IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0170057.html

Losses and External Outcomes Interact to Produce the Gambler’s Fallacy

Author

Listed:
  • Julia A Mossbridge
  • Christopher J R Roney
  • Satoru Suzuki

Abstract

When making serial predictions in a binary decision task, there is a clear tendency to assume that after a series of the same external outcome (e.g., heads in a coin flip), the next outcome will be the opposing one (e.g., tails), even when the outcomes are independent of one another. This so-called “gambler’s fallacy” has been replicated robustly. However, what drives gambler’s fallacy behavior is unclear. Here we demonstrate that a run of the same external outcome by itself does not lead to gambler’s fallacy behavior. However, when a run of external outcomes is accompanied by a concurrent run of failed guesses, gambler’s fallacy behavior is predominant. These results do not depend on how participants’ attention is directed. Thus, it appears that gambler’s fallacy behavior is driven by a combination of an external series of events and a concurrent series of failure experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia A Mossbridge & Christopher J R Roney & Satoru Suzuki, 2017. "Losses and External Outcomes Interact to Produce the Gambler’s Fallacy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0170057
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170057
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170057&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0170057?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boynton, David M., 2003. "Superstitious responding and frequency matching in the positive bias and gambler's fallacy effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 119-127, July.
    2. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    3. Colin F. Camerer & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2004. "Neuroeconomics: Why Economics Needs Brains," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(3), pages 555-579, 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. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    2. Kenneth D. Nguyen & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2405-2419, December.
    3. Varun Dutt & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2013. "Enabling Eco-Friendly Choices by Relying on the Proportional-Thinking Heuristic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Sweldens, Steven & Puntoni, Stefano & Paolacci, Gabriele & Vissers, Maarten, 2014. "The bias in the bias: Comparative optimism as a function of event social undesirability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 229-244.
    5. S. Venus Jin & Aziz Muqaddam, 2019. "Product placement 2.0: “Do Brands Need Influencers, or Do Influencers Need Brands?”," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(5), pages 522-537, September.
    6. Enrico Rubaltelli & Lorella Lotto & Ilana Ritov & Rino Rumiati, 2015. "Moral investing: Psychological motivations and implications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(1), pages 64-75, January.
    7. Hsu, Dan K. & Burmeister-Lamp, Katrin & Simmons, Sharon A. & Foo, Maw-Der & Hong, Michelle C. & Pipes, Jesse D., 2019. "“I know I can, but I don't fit”: Perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 311-326.
    8. Lutz, Christoph & Newlands, Gemma, 2018. "Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The case of Airbnb," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 187-196.
    9. Nir Halevy & Sora Jun & Eileen Y. Chou, 2020. "Intergroup Conflict is Our Business: CEOs’ Ethical Intergroup Leadership Fuels Stakeholder Support for Corporate Intergroup Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 229-246, February.
    10. Mariconda, Simone & Lurati, Francesco, 2015. "Does familiarity breed stability? The role of familiarity in moderating the effects of new information on reputation judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 957-964.
    11. Tarcia Camily Cavalcante Quezado & Nuno Fortes & William Quezado Figueiredo Cavalcante, 2022. "The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics on Brand Fidelity: The Importance of Brand Love and Brand Attitude," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela, 2018. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: New experimental evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 88-91.
    13. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    14. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    15. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    16. Tobias Schlager & Ashley V. Whillans, 2022. "People underestimate the probability of contracting the coronavirus from friends," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Aleksandar Aksentijevic, 2017. "Randomness: off with its heads (and tails)," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, November.
    18. Giorgia Ponsi & Maria Serena Panasiti & Salvatore Maria Aglioti & Marco Tullio Liuzza, 2017. "Right-wing authoritarianism and stereotype-driven expectations interact in shaping intergroup trust in one-shot vs multiple-round social interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, December.
    19. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    20. Anthony M. Evans & Kyle D. Dillon & Gideon Goldin & Joachim I. Krueger, 2011. "Trust and self-control: The moderating role of the default," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 697-705, October.

    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:plo:pone00:0170057. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.