The gambler's fallacy in retrospect

Oppenheimer and Monin (2009) recently found that subjectively rare events are taken to indicate a longer preceding sequence of unobserved trials than subjectively common events, an effect which they refer to as the retrospective gambler's fallacy. The current paper extends this idea to the situ...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: William J. Matthews
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Society for Judgment and Decision Making 2010-04-01
Series:Judgment and Decision Making
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.sjdm.org/10/10319/jdm10319.pdf
id doaj-b748b7f3f2e74eeab492132781091aaf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b748b7f3f2e74eeab492132781091aaf2021-05-02T10:20:44ZengSociety for Judgment and Decision MakingJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752010-04-0152133137The gambler's fallacy in retrospectWilliam J. MatthewsOppenheimer and Monin (2009) recently found that subjectively rare events are taken to indicate a longer preceding sequence of unobserved trials than subjectively common events, an effect which they refer to as the retrospective gambler's fallacy. The current paper extends this idea to the situation where participants judge the likelihood of streak continuation. Participants were told about a streak produced by a random process (coin flips) or human performance (basketball shots), and either predicted the next outcome or inferred the immediately preceding outcome. For the coin scenarios, participants tended to expect streak termination -- the gambler's fallacy --- and this effect was the same for predictions and retrospective inferences. In the basketball scenarios, no overall bias was found in either prospective or retrospective judgments. The results support Oppenheimer and Monin's suggestion that reconstruction of the past entails the same heuristics as prediction of the future; they also support the idea that the nature of the data-generating process is a key determinant of whether people fall into the gambler's fallacy. It is suggested that the term retrospective gambler's fallacy be used to describe situations where a streak is taken to indicate that the preceding unobserved outcome was of the opposite type, and that the phenomenon discovered by Oppenheimer and Monin be referred to as retrospective representativeness, or a retrospective belief in the law of small numbers. http://journal.sjdm.org/10/10319/jdm10319.pdfgambler's fallacy; hot hand fallacy; representativeness; retrospective gambler's fallacyNAKeywords
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author William J. Matthews
spellingShingle William J. Matthews
The gambler's fallacy in retrospect
Judgment and Decision Making
gambler's fallacy; hot hand fallacy; representativeness; retrospective gambler's fallacyNAKeywords
author_facet William J. Matthews
author_sort William J. Matthews
title The gambler's fallacy in retrospect
title_short The gambler's fallacy in retrospect
title_full The gambler's fallacy in retrospect
title_fullStr The gambler's fallacy in retrospect
title_full_unstemmed The gambler's fallacy in retrospect
title_sort gambler's fallacy in retrospect
publisher Society for Judgment and Decision Making
series Judgment and Decision Making
issn 1930-2975
publishDate 2010-04-01
description Oppenheimer and Monin (2009) recently found that subjectively rare events are taken to indicate a longer preceding sequence of unobserved trials than subjectively common events, an effect which they refer to as the retrospective gambler's fallacy. The current paper extends this idea to the situation where participants judge the likelihood of streak continuation. Participants were told about a streak produced by a random process (coin flips) or human performance (basketball shots), and either predicted the next outcome or inferred the immediately preceding outcome. For the coin scenarios, participants tended to expect streak termination -- the gambler's fallacy --- and this effect was the same for predictions and retrospective inferences. In the basketball scenarios, no overall bias was found in either prospective or retrospective judgments. The results support Oppenheimer and Monin's suggestion that reconstruction of the past entails the same heuristics as prediction of the future; they also support the idea that the nature of the data-generating process is a key determinant of whether people fall into the gambler's fallacy. It is suggested that the term retrospective gambler's fallacy be used to describe situations where a streak is taken to indicate that the preceding unobserved outcome was of the opposite type, and that the phenomenon discovered by Oppenheimer and Monin be referred to as retrospective representativeness, or a retrospective belief in the law of small numbers.
topic gambler's fallacy; hot hand fallacy; representativeness; retrospective gambler's fallacyNAKeywords
url http://journal.sjdm.org/10/10319/jdm10319.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT williamjmatthews thegamblersfallacyinretrospect
AT williamjmatthews gamblersfallacyinretrospect
_version_ 1721493002902306816