IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v55y2009i11p1766-1782.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inference from Streaks in Random Outcomes: Experimental Evidence on Beliefs in Regime Shifting and the Law of Small Numbers

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Asparouhova

    () (David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112)

  • Michael Hertzel

    () (W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

  • Michael Lemmon

    () (David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112)

Abstract

Using data generated from laboratory experiments, we test and compare the empirical accuracy of two models that focus on judgment errors associated with processing information from random sequences. We test for regime-shifting beliefs of the type theorized in Barberis et al. (Barberis, N., A. Shleifer, R. Vishny. 1998. A model of investor sentiment. J. Financial Econom. 49(3) 307-343) and for beliefs in the "law of small numbers" as modeled in Rabin (Rabin, M. 2002. Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3) 775-816). In our experiments, we show subjects randomly generated sequences of binary outcomes and ask them to provide probability assessments of the direction of the next outcome. Inconsistent with regime-shifting beliefs, we find that subjects are not more likely to predict that the current streak will continue the longer the streak. Instead, consistent with Rabin (2002), subjects are more likely to expect a reversal following short streaks and continuation after long streaks. Results of a "test-of-fit" analysis based on structural estimation of each model also favor the model in Rabin. To provide more insight on Rabin, we use an additional experimental treatment to show that as the perception of the randomness of the outcome-generating process increases, subjects are more likely to predict reversals of current streaks.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:55:y:2009:i:11:p:1766-1782
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1059
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816.
    4. Barberis, Nicholas & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 1998. "A model of investor sentiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 307-343, September.
    5. Cade Massey & George Wu, 2005. "Detecting Regime Shifts: The Causes of Under- and Overreaction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 932-947, June.
    6. repec:hrv:faseco:30747159 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Alon Brav & J.B. Heaton, 2002. "Competing Theories of Financial Anomalies," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 15(2), pages 575-606, March.
    8. Gregory R. Durham & Michael G. Hertzel & J. Spencer Martin, 2005. "The Market Impact of Trends and Sequences in Performance: New Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(5), pages 2551-2569, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Daniel J. Benjamin & Don A. Moore & Matthew Rabin, 2017. "Biased Beliefs About Random Samples: Evidence from Two Integrated Experiments," NBER Working Papers 23927, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. Wu, Chen-Hui & Wu, Chin-Shun & Liu, Victor W., 2009. "The conservatism bias in an emerging stock market: Evidence from Taiwan," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 494-505, September.
    6. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Matthew Rabin & Dimitri Vayanos, 2010. "The Gambler's and Hot-Hand Fallacies: Theory and Applications," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 77(2), pages 730-778.
    8. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2015. "Is it a Fallacy to Believe in the Hot Hand in the NBA Three-Point Contest?," Working Papers 548, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    9. Cary Frydman & Gideon Nave, 2017. "Extrapolative Beliefs in Perceptual and Economic Decisions: Evidence of a Common Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(7), pages 2340-2352, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Pelster, Matthias, 2020. "The gambler’s and hot-hand fallacies: Empirical evidence from trading data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Roger K. Loh & Mitch Warachka, 2012. "Streaks in Earnings Surprises and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(7), pages 1305-1321, July.
    14. Sigrid Suetens & Claus B. Galbo-Jørgensen & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2016. "Predicting Lotto Numbers: A Natural Experiment On The Gambler'S Fallacy And The Hot-Hand Fallacy," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 584-607, June.
    15. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    16. Angie Andrikogiannopoulou & Filippos Papakonstantinou, 2018. "Individual Reaction to Past Performance Sequences: Evidence from a Real Marketplace," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1957-1973, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Andrikogiannopoulou, Angie & Papakonstantinou, Filippos, 2017. "Individual reaction to past performance sequences: evidence from a real marketplace," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87997, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. 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.
    20. 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, Oxford University Press, vol. 131(3), pages 1181-1242.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:55:y:2009:i:11:p:1766-1782. 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: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.