Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: Effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games
This paper investigates whether people obey the conjunction rule when evaluating predictions concerning the outcomes of football games. The conjunction rule states that if event A and event B are two independent events, the probability that both events A and B will occur cannot be greater than the probability that A will occur. Hence, the prediction that AC Milan will beat Fiorentina at the same times as Juventus will beat Lecce cannot be more likely than the prediction that AC Milan will beat Fiorentina. In an empirical study, it was shown that people frequently violated the conjunction rule. When a prediction with a low or intermediate likelihood of success (e.g., Stoke City will beat Manchester United) was combined with one or two predictions that had high likelihood of success (e.g., Liverpool FC will beat Wigan), it was perceived to be more likely to happen than when it was presented alone. This was not true when it was combined with a prediction with a low likelihood of success. Thus, the perceived likelihood of a particular prediction is dependent on the context in which it is presented.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ayton, Peter, 1997. "How to Be IncoherentandSeductive: Bookmakers' Odds and Support Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 99-115, October.
- Ioannis Asimakopoulos & John Goddard, 2004. "Forecasting football results and the efficiency of fixed-odds betting," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(1), pages 51-66.
- Forrest, David & Goddard, John & Simmons, Robert, 2005. "Odds-setters as forecasters: The case of English football," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 551-564.
- Zizzo, Daniel John & Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie & Wen, Julie & Fantino, Edmund, 2000. "A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 263-276, March.
- Vaughan Williams, Leighton, 1999. "Information Efficiency in Betting Markets: A Survey," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-30, January.
- Pope, Peter F & Peel, David A, 1989. "Information, Prices and Efficiency in a Fixed-Odds Betting Market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 56(223), pages 323-341, August.
- I. Graham & H. Stott, 2008. "Predicting bookmaker odds and efficiency for UK football," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 99-109.
- Andersson, Patric & Edman, Jan & Ekman, Mattias, 2005. "Predicting the World Cup 2002 in soccer: Performance and confidence of experts and non-experts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 565-576.
- David Forrest & Robert Simmons, 2008. "Sentiment in the betting market on Spanish football," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 119-126.
- James Sundali & Rachel Croson, 2006. "Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler's fallacy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 1-12, July.
- Bruno Deschamps & Olivier Gergaud, 2007. "Efficiency in Betting Markets: Evidence from English Football," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 61-73, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:31:y:2010:i:2:p:172-180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.