Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp 1369–1378 | Cite as

The hot hand fallacy and the gambler’s fallacy: Two faces of subjective randomness?

  • Peter AytonEmail author
  • Ilan FischerEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Roulette Wheel Eyeblink Conditioning Alternation Rate Probability Learning Eyeblink Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, R. M. (1995). Momentum in the performance of professional tournament pocket billiards players.International Journal of Sport Psychology,26, 580–587.Google Scholar
  2. Ayton, P. (1998, September 19). Fallacy football.New Scientist,159, 52.Google Scholar
  3. Ayton, P., Hunt, A. J., &Wright, G. (1989). Psychological conceptions of randomness.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayton, P., Hunt, A. J., &Wright, G. (1991). Randomness and reality.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,4, 222–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Hillel, M., &Wagenaar, W.-A. (1991). The perception of randomness.Advances in Applied Mathematics,12, 428–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boynton D. M. (2003). Superstitious responding and frequency matching in the positive bias and gambler’s fallacy effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,91, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budescu, D. V. (1987). A Markov model for generation of random binary sequences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns, B. D. (2003). When it is adaptive to follow streaks: Variability and stocks. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.),Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Burns, B. D. (2004). Heuristics as beliefs and as behaviors: The adaptiveness of the “hot hand”.Cognitive Psychology,48, 295–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, B. D., &Corpus, B. (2004). Randomness and inductions from streaks: “Gambler’s fallacy” versus “hot hand”.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 179–184.Google Scholar
  11. Burrows, B. L., &Talbot, R. F. (1985). Boycott, Botham and the exponential distribution.Teaching Statistics,7, 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Camerer, C. F. (1989). Does the basketball market believe in the “hot hand”.American Economic Review,79, 1257–1261.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, R. E., Manns, J. R., &Squire, L. R. (2001). Trace and delay eyeblink conditioning: Contrasting phenomena of declarative and nondeclarative memory.Psychological Science,12, 304–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clotfelter, C. T., &Cook, P. J. (1993). The “gambler’s fallacy” in lottery play.Management Science,39, 1521–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Derks, P. L. (1962). The generality of the “conditioning axiom” in human binary prediction.Journal of Experimental Psychology,63, 538–545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Derks, P. L. (1963). Effect of run length on the gambler’s fallacy.Journal of Experimental Psychology,65, 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorsey-Palmateer, R., &Smith, G. (2004). Bowlers’ hot hands.The American Statistician,58, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards, W. (1961). Probability learning in 1,000 trials.Journal of Experimental Psychology,62, 385–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Estes, W. K. (1964). Probability learning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.),Categories of human learning (pp. 89–128). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Falk, R. (1975). Perception of randomness. Doctoral dissertation (in Hebrew with English abstract). Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Google Scholar
  21. Falk, R. (1981). The perception of randomness. InProceedings of the Fifth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 222–229). Grenoble, France.Google Scholar
  22. Falk, R., &Konold, C. (1994). Random means hard to digest.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,16, 2–12.Google Scholar
  23. Falk, R., &Konold, C. (1997). Making sense of randomness: Implicit encoding as a basis for judgment.Psychological Review,104, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilden, D. L., &Wilson, S. G. (1995). On the nature of streaks in signaldetection.Cognitive Psychology,28, 17–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilden, D. L., &Wilson, S. G. (1996). Streaks in skilled performance.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 260–265.Google Scholar
  26. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., &Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences.Cognitive Psychology,17, 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooke, R. (1989). Basketball, baseball, and the null hypothesis.Chance: New Directions for Statistics & Computing,2, 35–37.Google Scholar
  29. Jarvik, M. E. (1951). Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols.Journal of Experimental Psychology,41, 291–297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D., &Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.),Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness.Cognitive Psychology,3, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laplace, P. S. de (1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1796)Google Scholar
  33. Larkey, P. D., Smith, R. A., &Kadane, J. B. (1989). It’s okay to believe in the “hot hand”.Chance: New Directions for Statistics and Computing,2, 22–30.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, W. (1971). Decision theory and human behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Lopes, L. L. (1982). Doing the impossible: A note on induction and the experience of randomness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 626–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lopes, L. L., &Oden, G. (1987). Distinguishing between random and nonrandom events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neuringer, A. (1989). Can people behave randomly? The role of feedback.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perruchet, P. (1985). A pitfall for the expectancy theory of human eyelid conditioning.Pavlovian Journal of Biological Sciences,20, 163–170.Google Scholar
  39. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, G. (2003). Horseshoe pitchers’ hot hands.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 753–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sundali, J., Croson, R., & Gold, E. (2000, May) The gambler’s fallacy versus the hot hand: Empirical data from casinos.Seventh Conference on Behavioral Decision Research in Management. Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  42. Treisman, M., &Faulkner, A. (1990). Generation of random sequences by human subjects: Cognitive operations or psychophysical process?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky, A., &Gilovich, T. (1989a). The cold facts about the “hot hand” in basketball.Chance: New Directions for Statistics & Computing,2, 16–21.Google Scholar
  44. Tversky, A., &Gilovich, T. (1989b). The “hot hand”: Statistical reality or cognitive illusion?Chance: New Directions for Statistics & Computing,2, 31–34.Google Scholar
  45. Wagenaar, W.-A. (1988).Paradoxes of gambling behavior. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Wagenaar, W.-A., &Keren, G. (1988). Chance and luck are not the same.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,1, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wardrop, R. L. (1995). Simpson’s paradox and the hot hand in basketball.The American Statistician,49, 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wardrop, R. L. (1998). Basketball. In J. Bennett (Ed.),Statistics in sport (pp. 65–82). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  49. Witte, R. S. (1964). Long-term effects of patterned reward schedules.Journal of Experimental Psychology,68, 588–594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCity UniversityLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations