Content uploaded by Itzhak Harpaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Itzhak Harpaz on Oct 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Work Centrality and Post-Award Work
Behavior of Lottery Winners
RICHARD D. ARVEY
Department of Human Resources and Industrial Relations
University of Minnesota
ITZHAK HARPAZ
Center for the Study of Organizations and Human Resource Management
University of Haifa, Israel
HUI LIAO
School of Management and Labor Relations
Rutgers University
ABSTRACT. Individuals who had won the lottery responded to a survey concerning
whether they had continued to work after winning. They were also asked to indicate how
important work was in their life using items and scales commonly used to measure work
centrality. The authors predicted that whether lottery winners would continue to work
would be related to their level of work centrality as well as to the amount of their win-
nings. Individuals who won large amounts in the lottery would be less likely to quit work
if they had relatively greater degrees of work centrality. After controlling for a number of
variables (i.e., age, gender, education, occupation, and job satisfaction), results indicated
that work centrality and the amount won were significantly related to whether individuals
continued to work and, as predicted, the interaction between the two was also significant-
ly related to work continuance.
Key words: importance of work, job satisfaction, lottery winners, work behavior, work
centrality
THE RECENT FRENZY IN THE LOTTERY in which the potential winnings
exceeded $250 million (i.e., Powerball) perhaps induced many people to fanta-
size about what they would do if they actually won. A popular belief presumes
that most people would quit work if they won. But do individuals who win the
lottery continue to work, and if so, why? One proposition is that work centrality
could play an important role. Work centrality has been defined as the degree of
general importance that working has in one’s life at any given time (MOW—
International Research Team, 1987) and can be distinguished from other related
concepts such as work engagement and the inverse concept of work alienation
(Hirschfeld & Field, 2000). “People who consider work as a central life interest
The Journal of Psychology, 2004, 138(5), 404–420
404
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 405
have a strong identification with work in the sense that they believe the work role
to be an important and central part of their lives” (Hirschfeld & Field, p. 790).
Work centrality has been explored by a variety of researchers across a num-
ber of cultural settings, and the finding that work plays a central and fundamen-
tal role in the life of an individual has been supported empirically in most indus-
trialized countries (Brief & Nord, 1990; England & Misumi, 1986; Mannheim,
1993; Mannheim, Baruch, & Tal, 1997). In addition, work has been found to be
of relatively high importance compared with other important life areas such as
leisure, community, and religion, and has been found to rank second in impor-
tance only to family (Harding & Hikspoors, 1995; Harpaz, 1999; MOW—Inter-
national Research Team, 1987). Research has also been conducted exploring the
antecedents and consequences of work centrality, showing that work centrality is
related to a number of personal, demographic, job, and organizational character-
istics. See Mannheim et al. and Sverko and Vizek-Vidovic (1995) for reviews.
Work centrality has been linked to the lottery in several ways. Previously,
researchers have asked the so-called lottery question to survey participants. The
lottery question generally takes the form of asking survey respondents to indicate
whether or not they would continue to work if they won a substantial amount of
money in the lottery. These responses are then correlated with measures of work
centrality as a means of verifying the validity of the work centrality measures and
construct. Theoretically, individuals who view work as central and important in
their lives will continue to work after winning the lottery.
Prior research shows a significant and positive relationship between the two
types of measures in representative samples of the labor force in seven countries
(MOW—International Research Team, 1987), although the observed relationship
is modest. In addition, prior research has used the proportion of individuals who
indicate that they would continue to work if they had won the lottery as evidence
for the potential waning value of work over time (Vecchio, 1980) as well as for
comparing the importance of work across international cultures (e.g., Harpaz,
1989; Ruiz-Quintanilla & Wilpert, 1991).
There are good theoretical rationales for why such a relationship would
exist. Two perspectives have been advanced to explain the centrality of work. The
first emphasizes an instrumental or extrinsic perspective in which work is seen as
a means to acquire economic security and to secure material needs. The second
perspective, an intrinsic one, is that work is important in securing the sociopsy-
chological needs of individuals—that is, work contributes to one’s sense of per-
sonal identity, self-esteem, status, and sense of accomplishment.
The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives has received
considerable support and discussion in the research literature (Kanungo, 1982;
Loscocco, 1989; Pinder, 1998; Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999; Warr, 1982). The
Address correspondence to Richard D. Arvey, Department of Human Resources and
Industrial Relations, 3-279 Carlson School of Management, 321 19th Avenue South, Min-
neapolis, MN 55455; rarvey@csom.umn.edu (e-mail).
406 The Journal of Psychology
notion advanced is quite simple: Relative to the work behavior of lottery winners,
individuals who win the lottery will have their financial and security needs taken
care of but will continue to work if they view work as important or central in their
lives, particularly if they view work as providing a sense of identity, esteem, sta-
tus, and other nonfinancial outcomes.
It is interesting to note, however, that prior research on the relationship
between the explicit concept of work centrality and the lottery question has used
samples in which no one had actually won the lottery. That is, the question posed
was entirely theoretical in nature. The present study differed in that we used an
actual sample of lottery winners, some of whom continued to work and some
who stopped working.
Although rare, there has been prior research using lottery winners as sample
subjects. Kaplan conducted three different research projects on the work behav-
ior of lottery winners, investigating the percentages of winners who chose to con-
tinue to work (Kaplan, 1978, 1985, 1988). He showed that continuing to work
was related to education and to the type of profession in which the respondents
were working at the time they won the lottery. Several additional studies of lot-
tery winners were conducted by economists and psychologists. These studies
focused mainly on how winning (the income effect) had affected consumption
(Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978; Gardener & Oswald, 2001; Imbens,
Rubin, & Sacerdote, 2001).
None of these researchers, however, explicitly measured work centrality and
its relationship to the decision among lottery winners to continue or discontinue
to work. Thus, this study was the first effort to explore the relationship between
a direct measure of work centrality and the post-lottery work behavior of actual
lottery winners. On the basis of prior research and theorizing, we advanced the
following propositions:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals who exhibit relatively high levels of work centrality
will be more likely to continue working after winning the lottery than will indi-
viduals who exhibit relatively lower levels of work centrality.
Drawing on the earlier description of the extrinsic nature of work in provid-
ing financial and economic stability, we also predicted that the greater the
amount won, the less likely an individual would continue to work, because finan-
cial freedom would be assured. Several researchers have shown a negative rela-
tionship between the size of the winnings and the continuance of work. Kaplan
(1978) found that nearly 80% of $1 million dollar winners quit working, where-
as only about 25% of the $50,000 dollar winners resigned from their jobs. Sim-
ilar results were reported by Kaplan (1985). Imbens et al. (2001) conducted a
mail survey of lottery winners (n = 802) and found that individuals who won rel-
atively larger prizes ($80,000 rather than $15,000 per year) reduced the number
of hours they worked. Thus, we advanced the following proposition:
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 407
Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant relationship between the amount of the
lottery prize and continuing to work. Individuals who win relatively large
amounts of money will be less likely to continue work.
There is a reason to believe that an interaction would exist between work
centrality and the amount of the prize. Although work centrality might be an
important variable in predicting whether an individual will continue to work after
winning the lottery, it may be that those who win lesser amounts of money will
continue to work simply because they cannot afford to quit, whereas for those
who win larger amounts, work centrality will become a more important predic-
tor of work continuance.
Hypothesis 3: There will be an interaction between the amount of the lottery
prize and work centrality. Individuals who win larger amounts will be less likely
to quit work if they have relatively greater degrees of work centrality.
Control Variables
We examined the following additional variables that we felt would be relat-
ed to the post-lottery work behavior of winners
Gender. Limited evidence suggests that gender is related to whether one quits
work after winning the lottery. Kaplan (1978) found that men had a higher ten-
dency than did women to continue working after winning the lottery. In a study
by Harpaz (1990), differences also were found between Israeli men and women
with regard to the hypothetical lottery question. Although work was considered
relatively important for both sexes, significantly more women indicated that they
would quit working if they had the opportunity to do so. In neither of these stud-
ies, however, were there any controls for work centrality, and there has been
some evidence that men exhibit significantly higher work centrality regardless of
country of origin or cultural orientation (Harpaz & Fu, 1997; Isaksson & Gunn,
2000). Thus, an analysis of this issue is still in an exploratory phase, but based
on these prior studies, we controlled for gender in this study.
Age. Some evidence also exists that age is related to the decision to quit work after
winning the lottery. Kaplan’s (1985) study of actual lottery winners revealed that
a greater proportion of younger individuals (under age 50) stopped working com-
pared with a relatively older group of winners. Kaplan (1988) found similar
results. It is also interesting to note that age cohort differences were observed in
terms of a stated desire to continue to work after winning the lottery. An exami-
nation of responses to the hypothetical lottery question in Israel revealed that from
the early 1970s to the 1990s there was an increase in the wishes of younger indi-
viduals (particularly those between the ages of 20 to 29 years) to discontinue
408 The Journal of Psychology
working if they won the lottery (Harpaz, 1990; Mannheim & Rein, 1981). How-
ever, another study by Kaplan (1985) showed that older winners (over 60) were
much more likely to quit or retire from work. Because the results of these studies
indicated that age may be related to the continuance of work, we controlled for
age in this study.
Education. Evidence also shows that educational level is related to whether indi-
viduals continue to work after winning the lottery. Kaplan (1987) found that the
lower the educational level of winners, the greater the number of lottery winners
who quit, retired, or reduced the number of hours worked. Also, in a study con-
ducted with a representative sample of the Israeli labor force, education was one
of the more important variables predicting work continuation in the event of
hypothetically winning the lottery. More highly educated individuals indicated
that they would be less likely to quit (Harpaz, 1990). Thus, we controlled for
level of education in this study.
Occupational status. Kaplan (1987) showed that the greatest proportion of work-
ers who remained in their jobs were professional, managers or proprietors, and
craftsmen, but those less likely to remain in their jobs after winning were those
in relatively low status occupations (e.g., laborers, operatives, and sales workers).
For this reason, we controlled for occupational status in this study.
Job satisfaction. The organizational literature suggests that individuals are more
likely to quit if they had been or were dissatisfied with their jobs. Job satisfac-
tion plays a major role in virtually all turnover theories and operates as a key psy-
chological correlate in most turnover studies (see Lee, Mitchell, Holtom,
McDaniel, & Hill, 1999). Job satisfaction has shown statistically significant cor-
relations with turnover in several meta-analyses (e.g., Hom, Caranikas-Walker,
Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Tett & Meyer, 1993). On the basis of this voluminous
job satisfaction–turnover research, job satisfaction was controlled for in this
study, although no previous research has examined the role of job satisfaction in
lottery winners’ decisions to continue or stop working.
Method
Data Collection and Participants
We obtained the mailing addresses for the 1,265 lottery winners in the state
of Ohio for the period of 1989 to 1999 from the Ohio Lottery Commission. In
addition, we obtained the mailing addresses for 72 of the lottery winners in Iowa
for the period of 1985 to 1999 through the Iowa Lottery Public Affairs Office. We
then mailed a packet containing a questionnaire, a cover letter requesting partici-
pation in the survey and ensuring strict confidentiality, and a pre-addressed and
postage-paid return envelope to each of these 1,337 lottery winners.
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 409
Of the packets, 174 were returned for wrong or outdated mailing addresses.
Because we had promised the participants anonymity, the return envelopes were
not coded with individual identification beforehand to match the returned survey.
Two weeks after the first mailing, a reminder was sent. This procedure resulted
in 155 returned questionnaires. To increase the response rate, we randomly chose
500 useable addresses from the total list of 1,163 lottery winners, and sent out
another questionnaire packet. Because we did not know who had returned their
surveys and who had not, the sample of 500 may have contained both the respon-
dents and the nonrespondents in our first mailing. Following the second mailing,
30 additional surveys were returned. Three individuals stated that they had
returned their surveys in the first round and did not complete it a second time.
In total, 185 surveys were received out of those 1,163 that were successful-
ly delivered, representing a response rate of 16%. According to Kaplan (1985),
winners might be reluctant to respond to any kind of solicitation, given the sub-
stantial number of solicitations and requests that fall on them after winning.
However, Kaplan (1987) reported a response rate of 24% when surveying lottery
winners, whereas Imbens et al. (2001) reported a response rate of 42% when they
surveyed lottery winners. Thus, there appears to be considerable variability in
response rates when surveying this kind of sample.
To further test the assumption that individuals who responded did not sig-
nificantly differ from those who declined to participate, and following the sug-
gestion provided by Dooley and Lindner (2003) concerning how to handle non-
response error, we examined the mean differences on all items of the
questionnaire by the 155 respondents of the first round in contrast with the 30
individuals who responded to the second questionnaire. Dooley and Lindner
argued that second-round respondents would be more similar in their character-
istics to the nonrespondents than would first-round respondents; therefore, by
comparing them with the first round respondents, we could speak of possible
similarities or differences between the general nonrespondents and respondents.
Out of all 56 possible tests (t tests and chi-squares), which included all of the
study’s variables (including indices to be described later) as well as age, gender,
education, occupation, tenure, and amount won, only one item showed a statisti-
cally significant difference between the two groups (“How satisfied are you with
your current job?”). The early respondents were more satisfied (M = 4.11) than
were the late respondents (M = 3.45), t (183) = 2.23, p < .05. However, because
of the large number of tests computed, this difference could be a chance result.
In addition, 49 respondents provided their names and addresses on return
envelopes, so we were able to match them with the information we obtained from
the Ohio State Lottery Commission. We first compared the group of respondents
who provided their names and addresses with those who did not provide their
names and address and found they did not differ in terms of the amount they won
in the lottery, t(183) = –.176, p > .1. We then compared this group of respondents
with the rest of the winners (including both nonrespondents and those who
410 The Journal of Psychology
responded but did not provide their names or addresses) for the variables of gender
and amount of the lottery prizes. Again, we found there was no statistically signif-
icant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, t(1,161) = .094, p > .1,
or the amount won, t(1,161) = 1.29, p > .1. These results provided additional evi-
dence that the respondent sample was representative of the lottery winners.
After removing from the sample 16 respondents who were retired prior to
winning the lottery, and listwise deletion of cases with missing information, the
final sample consisted of 117 individuals, 37% women and 63% men. Their
mean age at the time of winning the lottery was 43 years, with an average of 14
years of education. The mean number of dependents was two. With regard to
occupational category, 17% were managers, 26% were professionals, 26% were
engaged in other types of white-collar occupations such as sales and clerical
workers, and 31% were blue-collar workers.
The average lottery winning was $3.63 million in terms of 1999 dollars after
adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, 2002) and winnings ranged from $23,000 to $31.8 million.
Measures
Dependent variable. Respondents were asked to answer a question concerning
what they did after winning the lottery with regard to their work or job and were
given various response options. The first option was “I stopped working alto-
gether.” Six other options offered various types of work activities and arrange-
ments such as part- or full-time employment with the same or another organiza-
tion as well as starting one’s own business.
Work centrality. We combined two scales to construct the work centrality index.
The first scale was adapted from the Meaning of Work study (MOW—Interna-
tional Research Team, 1987) and was a Likert-type scale in which each respon-
dent indicated the general importance of work in one’s life ranging from low (1)
to high (7). This was the standard item used by researchers in the Meaning of
Work project.
The second scale was adapted from the Work Involvement Questionnaire
(Kanungo, 1982), for which respondents specified their agreement ranging from
strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) to the following six items:
1. The most important things that happen in life involve work;
2. Work is something people should get involved in most of the time;
3. Work should be only a small part of one’s life (reverse scored);
4. Work should be considered central to life;
5. In my view, an individual’s personal life goals should be work-oriented;
and
6. Life is worth living only when people get absorbed in work.
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 411
One important question had to do with the relative stability of this work cen-
trality construct over time, given that the respondents were measured shortly
after they had won the lottery as well as a considerable time after their winning,
in which the measurement period in some cases was 12 years. We obviously were
unable to measure the work centrality of respondents before winning the lottery,
but other research supports the view that this construct is relatively stable across
time. Mannheim (1993) reported that in her various studies, no significant
changes in the work centrality of Israeli men and women occurred between 1971
and 1983. A more recent study assessing the stability of the meaning of work
concept among Israeli workers found that the measure was relatively stable over
a 12-year time period (Harpaz & Fu, 2002).
Amount won. As noted previously, respondents indicated the total amount they
won (before taxes) in the lottery. We adjusted the variable for inflation by using
the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002) because the awards
spanned the years between 1985 and 1999.
Control variables. Respondents also indicated their gender (male = 1, female =
0), age (adjusted for what their age was when winning the lottery), number of
dependents, years of education, and the job they held when they won the lottery.
Jobs were coded by occupational category: blue-collar, professional, managerial,
and other white-collar occupations. Blue-collar occupation was used as the com-
parison group and omitted from the regression analyses.
We also measured respondents’ overall satisfaction with their current job (if
they continued working after winning the lottery). The item used was “How sat-
isfied are you with your current work/job?” with the measurement scale ranging
from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. A similar item was used to assess satis-
faction with the respondents’ past job (if they had stopped working after winning
the lottery) using the same 5-option scale.
Data Analysis
To test the hypotheses in which the dependent variable of “quit or continue
working” was measured as a dichotomous variable, we applied a binomial logis-
tic regression model. A hierarchical multiple regression procedure was used to
estimate the model. First, for each individual we included gender, age, years of
education, number of dependents, dummy-coded variables for occupations (with
blue-collar jobs as the omitted occupation), and job satisfaction as control vari-
ables. We also included a year variable to control for any specific effect associat-
ed with the year in which the individual had won the lottery. The amount of the
winning prize was then entered into the model, followed by the work centrality
variable, and subsequently the interaction between the amount won and work cen-
trality. We adopted the method recommended by Aiken and West (1991, pp.
412 The Journal of Psychology
29–48) and Smith and Sasaki (1979) for examining interactions in regression
methods where we first “centered” or linearly rescaled each of the two variables
by subtracting the mean from each person’s score for each variable to reduce the
effect of multicollinarity between the interacting term and the related main effects.
Finally, we used one-tailed tests to determine the statistical significance of
hypothesized relationships and two-tailed tests to determine the significance of
control variables.
Results
With regard to the dependent variable of interest, whether individuals quit
work or not, the percentage corresponding to the various response options were
as follows:
1. “I stopped working for a while then started working again” (6%);
2. “I continued working part time at the same organization” (11%);
3. “I continued working part time at a different organization” (3%);
4. “I continued working full time at the same organization” (63%); “I con-
tinued working full time at a different organization” (3%); and
5. “I started my own business” (10%).
Respondents were classified as having discontinued work if they responded
affirmatively to the first option. We considered individuals to be working if they
were engaged in regular jobs for which wages were being paid, regular hours
maintained, and so forth. The majority of lottery winners in our sample contin-
ued to work after winning (n = 100 or 85.5%); 17 individuals opted to quit work-
ing (14.5%).
The percentage of individuals in our sample who quit working was compa-
rable to results in other studies. For example, Kaplan (1985) found that 11% of
individuals who won the lottery quit work. Note that the percentages of different
options do not add to 100% because several respondents indicated more than one
option. However, respondents who chose the first option (i.e., stopped working
altogether) did not check any of the other options.
The mean on the first work centrality scale on which respondents indicated
the importance of work in their lives was 3.00 (SD = .77). An examination of the
frequency and percentage scores for a larger U.S. sample (MOW—International
Research Team, 1987) on this same item showed that the 117 individuals in our
present sample reported a reduced importance of work centrality. Only 65.8% of
our sample responded with 5 or more on this item scale (indicating the relative-
ly greater importance of work) compared with 81.2% of the larger U.S. sample
of 1,000. However, this difference was somewhat difficult to interpret because
the U.S. sample was surveyed in 1982—almost a 20 year difference. Data that
closely matched our current sample of lottery winners from relatively large rep-
resentative samples in other countries were also available for 1982. In Belgium,
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 413
65.6% responded with 5 or more on this item scale; in Germany the percentage
was 64.1, in Israel 69.4, in Japan 74.4, and in the United Kingdom, 58%
(MOW—International Research Team, 1987).
The six items from the second work centrality scale drawn from the Work
Involvement Questionnaire demonstrated an internal consistency reliability esti-
mate of .82. Principle-component factor analysis of these six items together with
the 1-item scale described earlier revealed only one factor with an eigenvalue
larger than 1, accounting for 50.45% of the variance. All items loaded highly on
this factor, ranging from .55 to .82. Therefore we combined the standardized
composite score of the 6-item scale with the standardized score of the 1-item
scale to form the measure of work centrality. A one-way analysis of variance
revealed no significant relationship between the year the individual won the lot-
tery and the work centrality variable.
Table 1 depicts means, standard deviations, and correlations among the
study’s variables. These results indicated that only the amount of the lottery prize
and job satisfaction demonstrated significant binary correlations with the out-
come variable of quitting a job after winning the lottery (r = .40, p < .01 for
amount won, and r = –.19, p < .05 for job satisfaction).
Table 2 presents the results from the hierarchical logistical regressions. As a
block, the control variables included in the first step explained 14% of the vari-
ance for the variable of quit or continue working; the amount of lottery prize
explained 15% of the additional variance; work centrality explained a 5% addi-
tional variance; and the interaction term explained 4% additional variance.
The last column of Table 2 lists the estimates of the full model, which
accounted for 38% of the variance in quit or continue working among the sam-
ple of lottery winners. Among the control variables, job satisfaction demonstrat-
ed a statistically significant relationship with the quit or continue working vari-
able: Individuals who experienced higher satisfaction with their job were less
likely to quit after winning the lottery (
β
= –.59, p < .05). Additionally, age and
education level were marginally significant. Individuals with higher levels of
education were less likely to quit working (
β
= –.27, p < .10), whereas older indi-
viduals were more likely to stop working (
β
= .08, p < .10).
In accordance with our hypothesis, work centrality demonstrated a signifi-
cant coefficient (
β
= –.47, p < .05), indicating that there was a significantly lower
probability of quitting work when there were higher levels of work centrality.
Similarly, as predicted, the amount of lottery winnings was also significantly
related to whether respondents continued to work (
β
= .31, p < .001), with high-
er amounts associated with a higher probability of quitting work. As predicted,
the interaction between the amount of winnings and work centrality was signifi-
cant (
β
= –.06, p < .05). The negative coefficient indicated that the amount of
winnings moderated the relationship between work centrality and quitting work.
In other words the negative relationship between work centrality and quitting
work was stronger among large winners.
414 The Journal of Psychology
To depict the interaction graphically, we plotted slopes at three levels of
amount of winnings: at the lowest ($.02 million), the mean ($3.63 million), and
the highest ($31.8 million) of the sample. Figure 1 shows that work centrality
was more strongly and negatively related to quitting among individuals who won
a large amount of money.
In addition to the binomial logistic regression analyses reported here, we
also conducted multinomial logistic analyses, with a dependent multi-categorical
variable—working status after winning the lottery—coded as 1 if the respondent
stopped working altogether, coded as 2 if the respondent stopped working for a
period of time and then started working again, coded as 3 if the respondent con-
tinued working part time either at the same organization or at a different organi-
zation. We used those respondents who continued working full time either at the
same organization or at a different organization (including running their own
business) as the reference group.
The results were largely consistent with the binomial logistic regression and
showed a statistically significant difference between the first category (those who
stopped working altogether) and the reference group. In particular, higher job
satisfaction and higher work centrality decreased the likelihood of stopping
working compared with the likelihood of working full time (
β
= –.65, p < .05;
β
= –.50, p < .05, respectively). A relatively higher amount won in the lottery
increased the likelihood of stopping working compared with the likelihood of
TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among the Work
Centrality Variables (N = 117)
Variable MSD12
1. Quit 0.15 0.35 —
2. Years of education 13.97 2.27 –.13 —
3. Age 43.21 10.67 .18 .03
4. Gender
a
0.37 0.48 –.16 .06
5. Number of dependents 1.67 1.08 –.11 .03
6. Managerial occupation 0.17 0.38 –.12 .20
7. Professional occupation 0.26 0.44 –.02 .31
8. Other white-color occupations 0.26 0.44 –.02 –.06
9. Amount won 3.63 5.77 .40 .13
10. Job satisfaction 3.97 1.24 –.19 .14
11. Work centrality –0.06 1.65 –.07 .17
12. Amount Won × Work Centrality 1.45 10.50 .09 –.01
Note. Correlations (in absolute value) greater than .18 were significant at p < .05; greater than
.24 were significant at p < .01.
a
Coded as 1 = female, 0 = male.
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 415
working full time (
β
= .37, p < .001). There was also a significant negative inter-
action between amount won and work centrality (
β
= –.08, p < .05), indicating
that the positive relationship between the amount won and quitting decreased as
the level of work centrality increased.
Discussion
The results of this study confirmed the main hypothesis that lottery winners
would be less likely to stop working if work was important or central in their
lives relative to those who viewed work as less central in their lives. Lottery win-
ners were also more likely to quit working as a function of the amount of their
winnings. The greater the award, the more likely they were to stop working. Our
third hypothesis concerning an interaction between the amount won and work
centrality was also confirmed. Our finding showed that the relationship between
work centrality and the discontinuance of work was stronger among those who
won more, but no relationship existed for those who won less. However, the rela-
tionships observed, although significant, were relatively modest. It is clear that
winning the lottery does not automatically result in individuals’ stopping work.
Our findings indicated that the average amount won among those who chose
to continue working was relatively high ($2.59 million), suggesting a relatively
high monetary threshold for discontinuing work, and even among these high win-
34567 89101112
—
.18 —
.26 –.11 —
.06 .08 .06 —
.08 –.08 .06 –.27 —
–.01 .28 –.14 –.27 –.34 —
.06 –.13 –.18 –.02 .04 –.10 —
.19 –.01 –.04 .20 –.08 .00 .04 —
.26 –.17 –.10 .03 .03 –.01 .15 –.02 —
.12 –.04 –.11 –.10 –.03 –.07 .41 –.07 .01 —
416 The Journal of Psychology
ners, a sizable number still continued working. For instance, a 64-year old bus
driver who won $20 million dollars stated (in the open ended section of the ques-
tionnaire) that the “lottery is just a bonus that came my way, it has not or will not
affect my work habits and goals in life.”
These results confirm and develop the research based around the meaning
and interpretation of work centrality. First, support was provided for the idea that
work centrality is related to the decision to continue working among lottery win-
ners, using real winners instead of the hypothetical winners. Second, the finding
that the relationship was demonstrated while holding a number of other variables
constant (e.g., age, gender, number of dependents, education level, and job satis-
faction) provided a relatively stronger test of this relationship than in previous
research. Most prior research has examined the single-order correlation between
work centrality and the decision to quit after winning the lottery, without con-
trolling for other variables.
TABLE 2. Results of Logistic Regression Analyses for Quitting Job After
Winning a Lottery
β
a
Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Years of education –.13 –.28+ –.22 –.27+
Age .04 .05 .07+ .08+
Gender
b
–.96 –.89 –1.39 –1.72
Number of dependents –.34 –.06 –.10 –.15
Year –.09 –.11 –.15 –.11
Managerial occupation
c
–.91 –.54 –.43 –.70
Professional occupation –.30 –.25 –.15 –.06
Other white–collar
occupation .28 .31 .38 .60
Job satisfaction –.36+ –.46+ –.52* –.58*
Amount won (CPI adjusted) .18** .20*** .31***
Work centrality –.44* –.47*
Amount Won × Work
Centrality –.06*
Log likelihood –41.58 –34.32 –31.98 –30.15
χ
2
13.83 28.34*** 33.03*** 36.69***
Pseudo R
2
.14 .29 .34 .38
Note. All regressions included an intercept, which was removed from the table.
a
The beta reported is based on unstandardized coefficients. One-tailed tests performed for all
hypothesized variables and two-tailed tests for control variables.
b
Coded as 1 = female, 0 =
male.
c
The omitted comparison occupation category was blue-collar occupation.
+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 417
There were a number of limitations to our study. The most obvious was
whether the sample was representative of a larger population. Although we pro-
vided some support for the notion that the sample responding was similar to the
larger sample of lottery winners, there was still the possibility that those respond-
ing to our survey were different in some ways from a larger population. For
example, perhaps those who responded were more conscientious, or perhaps won
less, than those who did not respond.
Also, there is a question of whether lottery winners (and those who play the
lottery) are different from the general population. They may have different
motives from those in the larger population. Perhaps they are more economical-
ly needy, find the lottery and other types of gambling more interesting, or simply
enjoy taking risks. Although Kaplan (1987) challenged the myth that lottery tick-
et purchasers are greatly different from those who do not buy tickets, we did not
have sufficient data to examine this proposition, and thus the question of poten-
tial sampling bias remains.
Another limitation of the present study involved the conditional aspect of the
methodology. Individuals responded to our survey and scales after they had won
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Low High
Probability of Stopping Working
Amount = 31.8 million
Amount = 3.63 million
Amount = 0.02 million
FIGURE 1. The interaction between amount won (CPI adjusted) and work
centrality.
418 The Journal of Psychology
the lottery. Thus, it was possible that individuals changed their perceptions of
work centrality and other variables as a result of winning the lottery or as a func-
tion of the amount they won. We had no pre-winning assessment that we could
use to examine this issue. Nor did we have a control group of individuals who
bought lottery tickets but did not win. One indirect manner to examine this issue
is to review the relationship between the amount won and work centrality. If indi-
viduals changed their attitudes toward work as a result of winning the lottery, we
would also expect these attitudes to be related to the amount of winning. How-
ever, the relationship between amount won and work centrality within this sam-
ple was not significant, indicating little or no relationship between these two vari-
ables. Overall, however, this study was subject to many of the methodological
problems that are well known and associated with such a posttest only design
(Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
Our results suggest that individuals who have won the lottery do not auto-
matically quit working and that the centrality and importance of work in their
lives plays an important role in the decision to continue to work. It is also impor-
tant to note that, in the present study, although individuals may have continued
to work, they also may have modified the type and conditions of their work expe-
riences (e.g., by starting another business or by dropping to part-time work).
Future researchers might focus on the characteristics of work that predict the
alternative work arrangements chosen by lottery winners. In addition, because of
the small sample involved in the present study, future researchers should repli-
cate these findings in a larger and perhaps more representative sample.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accidents vic-
tims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 917–927.
Brief, A., & Nord, W. (1990). Work and meaning: Definitions and interpretations. In A.
Brief & W. Nord (Eds.), The meaning of occupational work (pp. 1–20). Lexington, MA:
Lexington.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2002). CPI—All Urban Con-
sumers (Old Series). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.toc.htm
Dooley, L. M., & Lindner, J. R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 99–111.
England, G. W., & Misumi, J. (1986). Work centrality in Japan and the United States.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 17, 399–416.
Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. (2001). Does money buy happiness? A longitudinal study using
data on windfalls. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/
fac/soc/Economics/oswald/marchwindfallsGO.pdf
Harding, S. H., & Hikspoors, F. J. (1995). New work values: In theory and in practice.
International Social Science Journal, 47, 441–455.
Harpaz, I. (1989). Non-financial employment commitment: A cross-national comparison.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 147–150.
Harpaz, I. (1990). The meaning of work in Israel: Its nature and consequences. New York:
Praeger.
Harpaz, I. (1999). The transformation of work values in Israel: Stability and change over
time. Monthly Labor Review, 122, 46–50.
Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. (1997). Work centrality in Germany, Israel, Japan, and the United
States. Cross-Cultural Research, 31, 171–200.
Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. (2002). The structure of the meaning of work: A relative stability
amidst change. Human Relations, 55, 639–668.
Hirschfeld, R. R., & Field, H. S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct
aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
789–800.
Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-ana-
lytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 890–909.
Imbens, G. W., Rubin, D. B., & Sacerdote, B. I. (2001). Estimating the effect of unearned
income on labor earnings, savings, and consumption: Evidence from a survey of lottery
players. American Economic Review, 91, 778–794.
Isaksson, K., & Gunn, J. (2000). Adaption to continued work and early retirement fol-
lowing downsizing: Long-term effects and gender differences. Journal of Occupation-
al and Organizational Psychology, 73, 241–257.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation: An integration approach. New York: Praeger.
Kaplan, H. R. (1978). Lottery winners: How they won and how winning changed their
lives. New York: Harper & Row.
Kaplan, H. R. (1985). Lottery winners and work commitment: A behavioral test of the
American work ethic. Journal of the Institute for Socioeconomic Studies, 10, 82–94.
Kaplan, H. R., (1987). Lottery winners: The myth and reality. Journal of Gambling
Behavior, 3, 168–178.
Kaplan, H. R. (1988). Gambling among lottery winners: Before and after the big score.
Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 171–182.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. (1999). The
unfolding model of voluntary turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 42, 450–462.
Loscocco, K. A. (1989). The instrumentally oriented factory worker: Myth or reality?
Work and Occupations, 16, 3–25.
Mannheim, B. (1993). Gender and the effects of demographics status and work values on
work centrality. Work and Occupations, 20, 3–22.
Mannheim, B., Baruch, Y., & Tal, J. (1997). Alternative models for antecedents and out-
comes of work centrality and job satisfaction of hi-tech personnel. Human Relations,
50, 1537–1562.
Mannheim, B., & Rein, J. (1981). Work centrality and different age groups and the wish
to discontinue work. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 13,
221–232.
MOW—International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of working. London: Acade-
mic Press.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An inte-
grated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and
the meaning of work. (1999). Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 49–71.
Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Wilpert, B. (1991). Are work meanings changing? European
Arvey, Harpaz, & Liao 419
Work and Organizational Psychology, 1, 91–109.
Smith, K. W., & Sasaki, M. S. (1979). Decreasing multicollinearity: A method for mod-
els with multiplicative functions. Sociological Methods and Research, 8, 35–56.
Sverko, B., & Vizek-Vidovic, V. (1995). Studies of the meaning of work: Approaches,
models, and some of the findings. In D. E. Super & B. Sverko (Eds.), Life roles, values,
and careers: International findings of the work importance study (pp. 3–22). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytical findings. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 259–293.
Vecchio, R. P. (1980). The function and meaning of work and the job: Morse and Weiss
(1955) revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 361–367.
Warr, P. N. (1982). A national study of non-financial employment commitment. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 55, 297–312.
Original manuscript received June 6, 2003
Final revision accepted November 22, 2003
420 The Journal of Psychology
