variance extracted, and factor correlations were instruments were assessed in the form of composite reliability, deemed adequate (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). It is important to mean interitem correlations, and average variance extracted. In note, however, that the GRCS initially failed discriminant validity, fi addition, an omnibus second-order con rmatory factor analysis as the squared correlation between Predictive Control and Inter- was conducted on the scaled instruments of impulsivity, GRCS, pretative Bias was greater than the average variance extracted score fi χ2 χ2 and sport attachment. Several t indices, including and /df for Interpretative Bias. As a result, an additional item with the low were interpreted for goodness of fit; root mean square error of correlations within the Predictive Control factor was eliminated per approximation, comparative fit index, and the Tucker–Lewis index Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015). The threshold for discrimi- were utilized to examine the component fit. nant validity was then achieved. In all, the factor structure of the Independent samples t tests were conducted to answer RQ1. resulting instruments was confirmed, as the fit indices were deemed The independent variable was group membership (DFS or TFS adequate to acceptable (χ2 [df] = 3,242.43 [1665], χ2/df = 1.95, only). The dependent variables included media consumption and root mean square error of approximation = .055, comparative fit likelihood for future DFS participation. To answer RQ2, a binary index = .89, and Tucker–Lewis index = .90). logistic regression was conducted to estimate the probability that a Table 4 provides results for RQ1. The findings indicated participant played DFS instead of TFS only. The explanatory significantly higher scores for DFS participants in the amount of (independent) variables were the factors of impulsivity, cognitive money spent on research per year (difference $155), the number distortions, sport attachment, perceived competitiveness, and skill/ hours of research per week (4.5), the number of hours of NFL chance perception. Prior to regression analysis, preliminary assess- media consumption per week (2.6), and the likelihood to play DFS ments of the model were conducted. Descriptive statistics showed next year. no standard violations of logistic regression. These violations The binary logistic regression results indicated that the model included the standard assumptions of regression (linearity and fit improved based on the inclusion of the indicator variables, independence of errors) and the following potential errors of χ2 (12) = 52.967, p < .001. Additionally, the model accounted logistic regression: missing indicator variables, complete separa- for 53.1% of the variance. As seen in Table 5, five of the 12 tion, and overdispersion. The model also provided sufficient explanatory variables were statistically significant including posi- power. The dependent variable was binary (DFS/no DFS), and tive indicators of DFS participation: Premeditation, Sensation the continuous indicators in the model were linear with the logit Seeking, Illusion of Control, Sport Attachment, and Competitive- form of the dependent variable. Potential multicollinearity issues ness. Gambling Expectations was the only negative indicator of

Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analyses Results—Impulsivity and Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale Composite Mean-Interitem Average Variance Factors Reliability Correlation Extracted 1 2 3 4 5 Impulsivity 1. Premeditation 0.903 .512 0.561 – 2. Urgency 0.928 .543 0.573 −0.141 – 3. Perseverance 0.850 .533 0.522 0.438 −0.346 – 4. Sensation seeking 0.903 .567 0.504 −0.047 0.131 0.163 – Gambling-related cognitions 1. Gambling expectation 0.741 .404 0.543 – 2. Inability to stop playing 0.939 .744 0.700 0.618 – 3. Illusion of control 0.811 .588 0.699 0.633 0.730 – 4. Predictive control 0.801 .498 0.635 0.699 0.765 0.788 – 5. Interpretive bias 0.784 .512 0.640 0.733 0.723 0.711 0.791 –

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 Dispositions of DFS 181

Table 4 Independent Sample t-Test Results for Participant Consumption Differences Mean (SD) Consumption Behavior and Behavioral Intentions DFS TFS only tp Hours of research per week 7.826 (8.86) 4.490 (4.67) 4.181 <.001 Amount of money spent on research per year $177 ($320) $34 ($65) 4.730 <.001 Hours of media consumption per week 11.810 (8.51) 9.503 (8.91) 2.234 .024 Likelihood to play DFS next yeara 4.440 (0.89) 2.360 (1.14) 7.649 <.001 Note. DFS = daily fantasy sport; TFS = traditional, season-long fantasy sport. aMeasured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = highly unlikely to 5 = highly likely.

Table 5 Individual Explanatory Results for Logistic Regression Model Mean (SD) Explanatory Variables β SE Wald df Sig. Exp (β) TFS DFS Impulsivity factorsa Premeditation* 0.253 0.127 39.603 1 .047 1.304 5.03 (0.89) 5.26 (0.98) Urgency −0.104 0.097 1.153 1 .283 0.901 3.57 (1.18) 3.46 (1.33) Perseverance 0.015 0.142 0.011 1 .916 1.105 5.31 (0.85) 5.47 (0.96) Sensation seeking*** 0.287 0.089 10.485 1 .000 1.832 4.17 (1.24) 4.66 (1.24) Gambling-related cognition factorsa Gambling expectations** −0.290 0.109 7.134 1 .008 0.700 3.95 (1.40) 3.68 (1.51) Inability to stop gambling −0.116 0.116 0.998 1 .318 0.890 2.19 (1.31) 2.17 (1.55) Illusion of control** 0.323 0.106 9.326 1 .002 1.381 2.14 (1.34) 2.39 (1.61) Predictive control −0.187 0.154 0.831 1 .335 0.902 3.60 (0.99) 3.47 (1.33) Interpretive bias 0.058 0.137 0.179 1 .673 1.060 3.73 (1.14) 3.65 (1.42) Perceived skill requiredb 0.004 0.053 0.007 1 .933 1.004 6.23 (1.86) 6.11 (2.04) Perceived competitivenessc,*** 0.019 0.005 11.940 1 .000 1.280 39.12 (20.56) 47.46 (18.77) Attachment to sporta,** 0.296 0.103 8.157 1 .004 1.344 5.63 (0.96) 5.95 (0.98) Constant −3.110 1.071 8.547 1 .002 0.075 aMeasured on 7-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). bMeasured on an 11-point scale (total luck to total skill). cMeasured on a 100-point scale (defeat no one to defeat everyone). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

DFS participation while no relationship was found for perception Similarly, participants were 38% more likely to be classified as of skill required and the factors of Perseverance, Urgency, Pre- a DFS player for every increase of one on the Illusion of Control dictive Control, Inability to Stop Playing, and Interpretive Bias. dimension. This resulted in a 13% increase in DFS participation as To fully understand the meaning of the significant indicators of a score went from two to three on the 7-point scale (40–53%). The the decision to play DFS, the odds ratios were interpreted. It is opposite occurred for the Gambling Expectations factor of the important to note that the target population base rate for DFS GRCS, where participants were 30% less likely to be classified as a participation among all TFS fantasy sports participants is 17% or DFS player for every increase of one on this gambling cognition 10 million participants, according to the FSTA (2016a). This is the factor. That is, DFS participation dropped 14% from 50% to 36% base probability that TFS participants will play DFS, and inter- as a score went from four to five on the 7-point scale. However, for preting the statistically significant odds ratios helps explain how every additional point on a participant’s attachment to football much the dispositional, situational, normative, and cognitive fac- score, individuals were 34% more likely to be classified as a DFS tors impacted those who chose to play DFS. Table 5 provides the participant (49% at six and 62% at seven on a 7-point scale). subsample means for the TFS and DFS groups for comparison. Finally, for the perceived competitiveness score, the likelihood of fi With regard to the impulsivity factors, individuals were 30% more DFS classi cation increased 28% for every additional point on the likely to be classified as a DFS participant for every increase of one 100-point scale. on the Premeditation scale (7-point Likert-type scale). In other words, as individuals moved from a five to a six on this scale, the Discussion DFS participation rate increased from 46% to 53%. With regard to the Sensation Seeking subdimension, individuals were 83% more Traditional, season-long fantasy sports have been in existence for likely to be classified as a DFS participant for every increase of one over 50 years, and little evidence has been discovered through both on a 7-point scale. For example, a scale score increase from five to empirical and legal research related to its connection with gam- six saw a 13% increase in DFS participation (50–63%). bling. However, the recent proliferation of DFS participation, an

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 182 Dwyer, Drayer, and Shapiro offshoot of TFS with faster payouts and less commitment, has scores related to rational decision making and thoughtfulness are created controversy regarding its role as a potential form of sports perhaps more noteworthy than the higher Sensation Seeking re- wagering. The current study is one of the first to address consumer sults. DFS, and to an extent TFS-only, participants self-reported a participation by providing a psychographic and dispositional con- disposition to make rational decisions. In addition, the much lower trast between DFS and TFS-only participants from a gambling mean scores for Urgency and the lack of a statistically significant perspective. The current study’s findings show distinct differences prediction of group membership provide important evidence that between those who only play TFS and those who play DFS in the presence of quick, irrational decision makers witnessed in other sport-related consumption patterns, situational cues, and normative forms of gambling was not as evident in this sample of DFS values. However, only slight gambling-related differences were participants (Canale et al., 2015). Therefore, impulsivity as a found between the two subsamples. The following sections discuss dispositional driver of behavior does not appear to be substantially the theoretical and practical implication of these findings. different from a DFS and TFS-only perspective. It is important to note that both of these impulsivity factors could be subject to social Theoretical Implications desirability bias among survey respondents. Future research should take this into account. The current study used the C-AMP framework as a guide to Cognitively, the findings are somewhat similar to the impul- understand participation habits of fantasy players. Like other de- sivity results. The combination of what was found statistically cisions we make daily, the decision to play DFS involves conditions significant and what was not found to be statistically significant where human disposition, situational cues, and cognitive activity suggests DFS participation is potentially closer to TFS-only par- influence the outcome. Three major findings exists as a result: ticipation than it is to other forms of gambling. In the development (a) The C-AMP model provides a framework for understanding of the GRCS, Raylu and Oei (2004) found that each cognitive how attitudes and dispositions explain fantasy group membership in distortion factor positively impacted gambling behavior. The a dynamic environment, (b) DFS participants appear to be slightly current study only found one positive predictor of DFS member- different attitudinally and behaviorally than TFS-only participants, ship (Illusion of Control) and found one negative predictor (Gam- and (c) despite these differences, it appears DFS participation bling Expectations). In a closer look at these scale items, the closely resembles TFS participation from a gambling perspective. Illusion of Control findings match previous TFS-only research That is, while DFS participants provided statistically significant conducted by Dwyer (2011) and Kwak et al. (2010) where more higher scores for certain impulsivity and gambling-related cognition highly involved TFS-only participants scored higher the perceived factors, the overall assessment of the findings suggest DFS parti- ability to control fantasy outcomes. As mentioned above, the RQ1 cipants appear to align more with highly involved TFS participants results from this study suggest DFS participants are more engaged than individuals participating in other forms of gambling (Dwyer, fantasy participants; thus, it is not surprising that they believe they 2011; Kwak et al., 2010; Langer, 1975; Myrseth et al., 2009). In can impact outcomes. general, DFS participants appear to be more intense football fans, The Gambling Expectations results, in which negatively pre- believe they are more competitive than their opponents, feel they are dicted DFS group membership, perhaps suggest that DFS partici- in more control of the activity, and dispositionally enjoy sensation pation is a frustrating experience. The items that loaded under seeking activities, but these individuals are premeditated in their this factor are related to making one’s life better, brighter, and/or decision to play and show similar levels of other gambling-related reducing stress by playing DFS. And while not conceptualized by factors to TFS-only participants, namely Urgency, Inability to Stop Raylu and Oei (2004) as a motive for gambling participation, the Playing, Predictive Control, and Interpretive Bias. items would suggest these could be reasons to engage in an activity. Behaviorally, the results for RQ1 clearly indicated that DFS In fact, Raylu and Oei (2004) found that this factor positively participants spent more time and money on research, consumed predicted gambling behavior. In the current study, DFS participants more NFL media, and had a higher likelihood of playing DFS in the scored lower on this factor than TFS-only participants. Thus, future. Making the decision to play DFS is not a given, but if it participants are not driven by the positive or optimistic aspects occurs, it appears to result in more time and money spent on task of the activity. While this contradicts the Raylu and Oei’s(2004) and with associated products and services and most importantly, it findings, Spurrier and Blaszczynski (2014) found disordered gam- may lead to repeat behavior (i.e., more likely to play next year). blers also displayed negative expectations before gambling. Thus, These results combined with the finding that 86% of this sample’s the opportunity for Gambling Expectations to positively predict DFS participants also played TFS suggest that these participants problem gambling is possible. More research in this area is advised. appear to be highly involved fantasy sport consumers. Finally, the other GRCS factors of Inability to Stop Gambling, Dispositionally, this study’s results suggest that DFS partici- Interpretive Bias, and Predictive Control were not significant pants are different from those who only play TFS from an indicators of fantasy group membership. In addition, the perception impulsivity perspective, but not to a point where they are poten- of skill involved in the activities was not found to be predictive of tially at risk to fall victim to problem gambling behavior. Previous group membership. Based on the previous work on gambling gambling-related research has found a strong positive relationship behavior, these nonsignificant results are equally as important as between Sensation Seeking, Urgency, and problem behavior and a the statistically significant findings. Thus, once again, looking at strong negative relationship between Premeditation, Perseverance, the cognitive aspect of the C-AMP in totality, the results suggest and problem behavior (Myrseth et al., 2009). The current study DFS participation is similar to TFS-only participation, as the only found impulsivity differences between DFS and TFS-only findings do not completely align with previous gambling work participants on the Sensation Seeking and Premeditation factors, that has explored the impact of impulsivity and gambling distor- and in both cases, a positive relationship was found between the tions (Langer, 1975; Myrseth et al., 2009; Raylu & Oei, 2004) factor and the decision to play DFS. Daily fantasy sport group membership was positively pre- In a closer look at the items of these factors and the item means dicted by the situational expectancy and normative beliefs factors (see Appendix), the Premeditation factor findings and the high of the C-AMP framework. That is, DFS participants had a higher

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 Dispositions of DFS 183 perceived competitiveness score and a higher overall attachment to an opportunity for game feature and risk regulation. It was clear from the game of football. While these results are logical and are the RQ1 results that DFS participants spend more time and money associated with aspects of previous gambling literature (Cantinotti, researching and competing in the activity. However, the 2015 Miller Ladouceur, & Jacques, 2004; Langer, 1975), they also align with and Singer report suggested a very small chance of financial gain. previous TFS research where highly involved participants were DFS preparation may be an exercise in futility as it relates to return more likely to score higher in these areas (Dwyer, 2013; Kwak on investment. Thus, a clear statement about the odds of success or et al., 2010, 2013). In addition, previous TFS research found those even the average return on investment could be useful for policy with higher gambling motives, a very small percentage of the makers looking to protect consumers from financial loss. population, were less attached to football and less likely to be In addition, there are potentially policy implications directly competitive (Dwyer & Kim, 2011). Thus, this is another example related to advertising and sponsorship regulation. As of 2017, 23 where DFS participation may be more aligned with TFS participa- of the 32 NFL teams have a partnership with either FanDuel tion than gambling. or DraftKings (DFS Partnership/Sponsorship Tracker, 2017). As it relates to the C-AMP framework in general, the current The , National Associa- study provided evidence of statistically significant positive and tion, and Major League each have league-wide partner- negative predictors of the decision to play DFS within each theoreti- ships with one of the two DFS providers. The majority of teams cal factor of the framework (see Figure 1). Thus, the results suggest within these leagues also have exclusive deals with these com- that the C-AMP framework is a viable theory for exploring decision panies. Interestingly, NFL, National Hockey League, NBA, and making in a dynamic environment. This study uncovered cognitive, Premier League teams have discontinued their partnerships in the dispositional, situational, and normative value factors that indicate last few years. ESPN also ended their deal with DraftKings. participation in one type of fantasy activity or another. While some may say it is a risky bet for sport organizations to partner with DFS providers (Lamont, Hing, & Gainsbury, 2011; Practical Implications Van Natta, 2016), the tone surrounding sports wagering in the United States is changing as a result of the recent Supreme Court From a policy perspective, perhaps the decision made by some U.S. ruling. As a result, there is an opportunity to understand how states to outright prohibit DFS participation for their constituents sports fans feel about such sponsorships and ultimately whether was made too hastily. The current study’s findings do not follow sport properties will reconsider these partnerships as the regula- previous gambling literature on impulsivity and cognitive distor- tory landscape shifts in the coming years. The current research tion as predictors of increased gambling behavior. In fact, the does little to dissuade organizations, as the gambling ties were gambling literature provides much more consistent evidence tenuous, yet the differences in media consumption of spectator regarding the role of gambling-related attitudes and dispositions sport were much higher for DFS participants. This suggests in predicting the participation in traditional gambling activities positive potential for teams. As more empirical research emerges (Myrseth et al., 2009; Raylu & Oei, 2004). As stated above, if TFS similar to the current study that can draw direct parallels to other participation is legal at the federal and state level, the current forms of wagering, sport managers will be forced to reassess study’s results do little to suggest that DFS participation is anything these partnerships. more than advanced TFS participation. It is important to note, especially from a limitation perspective, Limitations and Future Research that previous gambling research examined individuals who partic- ipated in activities more clearly defined as gambling and not This study was not without limitations. First and most importantly, gambling. Arguments can be made for or against the gambling this study did not assess nonfantasy participating sports fans as a associations of both TFS and DFS, and while 20% of U.S. states control group. TFS-only and DFS participants were contrasted, and feel DFS is a form of sports betting and none have labeled TFS the similarities between these activities likely impacted the gambling- similarly, the division between the activities and the gambling related results. An important next step in this line of research should associations is likely not as clear as previous gambling research. As be to add a sample of nongambling, nonfantasy participating NFL mentioned previously, this debate will likely begin anew at the state fans. Second, it was a cross-sectional design. Respondents were level given the Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to deter- surveyed at one point time and were asked to provide self-reported mine the legality of the activity. data about weekly and yearly behavior. This could create substantial Despite this study’s evidence that DFS participation is closer to bias in participant responses. In addition, due to the probability- TFS participation, it does not mean there are not still opportunities sampling frame, the sample could have skewed toward more highly to regulate the activity. According to Blaszczynski et al. (2011), engaged participants, which could have impacted the results. Thus, “governments retain responsibility for enacting legislation that future research should strongly consider a longitudinal approach, determines the nature and extent of gambling, positing requirements where participants are surveyed several times during a fantasy directed to maximizing consumer protection and monitoring com- football season or are followed year after year. pliance with these requirements” (p. 566). To do so, the researchers Third, this study was limited to football, and although football suggested that governments should consider the following (at is the most popular of fantasy activities, it has a limited number minimum): (a) a company policy for industry staff, (b) features of competitions compared with the daily schedules of baseball, of games (i.e., odds or chances), (c) environmental features to curb basketball, and hockey. Given the importance of chasing behavior impulsivity, (d) informing players of risks, (e) location of venue in and problem or disordered gambling behavior, the number of relation to specific populations, and (f) marketing of gambling in the competitions could impact the attitudes and behaviors associated community (e.g., limits on advertisement, predatory targeting, with the activity. Therefore, future research should consider ana- loyalty cards, etc.) (Blaszczynski et al., 2011). lyzing the other popular forms of fantasy and DFSs. Utilizing a As it relates to the current context, the behavioral results sample of nonfantasy participating professional sports fans as a combined with the 2015 study by Miller and Singer may suggest control group could also provide important context to the

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 184 Dwyer, Drayer, and Shapiro discussion. Additional research is necessary to understand the Bjerg, O. (2010). Problem gambling in poker: Money, rationality and transition from TFS-only to DFS participation and how attitudes control in a skill-based social game. International Gambling Studies, are influencing consumption habits within this context. In particu- 10, 239–254. doi:10.1080/14459795.2010.520330 lar, there is an opportunity to explore the potential problem Blaszczynski, A., Collins, P., Fong, D., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., Shaffer, behavior (i.e., dependency, isolation and financial loss) associated H.J., ::: Venisse, J.L. (2011). Responsible gambling: General prin- with the activity. In addition, this study did not directly explore the ciples and minimal requirements. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, potential impact of monetary reward as an antecedent. 565–573. PubMed ID: 21359586 doi:10.1007/s10899-010-9214-0 Other options for future research include a closer look at Boswell, J. (2008). Fantasy sports: A game of skill that is implicitly legal cognitive distortions and skill/chance comparisons between poker under state law, and now explicitly legal under federal law. Cardoza and DFS. The current study’s cognitive distortion results are far Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 25, 1257–1278. from straightforward, and the fantasy sports industry has vocifer- Bray, S.R., Martin, K.A., & Widmeyer, W.N. (2000). The relationship ously argued that DFS is a game of skill similar to poker. Cognitive between evaluative concerns and sport competition state anxiety distortions have not been found to impact problem gambling in among youth skiers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 353–361. poker, as it has been argued that cognitive distortions may not PubMed ID: 10855681 doi:10.1080/026404100402412 appropriate for skill-based games (Bjerg, 2010). DFS could be Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., Göritz, A.S., Krosnick, J.A., & characterized similarly. Given the unsettled nature of the DFS and Lavrakas, P.J. (2014). Online panel research: A data quality gambling debate, the continued examination of skill participants perspective (pp. 1–22). , NY: Wiley & Sons. and nonskill participants could be relevant. Canale, N., Vieno, A., Griffiths, M.D., Rubaltelli, E., & Santinello, M. Finally, given the gambling implications and upcoming poten- (2015). How do impulsivity traits influence problem gambling tial of widespread sports gambling, sport managers may need to through gambling motives? The role of perceived gambling risk/ revisit partnership deals from ethical and marketing perspectives. benefits. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 813–823. PubMed Although alcohol sponsorship remains a viable revenue stream for ID: 25730629 doi:10.1037/adb0000060 North American teams and leagues, the industry does not allow Cantinotti, M., Ladouceur, R., & Jacques, C. (2004). Sports betting: Can other forms of risky products/services as sponsors (i.e., tobacco gamblers beat randomness? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, companies or commercial gambling organizations). By partnering 143–147. PubMed ID: 15238056 doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.2.143 with DFS providers, there are brand image concerns for sport Culhane, J. (2015, October 13). The DraftKings crash: Insider trading managers. There is also an ethical dilemma of not just acknowl- scandals could bring down daily fantasy sports. The Slate. Retrieved edging, but supporting a potentially precarious activity. In 2011, from https://slate.com/culture/2015/10/the-insider-trading-scandals- researchers Lamont, Hing, and Gainsbury called for additional could-bring-down--and-.html research to inform policy making related to sport sponsorships such Davis, N.W., & Duncan, M.C. (2006). Sports knowledge is power: as gambling companies that promote “unhealthy products” Reinforcing masculine privilege through fantasy sport league partici- (p. 246). There is a clear opportunity to further understand DFS pation. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 30, 244–264. doi:10.1177/ and TFS participation, as it may aid sport managers in making 0193723506290324 strategic partnership decisions. DFS Partnership/Sponsorship Tracker. (2017). Legal sports report. Retrieved from https://www.legalsportsreport.com/dfs-sponsorship- tracker/ Acknowledgments Drayer, J., Dwyer, B., & Shapiro, S.L. (2013). Examining the impact of B. Dwyer, S. L. Shapiro, and J. Drayer declare no conflict of interest. All league entry fees on online fantasy sport participation and league procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in consumption. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13, 339–357. accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national doi:10.1080/16184742.2013.783605 research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later Drayer, J., Dwyer, B., & Shapiro, S.L. (2016). Irrational and delusional? amendments or comparable ethical standards. Studying traits of daily fantasy players. Street & Smith’s Sports- Business Journal, 19,20–21. PubMed ID: 30413821 Drayer, J., Shapiro, S.L., Dwyer, B., Morse, A.L., & White, J. (2010). References The effects of fantasy football participation on NFL consumption: A qualitative analysis. Sport Management Review, 13, 129–141. 31 U.S.C. § 5362. (2018). Definitions. Prohibitions on funding of unlawful doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.02.001 Internet gambling. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ Dwyer, B. (2011). Divided loyalty? An analysis of fantasy football text/31/5362 involvement and fan loyalty to individual National Football League Beck, A.T., Wright, F.D., Newman, C.F., & Liese, B.S. (1993). Cognitive teams. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 445–457. doi:10.1123/jsm. therapy of substance abuse. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 25.5.445 Bernard, B.J., & Eade, V.H. (2005). Gambling in a fantasy world: Dwyer, B. (2013). The impact of game outcomes on fantasy football An exploratory study of rotisserie baseball games. UNLV Gaming participation and National Football League media consumption. Research & Review Journal, 9,29–42. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22,33–47. Bernard, D. (2013). The NFL’s stance on gambling: A calculated contra- Dwyer, B., Achen, R.M., & Lupinek, J. (2016). Fantasy vs. reality: diction. UNLV Gaming Law Journal, 4, 273–287. Exploring the BIRGing and CORFing behavior of fantasy football Billings, A.C., Ruihley, B.J., & Yang, Y. (2017). Fantasy gaming on participants. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 25, 186–205. steroids? Contrasting fantasy sport participation by daily fantasy sport Dwyer, B., & Kim, Y. (2011). For love or money: Developing and participation. Communication & Sport, 5, 732–750. doi:10.1177/ validating a motivational scale for fantasy football participation. 2167479516644445 Journal of Sport Management, 25,70–83. doi:10.1123/jsm.25.1.70

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 Dispositions of DFS 185

Dwyer, B., & LeCrom, C.W. (2013). Is fantasy trumping reality? The Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of redefined National Football League experience of novice fantasy decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(3), 263–291. doi:10.2307/ football participants. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 7(3), 119. 1914185 Dwyer, B., Shapiro, S.L., & Drayer, J. (2018). Daily fantasy football and Karg, A.J., & McDonald, H. (2011). Fantasy sport participation as a self-reported problem behavior in the United States. Journal of complement to traditional sport consumption. Sport Management Gambling Studies, 34, 689–707. PubMed ID: 28951978 doi:10. Review, 14, 327–346. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2010.11.004 1007/s10899-017-9720-4 Klinski, C. (2017, January 13). DFS demographics largely unchanged Dwyer, B., & Weiner, J.F. (2018). Daily grind: A comparison of causality according to Eilers & Krejcik report. Daily Fantasy Sports Codes. orientations, emotions, and fantasy sport participation. Journal of Retrieved from http://dailyfantasysports.codes/wire/dfs-demographics- Gambling Studies, 34,1–20. PubMed ID: 28293766 doi:10.1007/ largely-unchanged-according-to-eilers-krejcik-report/ s10899-017-9684-4 Krejcik, A. (2014). Daily fantasy sports: The future of US sports wagering? Engler, B. (2008). Personality theories. , MA: Cengage Learning. Eilers & Krejcik Gaming. Retrieved from https://ekgamingllc.com/ Fantasy Sports Trade Association. (2016a). Fantasy sports participation shop-full-width/ in North America rises to 57.4 million players. Retrieved from Kwak, D.H., Lee, J.S., & Mahan, J.E., III. (2013). Ad-evoked illusory https://fsta.org/fantasy-sports-participation-in-north-america-rises-to- judgments in fantasy sports participation: Effects of customization 57-4-million-players/ level and expert information. Journal of Sport Management, 27, Fantasy Sports Trade Association. (2016b). Industry demographics: 393–406. doi:10.1123/jsm.27.5.393 Actionable insights and insightful data. Retrieved from http://fsta. Kwak, D.H., Lim, C.H., Lee, W.Y., & Mahan, J., III. (2010). How org/research/industry-demographics/ confident are you to win your fantasy league: Exploring the ante- Fisher, E. (2008, November 17). Study: Fantasy players spend big. Street cedents and consequences of winning expectancy. Journal of Sport & Smith’s SportsBusiness Journal, 11,1–2. Retrieved from http:// Management, 24, 416–433. doi:10.1123/jsm.24.4.416 www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60598 Lamont, M., Hing, N., & Gainsbury, S. (2011). Gambling on sport Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation modeling and sponsorship: A conceptual framework for research and regulatory regression: Guidelines for research practice. Journal of Marketing review. Sport Management Review, 14, 246–257. doi:10.1016/j.smr. Research, 18,39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312 2011.04.004 Gouker, D. (2015a, January 20). FanDuel studies: Seasonlong and Langer, E.J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and daily fantasy sports players exhibit key differences. Legal Sports Social Psychology, 32, 311–328. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311 Report. Retrieved from http://www.legalsportsreport.com/370/ Legal Sports Report. (2018). Legislative tracker: Daily fantasy sports. fanduel-seasonlong-and-daily-fantasy-sports-players-differences/ Retrieved from https://www.legalsportsreport.com/dfs-bill-tracker Gouker, D. (2015b, September 2). DraftKings’ TV blitz: One commercial Mahan, J.E., Drayer, J., & Sparvero, E. (2012). Gambling and fantasy: An every 1.5 minutes; $82 million spent in ’15. Legal Sports Report. examination of the influence of money on fan attitudes and behaviors. Retrieved from http://www.legalsportsreport.com/3483/draftkings- Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21, 159–169. tv-commercial-blitz/ Marmurek, H., Switzer, J., & D’Alvise, J. (2015). Impulsivity, gambling Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on cognitions, and the gambler’s fallacy in university students. Journal perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 75,86–93. doi:10. of Gambling Studies, 31, 197–210. PubMed ID: 24293013 doi:10. 1509/jmkg.75.4.86 1007/s10899-013-9421-6 Harris, N., Newby, J., & Klein, R. (2015). Competitiveness facets and Melone, M. (2016). Fantasy sports contests: Does the fun justify the sensation seeking as predictors of problem gambling among a fantasy that these contests are not gambling? Virginia Sports and sample of university student gamblers. Journal of Gambling Stud- Entertainment Law Journal, 15, 201. ies, 31, 385–396. PubMed ID: 24337941 doi:10.1007/s10899-013- Michalczuk, R., Bowden-Jones, H., Verdejo-Garcia, A., & Clark, L. 9431-4 (2011). Impulsivity and cognitive distortions in pathological gam- Heitner, D. (2015, September 16). The hyper growth of daily fantasy sports blers attending the UK National Problem Gambling Clinic: A pre- is going to change our culture and our laws. Forbes: SportsMoney. liminary report. Psychological Medicine, 41, 2625–2635. PubMed Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/09/ ID: 21733207 doi:10.1017/S003329171100095X 16/the-hyper-growth-of-daily-fantasy-sports-is-going-to-change-our- Miller, E., & Singer, D. (2015). For daily fantasy-sports operators, culture-and-our-laws/#6cf673185f25 the curse of too much skill. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/media-and-entertainment/our- assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation insights/for-daily-fantasy-sports-operators-the-curse-of-too-much-skill modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, Mills, B.M., Kwak, D.H., Lee, J.S., & Lee, W.Y. (2014). Competitive 115–135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 environments in fantasy sports gaming: Effects of entry fees and rewards Holden, J.T. (2018). The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act on opposition quality and league sorting. International Gambling and the exemption for fantasy sports. Journal of Legal Aspects of Studies, 14(1), 161–180. doi:10.1080/14459795.2014.881904 Sport, 28,97–117. doi:10.18060/22335 Mishcel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley. Holleman, M.C. (2006). Fantasy football: Illegal gambling or legal Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of game of skill? North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 8,59–80. personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 246–268. PubMed ID: 7740090 doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003 Mitrovic, D.V., & Brown, J. (2009). Poker mania and problem gambling: Joshi, A.W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer knowledge development: A study of distorted cognitions, motivation and alexithymia. Journal Antecedents and impact on new product performance. Journal of of Gambling Studies, 25(4), 489–502. PubMed ID: 19649568 doi:10. marketing, 68(4), 47–59. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.4.47.42722 1007/s10899-009-9140-1

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 186 Dwyer, Drayer, and Shapiro

Murray, J.B. (1993). Review of research on pathological gambling. Rodenberg, R. (2017, June 9). Daily fantasy sports state-by-state tracker. Psychological Reports, 72, 791–810. PubMed ID: 8332685 doi:10. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/14799449/ 2466/pr0.1993.72.3.791 Spurrier, M., & Blaszczynski, A. (2014). Risk perception in gambling: Myrseth, H., Pallesen, S., Molde, H., Johnsen, B.H., & Lorvik, I.M. A systematic review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30, 253–276. (2009). Personality factors as predictors of pathological gambling. PubMed ID: 23508850 doi:10.1007/s10899-013-9371-z Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 933–937. doi:10.1016/j. Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. paid.2009.07.018 Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 1593–1604. PubMed ID: 10468110 Nesbit, T.M., & King, K.A. (2010). The impact of fantasy football doi:10.3109/10826089909039417 participation on NFL attendance. Atlantic Economic Journal, 38, Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, 95–108. doi:10.1007/s11293-009-9202-x A. (1997). Cognitive distortions in heavy gambling. Journal of Pietrzak, R.H., & Petry, N.M. (2005). Antisocial personality disorder Gambling Studies, 13, 253–266. PubMed ID: 12913389 doi:10. is associated with increased severity of gambling, medical, drug 1023/A:1024983300428 and psychiatric problems among treatment-seeking pathological Tracy, J.L., Robins, R.W., & Sherman, J.W. (2009). The practice of gamblers. Addiction, 100, 1183–1193. PubMed ID: 16042649 doi: psychological science: Searching for Cronbach’stwostreamsin 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01151.x social-personality psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Purdum, D. (2018, May 15). Supreme Court strikes down federal law chology, 96,1206–1225. PubMed ID: 19469597 doi:10.1037/a0015173 prohibiting sports gambling. ESPN.com. Retrieved from http://www. Van Natta, D. (2016). Welcome to the big time: The implosion of the .com/chalk/story/_/id/23501236/supreme-court-strikes-federal- daily fantasy industry is a bro-classic tale of hubris, recklessness, law-prohibiting-sports-gambling political naïveté and a kill-or-be-killed culture. Outside the Lines Raylu, N., & Oei, T.P. (2004). The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale [ESPN]. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/big-time/ (GRCS): Development, confirmatory factor validation and psycho- story?id=43148797 metric properties. Addiction, 99(6), 757–769. PubMed ID: 15139874 Weiner, J.F., & Dwyer, B. (2017). A new player in the game: Examining doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00753.x differences in motives and consumption between traditional, hybrid, and Reith, G. (2005). The age of chance: Gambling in Western culture. daily fantasy sport users. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 26,140–152. London, UK: Routledge. Whiteside, S.P., & Lynam, D.R. (2001). The five factor model and Robinson, M.J., & Trail, G.T. (2005). Relationships among spectator impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference. Journal impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,669–689. of Sport Management, 19,58–80. doi:10.1123/jsm.19.1.58 doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 Appendix

Impulsivity Scale (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) Mean SD Loading Premeditation 1. I have a reserved and cautious attitude toward life. [Eliminated] 4.28 1.58 .477 2. My thinking is usually careful and purposeful. 5.28 1.22 .701 3. I am not one of those people who blurt out things without thinking. [Eliminated] 4.95 1.59 .468 4. I like to stop and think things over before I do them. 5.37 1.24 .761 5. I don’t like to start a project until I know exactly how to proceed. 5.12 1.43 .691 6. I tend to value and follow a rational, “sensible” approach to things. 5.46 1.11 .729 7. I usually make up my mind through careful reasoning. 5.43 1.22 .797 8. I am a cautious person. 4.92 1.43 .730 9. Before I get into a new situation I like to find out what to expect from it. 5.50 1.13 .701 10. I usually think carefully before doing anything. 5.24 1.20 .840 11. Before making up my mind, I consider all the advantages and disadvantages. 5.36 1.24 .778 Urgency 12. I have trouble controlling my impulses. 3.26 1.70 .606 13. I have trouble resisting my cravings (for food, cigarettes, etc.). [Eliminated] 3.98 1.88 .477 14. I often get involved in things I later wish I could get out of. 3.53 1.66 .671 15. When I feel bad, I will often do things I later regret in order to make myself feel better now. 3.15 1.74 .699 16. Sometimes when I feel bad, I can’t seem to stop what I am doing even though it is making me feel worse. 3.27 1.69 .669 17. When I am upset I often act without thinking. 3.56 1.67 .825 18. When I feel rejected, I will often say things that I later regret. 3.57 1.75 .825 19. It is hard for me to resist acting on my feelings. 3.64 1.67 .754 20. I often make matters worse because I act without thinking when I am upset. 3.27 1.70 .880 21. In the heat of an argument, I will often say things that I later regret. 3.70 1.80 .823 22. I am always able to keep my feelings under control. [Eliminated] 3.70 1.54 .336 23. Sometimes I do things on impulse that I later regret 3.65 1.77 .775 Sensation seeking 24. I generally seek new and exciting experiences and sensations. 4.69 1.45 .721 25. I’ll try anything once. 4.61 1.63 .663 26. I like sports and games in which you have to choose your next move very quickly. [Eliminated] 4.96 1.45 .404 27. I would enjoy water skiing. 4.73 1.77 .562 28. I quite enjoy taking risks. 4.37 1.59 .827 29. I would enjoy parachute jumping. 3.86 2.13 .763 30. I welcome new and exciting experiences and sensations, even if they are a little frightening and unconventional. 4.64 1.62 .858 31. I would like to learn to fly an airplane. 3.77 2.12 .587 32. I sometimes like doing things that are a bit frightening. 4.31 1.78 .825 33. I would enjoy the sensation of skiing very fast down a high mountain slope. 4.11 1.97 .679 34. I would like to go scuba diving. [Eliminated] 4.84 1.91 .323 35. I would enjoy fast driving. 4.91 1.83 .675 Perseverance 36. I generally like to see things through to the end. 5.83 1.09 .634 37. I tend to give up easily. [Eliminated] 5.53 1.47 .438 38. Unfinished tasks really bother me. [Eliminated] 5.40 1.46 .464 39. Once I get going on something I hate to stop. 5.56 1.21 .597 40. I concentrate easily. 4.97 1.50 .565 41. I finish what I start. 5.52 1.26 .784 42. I’m pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time. 5.21 1.38 .697 43. I am a productive person who always gets the job done. 5.57 1.23 .809 44. Once I start a project, I almost always finish it. 5.63 1.22 .834 45. There are so many jobs that need to be done that I sometimes just ignore them. [Eliminated] 4.74 1.79 .415

JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 187 Daily Fantasy Football (Gambling) Related Cognitions Scale Mean St. Dev. Loading Gambling Expectations 1. Daily fantasy football makes me happier. [Eliminated] 5.82 1.12 .409 2. Daily fantasy football makes things seem better. 3.85 1.79 .806 3. Daily fantasy football makes the future brighter. 3.20 1.79 .793 4. Playing daily fantasy football helps reduce tension and stress. 4.42 1.71 .593 Inability to Stop Gambling 5. I can’t function without daily fantasy football. 2.38 1.67 .764 6. It is difficult to stop playing daily fantasy football as I am so out of control. 2.07 1.60 .859 7. My desire to play daily fantasy football is so overpowering. 2.33 1.76 .882 8. I’m not strong enough to stop playing daily fantasy football. 2.02 1.69 .732 9. I will never be able to stop playing daily fantasy football. 2.17 1.77 .846 Illusion of Control 10. Praying helps me win. 2.07 1.69 .605 11. Specific players help increase my chance of winning. [Eliminated] 4.74 1.91 .355 12. I have specific rituals and behaviors that increase my chances of winning. 2.49 1.85 .665 Predictive Control 13. Losses when playing fantasy football are bound to be followed by a series of wins. 3.40 1.72 .832 14. A series of losses will provide me with a learning experience that will help me win later. 4.09 1.76 .761 15. When I win once, I will definitely win again. 4.45 1.71 .633 16. There are times that I feel lucky and thus, I play daily fantasy football those times only. 2.52 1.82 .658 17. I have some control over predicting my daily fantasy football wins. [Eliminated] 4.04 1.77 .410 18. If I keep changing my players, I have less chances of winning than if I keep the same players every time. 3.28 1.65 .500 [Eliminated] Interpretive Bias 19. Relating my winnings to my skill and ability makes me continue playing daily fantasy football. 4.53 1.64 .816 20. Relating my losses to bad luck and bad circumstances makes me continue playing daily fantasy football. 3.06 1.75 .783 21. Relating my losses to probability makes me continue playing daily fantasy football. 3.99 1.60 .635 22. Remembering how much money I won last time makes me continue playing daily fantasy football. 3.24 1.98 .669 Note. Daily fantasy football was replaced with fantasy football for the TFS subsample. Adapted from “The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): Development, Confirmatory Factor Validation and Psychometric Properties,” by N. Raylu and T. P. Oei, (2004), Addiction, 99(6), pp. 757–769. Copyright 2004 by Wiley & Sons.

Attachment to Football (Robinson & Trail, 2005) Mean SD Loading 1. First and foremost, I consider myself a football fan. 5.34 1.62 .844 2. Football is my favorite sport. 5.60 1.79 .849 3. I am football fan at all levels (e.g., high school, college, and professional). 5.22 1.79 .707 Note. All measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale.

188 JSM Vol. 33, No. 3, 2019 Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.