Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are the Gambler’s Fallacy or the Hot-Hand Fallacy due to an Erroneous Probability Estimate?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multidisciplinary Approaches to Neural Computing

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 69))

  • 1459 Accesses

Abstract

Through two experiments we investigated, in a laboratory setting, whether a series of identical outcomes in a supposed random game would induce the gambler’s fallacy or the hot-hand fallacy. By using two indices of fallacy, the choice of a card on which to bet and the probability estimate of the occurrence of a given outcome, we tested explicitly the widely accepted hypothesis that the two fallacies were based on erroneous probability estimates. Moreover, we investigated whether fallacies increase the proneness to bet. Our results support the occurrence of the gambler’s fallacy rather than the hot-hand fallacy but suggest that choice and probability estimates are two reciprocally independent processes. Finally, probability estimates predict the amount bet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As specified in the Materials and Procedure Section of the Experiment 1, high cards were the cards with numbers from 6 to 10 and low cards were those with numbers from 1 to 5. Note that in the deck of cards there were four types of cards, each of them having a number from 1 to 10.

  2. 2.

    At the request of a reviewer, we specified the following: Since the dependent variable was dichotomous (high versus low card), it was recoded as a single dummy variable: 1 = high card; 0 = low card. Then, the one-way ANOVA was performed on the proportion of high cards chosen by the participants (note that the proportion of low cards can be obtained through subtraction).

  3. 3.

    Note that no significant effect emerged even from the analyses performed by treating the probability estimate as a continuous variable. The linear regression carried out to test the effect of experimental conditions (coded as two dummy variables) on probability estimate showed no relationship between the variables. Even the point-biserial correlation coefficient did not show any significant relationship between the choice of the card (coded as dummy variable) and the probability of its drawing.

References

  1. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychol. Bull. 76, 105–110 (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cognit. Psychol. 3, 430–454 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xue, G., He, Q., Lei, X., Chen, C., Liu, Y., Chen, C., Lu, Z.L., Dong, Q., Bechara, A.: The gambler’s fallacy is associated with weak affective decision making but strong cognitive ability. PLoS ONE 7, 1–5 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Studer, B., Limbrick-Oldfield, E.H., Clark, L.: ‘Put your money where your mouth is!’: effects of streaks on confidence and betting in a binary choice task. J. Behav. Dec. Mak. 28, 239–249 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jarvik, M.E.: Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols. J. Exp. Psychol. 41, 291–297 (1951)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ayton, P., Fischer, I.: The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy: two faces of subjective randomness? Mem. Cognit. 32, 1369–1378 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Croson, R., Sundali, J.: The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: empirical data from casinos. J. Risk. Uncertainty 30, 195–209 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Xu, J., Harvey, N.: Carry on winning: the gamblers’ fallacy creates hot hand effects in online gambling. Cognition 131, 173–180 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., Tversky, A.: The hot hand in basketball: on the misperception of random sequences. Cognit. Psychol. 17, 295–314 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burns, B.D., Corpus, B.: Randomness and inductions from streaks: “gambler’s fallacy” versus “hot hand”. Psycho. B. Rev. 11, 179–184 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boynton, D.M.: Superstitious responding and frequency matching in the positive bias and gambler’s fallacy effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 91, 119–127 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sundali, J., Croson, R.: Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy. Judg. Dec. Mak. 1, 1–12 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Suetens, S., Galbo-Jørgensen, C.B., Tyran, J.R.: Predicting lotto numbers: a natural experiment on the gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand fallacy. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. https://www.eeassoc.org/doc/upload/Suetens-Galbo-Tyran20150511042958.pdf. (2015)

  14. Braga, J., Ferreira, M.B., Sherman, S.J.: Disentangling availability from representativeness: gambler’s fallacy under pressure. In: Andrade, C., Garcia, J., Fernandes, S., Palma, T., Silva, V.H., Castro, P. (eds.) Research directions in social and organizational psychology, pp. 109–124. Edições Sílabo, Lisboa (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Marklein, F., Sunde, U.: Biased probability judgment: evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 72, 903–915 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rabin, M.: Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Q. J. Econ. 117(3), 775–816 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Stöckl, T., Huber, J., Kirchler, M., Lindner, F.: Hot hand and gambler’s fallacy in teams: evidence from investment experiments. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 117, 327–339 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clark, L.: Decision-making during gambling: an integration of cognitive and psychobiological approaches. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 319–330 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fortune, E.E., Goodie, A.S: Cognitive distortions as a component and treatment focus of pathological gambling: a review. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 26, 298–310 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Koehler, J.J., Conley. C.A.: The “hot hand” myth in professional basketball. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 25, 253–259 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chen, D.L., Moskowitz, T.J., Shue, K.S.: Decision-making under the gambler’s fallacy: evidence from asylum judges, loan officers, and baseball umpires. Fama-Miller Working Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2538147 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2538147. (2016). Accessed SSRN

  22. Clark, L., Studer, B., Bruss, J., Tranel, D., Bechara, A.: Damage to insula abolishes cognitive distortions during simulated gambling. PNAS 111, 6098–6103 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Navarrete, G., Santamaría, C.: Adding possibilities can reduce the gambler’s fallacy: a naïve-probability paradox. J. Cognit. Psychol. 24, 306–312 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Roney, C.J., Trick, L.M.: Grouping and gambling: a gestalt approach to understanding the gambler’s fallacy. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 57, 69–75 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lyons, J., Weeks, D.J., Elliott, D.: The gambler’s fallacy: a basic inhibitory process? Front. Psychol. 4, 72 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marmurek, H.H.C., Switzer, J., D’Alvise, J.: Impulsivity, gambling cognitions, and the gambler’s fallacy in university students. J. Gambl. Stud. 31, 197–210 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Evans, J.S.B., Stanovich, K.E.: Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 223–241 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F.: Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Method 40, 879–891 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hayes, A.F., Preacher, K.J.: Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 67, 451–470 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Zajonc, R.B.: Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol. 35, 151–175 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy

    Olimpia Matarazzo, Michele Carpentieri, Claudia Greco & Barbara Pizzini

Authors
  1. Olimpia Matarazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michele Carpentieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudia Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara Pizzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olimpia Matarazzo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Caserta, Italy

    Anna Esposito

  2. Fundació Tecnocampus, Pompeu Fabra University, Mataro, Spain

    Marcos Faudez-Zanuy

  3. Department of Civil, Environmental, Energy, and Material Engineering, Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy

    Francesco Carlo Morabito

  4. Dipartimento di Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni, Politecnico di Torino, Laboratorio di Neuronica, Torino, Italy

    Eros Pasero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Matarazzo, O., Carpentieri, M., Greco, C., Pizzini, B. (2018). Are the Gambler’s Fallacy or the Hot-Hand Fallacy due to an Erroneous Probability Estimate?. In: Esposito, A., Faudez-Zanuy, M., Morabito, F., Pasero, E. (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to Neural Computing. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 69. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56904-8_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56904-8_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56903-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56904-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation