Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Presentation Order on Probability Judgments in a Representative Market Setting

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This field experiment investigated the contextual effect of presentation order on probability judgments supporting risky decisions in a representative setting: the betting markets of live horseraces. Participants were 54 contestants in a wagering tournament at a national thoroughbred racetrack. Prior to each of 11 races the expert gamblers recorded their estimated odds for all horses to win. Presentation order was manipulated by re-ordering the judgment-related information printed in the track’s program that had been provided for horses in an earlier race. Findings revealed the subjective probability estimates of most gamblers were not invariant with respect to presentation ordering. Probability judgments and risky choices were also associated with the predictive information provided for the gamble first processed during decision making. These results directly contradict calibration findings that probability judgments in this market are highly accurate and they are discussed in terms of the representative experimental design’s utility.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayton, P., & Wright, G. (1994). Subjective probability: What should we believe? In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, W. P. (1977). Encoding and processing of symbolic information in comparative judgments. In G. H. Bower. In The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, L. R., Christensen-Szalanski, V., & Barnes, J. (1987). Assessing human judgment: Has it been done, can it be done, should it be done? In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Judgmental forecasting. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (2016). Does presentation order impact choice after delay? Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 670–684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. The Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A. C., & Johnson, J. E. V. (1992). Toward an explanation of betting as a leisure pursuit. Leisure Studies, 11, 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin, W. (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118, 245–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin, W., & Keren, G. (2003). Order effects on judgments in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu, D. V., & Johnson, T. R. (2011). A model-based approach for the analysis of the calibration of probability judgments. Judgment and Decision making, 6, 857–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busler, J. N., & Lazarte, A. A. (2017). Reading time allocation strategies and working memory using rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(9), 1375–1386.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, B. W. (1990). Anchoring and adjustment in judgments under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 665–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. L. (1980). Presentation order effects in product taste tests. Journal of Psychology, 105, 107–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, V., Archambeau, K., van Dijck, J., Chetail, F., & Gevers, W. (2017). Coding of serial order in verbal, visual, and spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 632–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (1992). Decision analysis for management judgement. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2010). Rational choice in a uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbig, B., & Glöckner, A. (2009). Experts and decision making: First steps towards a unifying theory of decision making in novices, intermediates and experts. Preprints of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, No. 2009, 2.

  • Hershey, D. A., Walsh, D. A., Read, S. J., & Chulef, A. S. (1990). The effects of expertise on financial problem solving: Evidence for goal-directed, problem-solving scripts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, O. (2012). Risky decisions: Active risk management. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 26–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, O., & Huber, O. W. (2008). Gambles vs. quasi-realistic scenarios: Expectations to find probability and risk-defusing information. Acta Psychologica, 127, 222–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, O., Wider, R., & Huber, O. W. (1997). Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks. Acta Psychologica, 95, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. W., & Marsh, J. E. (2017). The functional determinants of short-term memory: Evidence from perceptual-motor interference in verbal serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(4), 537–551.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. E. V., & Bruce, A. C. (2001). Calibration of subjective probability judgments in a naturalistic setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 265–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. E. V., Schnytzer, A., & Liu, S. (2009). To what extent do investors in a financial market anchor their judgments excessively? Evidence from the Hong Kong horserace betting market. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 410–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jou, J. (2010). Serial position, distance, and congruity effects of reference point setting in comparative judgments. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 127–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keren, G. (1997). On the calibration of probability judgments: Some critical comments and alternative perspectives. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 269–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keren, G., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1987). Violation of utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 387–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Epley, N. (2009). When the best appears to be saved for last: Serial position effects on choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 378–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2006). The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour Research, 8, 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1309–1312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, A. G. R., & Bolger, F. (1994). The calibration of subjective probabilities: Theories and models 1980-94. In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orasanu, J., & Connolly, T. (1993). The reinvention of decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philips, L. D. (1987). On the adequacy of judgmental forecasts. In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Judgmental forecasting. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A., & Tversky, A. (1970). Choice behavior in an optional stopping task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., & Meloy, M. G. (2006). Choosing an inferior alternative. Psychological Science, 17, 899–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoben, E. J., & Wilson, T. L. (1998). Categorization in judgments of relative magnitude. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 94–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 917–932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50, 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unkelbach, C., Ostheimer, V., Fasold, F., & Memmert, D. (2012). A calibration explanation of serial position effects in evaluative judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 103–113.

  • Wright, W. F., & Bower, G. H. (1992). Mood effects on subjective probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F., & Tschirhart, M. D. (2006). Decision-making expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. R. Hoffman, & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 421–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Bellarmine University, 2001 Newburg Road, Louisville, KY, 40205, USA

    Thomas L. Wilson

Authors
  1. Thomas L. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas L. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional human research protections committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, T.L. The Influence of Presentation Order on Probability Judgments in a Representative Market Setting. Curr Psychol 38, 1265–1275 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9677-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9677-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation