The hot hand fallacy and the gambler's fallacy: two faces of subjective randomness?
- PMID: 15900930
- DOI: 10.3758/bf03206327
The hot hand fallacy and the gambler's fallacy: two faces of subjective randomness?
Abstract
The representativeness heuristic has been invoked to explain two opposing expectations--that random sequences will exhibit positive recency (the hot hand fallacy) and that they will exhibit negative recency (the gambler's fallacy). We propose alternative accounts for these two expectations: (1) The hot hand fallacy arises from the experience of characteristic positive recency in serial fluctuations in human performance. (2) The gambler's fallacy results from the experience of characteristic negative recency in sequences of natural events, akin to sampling without replacement. Experiment 1 demonstrates negative recency in subjects' expectations for random binary outcomes from a roulette game, simultaneously with positive recency in expectations for another statistically identical sequence-the successes and failures of their predictions for the random outcomes. These findings fit our proposal but are problematic for the representativeness account. Experiment 2 demonstrates that sequence recency influences attributions that human performance or chance generated the sequence.
Similar articles
-
An effect of inter-trial duration on the gambler's fallacy choice bias.Behav Processes. 2010 May;84(1):455-9. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.02.010. Epub 2010 Feb 20. Behav Processes. 2010. PMID: 20176090
-
Losses and External Outcomes Interact to Produce the Gambler's Fallacy.PLoS One. 2017 Jan 26;12(1):e0170057. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170057. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28125684 Free PMC article.
-
The number of available sample observations modulates gambler's fallacy in betting behaviors.Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 7;15(1):1205. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-84929-5. Sci Rep. 2025. PMID: 39775099 Free PMC article.
-
Predicting Outcomes in a Sequence of Binary Events: Belief Updating and Gambler's Fallacy Reasoning.Cogn Sci. 2023 Jan;47(1):e13211. doi: 10.1111/cogs.13211. Cogn Sci. 2023. PMID: 36680427 Free PMC article. Review.
-
What's next? Judging sequences of binary events.Psychol Bull. 2009 Mar;135(2):262-85. doi: 10.1037/a0014821. Psychol Bull. 2009. PMID: 19254080 Review.
Cited by
-
Doomed to repeat the successes of the past: history is best forgotten for repeated choices with nonstationary payoffs.Mem Cognit. 2009 Oct;37(7):985-1000. doi: 10.3758/MC.37.7.985. Mem Cognit. 2009. PMID: 19744938
-
What is the probability of replicating a statistically significant effect?Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Aug;16(4):617-40. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.617. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009. PMID: 19648445
-
A re-examination of "bias" in human randomness perception.J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 May;44(5):663-680. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000462. Epub 2017 Oct 23. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018. PMID: 29058943 Free PMC article.
-
What I Say is What I Get: Stronger Effects of Self-Generated vs. Cue-Induced Expectations in Event-Related Potentials.Front Psychol. 2012 Dec 14;3:562. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00562. eCollection 2012. Front Psychol. 2012. PMID: 23403896 Free PMC article.
-
Relative gains, losses, and reference points in probabilistic choice in rats.PLoS One. 2015 Feb 6;10(2):e0117697. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117697. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 25658448 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical