ABSTRACT
The final analysis of the data for men ironically presents a position that would have been inferred from a combination of the theorizations of Devereux and Herman. It is also compatible with simple anomie theory, and aligns with some of the preconceptions about the relationship between gambling and uses of leisure. (Newman has also suggested that ‘hobbies’ as a pursuit cut across that of gambling.) There appears to be something for everyone here, whereas in our initial theory-testing there was nothing for anybody. How did this transformation of the relationship between theories and data come about?
