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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
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 |