Having a religious affiliation doesn't prevent betting on sports
A study finds that having a religious affiliation does not prevent individuals in the U.S. from betting on sports, with variations based on religious tradition and service attendance. Catholics, particularly Catholic men, are more likely to engage in sports gambling compared to other groups. Religious identity can both discourage and encourage gambling, depending on cultural and social factors.
- ▪People who attend religious services infrequently are more likely to gamble on sports than those who attend weekly or not at all.
- ▪Catholics, especially Catholic men, were found to be the most likely religious group to participate in sports betting.
- ▪Women, particularly those with religious affiliations, are less likely than men to place sports bets.
- ▪The study analyzed data from 3,701 adults collected between 2018 and 2019, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the federal ban on sports betting.
- ▪Researchers found that religion does not uniformly suppress sports gambling and that different religious traditions have varying relationships with gambling behaviors.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
April 28, 2026 Having a religious affiliation doesn't prevent betting on sports by Emily Caldwell, The Ohio State University edited by Stephanie Baum, reviewed by Andrew Zinin Stephanie Baum Scientific Editor Meet our editorial team Behind our editorial process Andrew Zinin Lead Editor Meet our editorial team Behind our editorial process Editors' notes This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: fact-checked trusted source proofread The GIST Add as preferred source Credit: Stefan Coders from Pexels Having a religious affiliation doesn't stop people from betting on sports in the United States, according to a new study.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Phys.org.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Phys.org
