The retrospective gambler’s fallacy: Unlikely events, constructing the past, and multiple universes
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2009, Vol 4, Issue 5
Abstract
The gambler’s fallacy (Tune, 1964) refers to the belief that a streak is more likely to end than chance would dictate. In three studies, participants exhibited a retrospective gambler’s fallacy (RGF) in which an event that seems rare appears to come from a longer sequence than an event that seems more common. Study 1 demonstrates this bias for streaks, while Study 2 does so with single rare events and shows that the appearance of rarity is more important than actual rarity. Study 3 extends these findings from abstract gambling domains into real world domains to demonstrate the generalizability of the effects. The RGF follows from the law of small numbers (Tversky & Kahneman, 1971) and has many applications, from perceptions of the social world to philosophical debates about the existence of multiple universes.
Authors and Affiliations
Daniel M. Oppenheimer and Benoit Monin
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677690
- DOI -
- Views 171
- Downloads 0
The value of vulnerability: The transformative capacity of risky trust
In an experimental gift-exchange game, we explore the transformative capacity of vulnerable trust, which we define as trusting untrustworthy players when their untrustworthiness is common knowledge between co-players. In...
Counterfactual thinking and regulatory fit
According to regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), when people make decisions with strategies that sustain their regulatory focus orientation, they ``feel right'' about what they are doing, and this ``feeling-right'' ex...
Reference dependence, cooperation, and coordination in games
The problems of how self-interested players can cooperate despite incentives to defect, and how players can coordinate despite the presence of multiple equilibria, are among the oldest and most fundamental in game theory...
The Maximization Inventory
We present the Maximization Inventory, which consists of three separate scales: decision difficulty, alternative search, and satisficing. We show that the items of the Maximization Inventory have much better psychometric...
Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit?
We conducted additional analyses of Pennycook et al.’s (2015, Study 2) data to investigate the possibility that there would be ideological differences in “bullshit receptivity” that would be explained by individual diffe...