Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 143–156 | Cite as

Betting on Illusory Patterns: Probability Matching in Habitual Gamblers

  • Wolfgang GaissmaierEmail author
  • Andreas Wilke
  • Benjamin Scheibehenne
  • Paige McCanney
  • H. Clark Barrett
Original Paper


Why do people gamble? A large body of research suggests that cognitive distortions play an important role in pathological gambling. Many of these distortions are specific cases of a more general misperception of randomness, specifically of an illusory perception of patterns in random sequences. In this article, we provide further evidence for the assumption that gamblers are particularly prone to perceiving illusory patterns. In particular, we compared habitual gamblers to a matched sample of community members with regard to how much they exhibit the choice anomaly ‘probability matching’. Probability matching describes the tendency to match response proportions to outcome probabilities when predicting binary outcomes. It leads to a lower expected accuracy than the maximizing strategy of predicting the most likely event on each trial. Previous research has shown that an illusory perception of patterns in random sequences fuels probability matching. So does impulsivity, which is also reported to be higher in gamblers. We therefore hypothesized that gamblers will exhibit more probability matching than non-gamblers, which was confirmed in a controlled laboratory experiment. Additionally, gamblers scored much lower than community members on the cognitive reflection task, which indicates higher impulsivity. This difference could account for the difference in probability matching between the samples. These results suggest that gamblers are more willing to bet impulsively on perceived illusory patterns.


Gambling disorder Pathological gambling Probability matching Cognitive reflection task Misperception of randomness 



We thank the members of the Evolution and Cognition Lab at Clarkson University for their help in data collection, Dominique Schmidt for programming the experiment, and the executive director of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Gaming Commission Todd Papineau for his support. The research was supported by grants from the National Center for Responsible Gaming and the T. Urling and Mabel Walker Research Fellowship Program of Northern New York that were awarded to the second author.


  1. Bar-Hillel, M., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1991). The perception of randomness. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 12, 428–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechara, A. (2001). Risky business: Emotion, decision-making, and addiction. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchard, T. C., Wilke, A., & Hayden, B. Y. (2014). Hot hand bias in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 280–286.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, L., Studer, B., Bruss, J., Tranel, D., & Bechara, A. (2014). Damage to insula abolishes cognitive distortions during simulated gambling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111, 6098–6103.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Croson, R., & Sundali, J. (2005). The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: Empirical data from Casinos. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellery, M., & Stewart, S. H. (2014). Alcohol affects video lottery terminal (VLT) gambling behaviors and cognitions differently. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 206–216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Falk, R., & Konold, C. (1997). Making sense of randomness: Implicit encoding as a basis for judgment. Psychological Review, 104, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fawcett, T. W., Fallenstein, B., Higginson, A. D., Houstan, A. I., Mallpress, D. E. W., Trimmer, P. C., & McNamara, J. M. (2014). The evolution of decision rules in complex environments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 153–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fortune, E. E., & Goodie, A. S. (2012). Cognitive distortions as a component and treatment focus of pathological gambling: A review. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 298–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaissmaier, W., & Schooler, L. J. (2008). The smart potential behind probability matching. Cognition, 109, 416–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaissmaier, W., Schooler, L. J., & Mata, R. (2008). An ecological perspective to cognitive limits: Modeling environment-mind interactions with ACT-R. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 278–291.Google Scholar
  15. Gaissmaier, W., Schooler, L. J., & Rieskamp, J. (2006). Simple predictions fueled by capacity limitations: When are they successful? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 966–982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gal, I., & Baron, J. (1996). Understanding repeated choices. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336, 493–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodie, A. S. (2005). The role of perceived control and overconfidence in pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 481–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodie, A. S., & Fortune, E. E. (2013). Measuring cognitive distortions in pathological gambling: Review and meta-analyses. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27, 730–743.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Haselton, M. G., Bryant, G. A., Wilke, A., Frederick, D. A., Galperin, A., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Moore, T. (2009). Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Social Cognition, 27, 733–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Healy, A. F., & Kubovy, M. (1981). Probability matching and the formation of conservative decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 344–354.Google Scholar
  23. James, G., & Koehler, D. J. (2011). Banking on a bad bet: Probability matching in risky choice is linked to expectation generation. Psychological Science, 22, 707–711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jefferson, S., & Nicki, R. (2003). A new instrument to measure cognitive distortions in video lottery terminal users: The informational biases scale (IBS). Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 387–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & MacCallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 171–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kareev, Y., & Trope, Y. (2011). Correct acceptance weighs more than correct rejection: A decision bias induced by question framing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 103–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kessler, R. C., Hwang, I., LaBrie, R., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A., Winters, K. C., et al. (2008). DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychological Medicine, 38, 1351–1360.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Koehler, D. J., & James, G. (2009). Probability-matching in choice under uncertainty: Intuition versus deliberation. Cognition, 113, 123–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Koehler, D. J., & James, G. (2010). Probability matching and strategy availability. Memory and Cognition, 38, 667–676.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lakey, C. E., Rose, P., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S. (2008). Probing the link between narcissism and gambling: The mediating role of judgment and decision-making biases. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lopes, L. L. (1982). Doing the impossible: A note on induction and the experience of randomness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 626–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacLaren, V. V., Fugelsang, J., Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M. J. (2011). The personality of pathological gamblers: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1057–1067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. MacLaren, V. V., Fugelsang, J. A., Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M. J. (2012). Effects of impulsivity, reinforcement sensitivity, and cognitive style on pathological gambling symptoms among frequent slot machine players. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 390–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marmurek, H. H. C., Switzer, J., & D’Alvise, J. (2015). Impulsivity, gambling cognitions and the gambler’s fallacy in university students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31, 197–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mata, R., Schooler, L., & Rieskamp, J. (2007). The aging decision maker: Cognitive aging and the adaptive selection of decision strategies. Psychology and Aging, 22, 796–810.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Michalczuk, R., Bowden-Jones, H., Verdejo-Garcia, A., & Clark, L. (2011). Impulsivity and cognitive distortions in pathological gamblers attending the UK National Problem Gambling Clinic: A preliminary report. Psychological Medicine, 41, 2625–2635.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Miedl, S. F., Buechel, C., & Peters, J. (2014). Cue-induced craving increases impulsivity via changes in striatal value signals in problem gamblers. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 4750–4755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Myers, J. L. (1976). Probability learning and sequence learning. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: Approaches to human learning and motivation (pp. 171–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Navarette, G., Santamaria, C., & Froimovitch, D. (2015). Small samples in evolution: Did the law of small numbers arise as an adaptation to environmental challenges? Frontiers in Evolutionary Psychology and Neuroscience, 6, 1–3.Google Scholar
  40. Newell, B. R., Koehler, D. J., James, G., Rakow, T., & van Ravenzwaaij, D. (2013). Probability matching in risky choice: The interplay of feedback and strategy availability. Memory and Cognition, 41, 329–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Newell, B. R., & Rakow, T. (2007). The role of experience in decisions from description. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 1133–1139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Otto, A. R., Taylor, E. G., & Markman, A. B. (2011). There are at least two kinds of probability matching: Evidence from a secondary task. Cognition, 118, 274–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rakow, T., Newell, B. R., & Zougkou, K. (2010). The role of working memory in information acquisition and decision making: Lessons from the binary prediction task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1335–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 111–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Scheibehenne, B., & Studer, B. (2014). A hierarchical Bayesian model of the influence of run length on sequential predictions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheibehenne, B., Wilke, A., & Todd, P. M. (2011). Expectations of clumpy resources influence predictions of sequential events. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Bilt, J. V. (1997). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis. Boston, MA: Harvard Medical School.Google Scholar
  49. Shaffer, H. J., Peller, A. J., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & LaBrie, R. A. (2010). Toward a paradigm shift in internet gambling research: From opinion and self-report to actual behavior. Addiction Research and Theory, 18, 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shanks, D. R., Tunney, R. J., & McCarthy, J. D. (2002). A re-examination of probability matching and rational choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in god. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slutske, W. S., Moffitt, T. E., Poulton, R., & Caspi, A. (2012). Undercontrolled temperament at age 3 predicts disordered gambling at age 32: A longitudinal study of a complete birth cohort. Psychological Science, 23, 510–516.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Studer, B., Limbrick-Oldfield, E. H., & Clark, L. (2014). “Put your money where your mouth is!” Effects of streaks on confidence and betting in a binary choice task. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1844.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Tombaugh, T. N. (2004). Trail making test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsycholology, 19, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Toplak, M. E., Liu, E., MacPherson, R., Toneatto, T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). The reasoning skills and thinking dispositions of problem gamblers: A dual-process taxonomy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Unturbe, J., & Corominas, J. (2007). Probability matching involves rule-generating ability: A neuropsychological mechanism dealing with probabilities. Neuropsychology, 21, 621–630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Vulkan, N. (2000). An economist’s perspective on probability matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Is probability matching smart? Associations between probabilistic choices and cognitive ability. Memory and Cognition, 31, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilke, A., & Barrett, H. C. (2009). The hot hand phenomenon as a cognitive adaptation to clumped resources. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilke, A., Scheibehenne, B., Gaissmaier, W., McCanney, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2014). Illusionary pattern detection in habitual gamblers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilke, A., & Todd, P. M. (2012). The evolved foundations of decision making. In M. K. Dhami, A. Schlottmann, & M. Waldmann (Eds.), Judgment and decision making as a skill: Learning, development and evolution (pp. 3–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wolford, G., Miller, M. B., & Gazzaniga, M. (2000). The left hemisphere’s role in hypothesis formation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 20(RC64), 1–4.Google Scholar
  64. Wolford, G., Newman, S., Miller, M. B., & Wig, G. (2004). Searching for patterns in random sequences. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 221–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Yellott, J. I, Jr. (1969). Probability learning with noncontingent success. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 541–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhao, J., Hahn, U., & Osherson, D. (2014). Perception and identification of random events. Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1358–1371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Gaissmaier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Wilke
    • 2
  • Benjamin Scheibehenne
    • 3
  • Paige McCanney
    • 2
  • H. Clark Barrett
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Social Psychology and Decision SciencesUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Economic PsychologyUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations