IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v109y2015icp163-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cross-sectional “Gambler's Fallacy”: Set representativeness in lottery number choices

Author

Listed:
  • Lien, Jaimie W.
  • Yuan, Jia

Abstract

Traditionally, the Gambler's Fallacy is described as the belief that a sequence of independent outcomes over time should exhibit short-run reversals. The underlying psychological bias thought to drive this fallacy is Representativeness Bias: the idea that even a small sample of outcomes should closely reflect the theoretical probability distribution (Tversky and Kahneman, 1971). Yet representativeness also has less commonly explored consequences in the cross-sectional dimension. We find strong evidence for this in lottery play where probabilities are well-defined and transparent, using a dataset of over 1.6 million lottery tickets purchased by over 28,000 players. Specifically, individuals prefer number combinations that are cross-sectionally representative of the uniform distribution from which they are drawn. We test two possible approaches to implementing representativeness; a heuristic 3-bin approach which is promoted in some gambling advice literature, and a direct optimization approach in which gamblers try to spread the numbers in the chosen set as evenly as possible across the lottery number range. By both measures, gamblers over-gravitated to highly representative lottery number sets and over-avoided less representative sets, compared to the proportions that the true lottery odds would suggest. In this pari-mutuel lottery setting, a cost is incurred by gamblers with this type of bias, by reducing their expected winnings.

Suggested Citation

  • Lien, Jaimie W. & Yuan, Jia, 2015. "The cross-sectional “Gambler's Fallacy”: Set representativeness in lottery number choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 163-172.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:109:y:2015:i:c:p:163-172
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.10.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268114002716
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.10.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terrell, Dek, 1994. "A Test of the Gambler's Fallacy: Evidence from Pari-mutuel Games," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 309-317, May.
    2. Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816.
    3. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2001. "Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Saving Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 79-98, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Krawczyk, Michał Wiktor & Rachubik, Joanna, 2019. "The representativeness heuristic and the choice of lottery tickets: A field experiment," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 51-57, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:1039-1059 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:1060-1071 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Michał Wiktor Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2019. "The representativeness heuristic and the choice of lottery tickets: A field experiment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 51-57, January.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:243-259 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Brian A. Polin & Eyal Ben Isaac & Itzhak Aharon, 2021. "Patterns in manually selected numbers in the Israeli lottery," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(4), pages 1039-1059, July.
    7. Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2018. "Verifying the representativeness heuristic: A field experiment with real-life lottery tickets," Natural Field Experiments 00699, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Tong V. Wang & Rogier J. D. Potter van Loon & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Number preferences in lotteries," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(3), pages 243-259, May.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:51-57 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Oluwaseun A. Otekunrin & Adesola G. Folorunso & Kehinde O. Alawode, 2021. "Number preferences in selected Nigerian lottery games," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(4), pages 1060-1071, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Marklein, Felix & Sunde, Uwe, 2009. "Biased probability judgment: Evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 903-915, December.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    4. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "Understanding the Technology of Computer Technology Diffusion: Explaining Computer Adoption Patterns and Implications for the Wage Structure," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 17(3-4), pages 37-70, September.
    5. Matthew Rabin & Dimitri Vayanos, 2010. "The Gambler's and Hot-Hand Fallacies: Theory and Applications," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(2), pages 730-778.
    6. Theo Offerman & Joep Sonnemans, 2004. "What’s Causing Overreaction? An Experimental Investigation of Recency and the Hot‐hand Effect," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(3), pages 533-554, October.
    7. Kaivanto, Kim & Kroll, Eike B., 2012. "Negative recency, randomization device choice, and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 263-267.
    8. Daniel Chen & Tobias J. Moskowitz & Kelly Shue, 2016. "Decision-Making under the Gambler's Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," NBER Working Papers 22026, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Elena Asparouhova & Michael Hertzel & Michael Lemmon, 2009. "Inference from Streaks in Random Outcomes: Experimental Evidence on Beliefs in Regime Shifting and the Law of Small Numbers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(11), pages 1766-1782, November.
    10. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    11. Jonathan Guryan & Melissa S. Kearney, 2005. "Lucky Stores, Gambling, and Addiction: Empirical Evidence from State Lottery Sales," NBER Working Papers 11287, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2014. "A Cold Shower for the Hot Hand Fallacy," Working Papers 518, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    13. He, Kevin, 2022. "Mislearning from censored data: The gambler's fallacy and other correlational mistakes in optimal-stopping problems," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(3), July.
    14. Yuan, Jia & Sun, Guang-Zhen & Siu, Ricardo, 2014. "The lure of illusory luck: How much are people willing to pay for random shocks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 269-280.
    15. Doidge, Mary & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2017. "A test of the gambler’s and hot hand fallacies in farmers’ weather and market predictions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Qingxia Kong & Georg D. Granic & Nicolas S. Lambert & Chung Piaw Teo, 2020. "Judgment Error in Lottery Play: When the Hot Hand Meets the Gambler’s Fallacy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 844-862, February.
    17. Pinger, Pia & Schäfer, Sebastian & Schumacher, Heiner, 2018. "Locus of control and consistent investment choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 66-75.
    18. Daniel L. Chen & Tobias J. Moskowitz & Kelly Shue, 2016. "Decision Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(3), pages 1181-1242.
    19. Pinger, Pia & Schäfer, Sebastian & Schumacher, Heiner, 2018. "Locus of control and consistent investment choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 66-75.
    20. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Belief biases; Representativeness Bias; Gambler's Fallacy; Lottery gambling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:109:y:2015:i:c:p:163-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.