IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v14y2019i1p51-57_5.html

The representativeness heuristic and the choice of lottery tickets: A field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Krawczyk, Michał Wiktor
  • Rachubik, Joanna

Abstract

The representativeness heuristic (RH) has been proposed to be at the root of several types of biases in judgment. In this project, we ask whether the RH is relevant in two kinds of choices in the context of gambling. Specifically, in a field experiment with naturalistic stimuli and a potentially extremely high monetary pay-out, we give each of our subjects a choice between a lottery ticket with a random-looking number sequence and a ticket with a patterned sequence; we subsequently offer them a small cash bonus if they switch to the other ticket. In the second task, we investigate the gambler’s fallacy, asking subjects what they believe the outcome of a fourth coin toss after a sequence of three identical outcomes will be. We find that most subjects prefer “random” sequences, and that approximately half believe in dependence between subsequent coin tosses. There is no correlation, though, between the initial choice of the lottery ticket and the prediction of the coin toss. Nonetheless, subjects who have a strong preference for certain number combinations (i.e., subjects who are willing to forgo the cash bonus and remain with their initial choice) also tend to predict a specific outcome (in particular a reversal, corresponding to the gambler’s fallacy) in the coin task.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:51-57_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002904/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bouteska, Ahmed, 2019. "The effect of investor sentiment on market reactions to financial earnings restatements: Lessons from the United States," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    2. UNGAR Kevin, 2025. "Investigating Randomness And Fairness In The Romanian 6/49 Lottery," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 77(1), pages 13-24, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2021. "The lottery player’s fallacy: Why labels predict strategic choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 16-29.
    5. Tariq Mahadeen & Kostas Galanakis & Elpida Samara & Pavlos Kilintzis, 2021. "Heuristics and Evidences Decision (HeED) Making: a Case Study in a Systemic Model for Transforming Decision Making from Heuristics-Based to Evidenced-Based," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(4), pages 1668-1693, December.
    6. Michał Wiktor Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2019. "The limitations of the representativeness heuristic: further evidence from choices between lottery tickets," Working Papers 2019-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    7. 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.

    More about this item

    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:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:51-57_5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.