Grouping and gambling: a Gestalt approach to understanding the gambler's fallacy.

The gambler's fallacy was examined in terms of grouping processes. The gambler's fallacy is the tendency to erroneously believe that for independent events, recent or repeated instances of an outcome (e.g., a series of "heads" when flipping a coin) will make that outcome less likely on an upcoming trial. Grouping was manipulated such that a critical trial following a run of heads or tails was grouped together with previous trials (i.e., the last trial of "Block 1") or was the first trial of another group (the first trial of "Block 2"). As predicted, the gambler's fallacy was evident when the critical trial was grouped with the previous trials, but not when it was arbitrarily grouped with the next block of trials. Discussion centres on the processes underlying the gambler's fallacy and practical implications of these findings.

[1]  W. Wagenaar,et al.  On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory , 1985 .

[2]  Willem A. Wagenaar,et al.  On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory. , 1985 .

[3]  N. Anderson,et al.  Likelihood judgments and sequential effects in a two-choice probability learning situation. , 1960, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  M. Wertheimer.  Laws of organization in perceptual forms. , 1938 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  R. Swensson,et al.  Instructions about randomness and run dependency in two-choice learning. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  H. A. Taylor,et al.  Absence of the gambler’s fallacy in psychophysical settings , 1974 .

[8]  N. Anderson.  Effect of first-order conditional probability in two-choice learning situation. , 1960, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  P BAKAN,et al.  Response-tendencies in attempts to generate random binary series. , 1960, The American journal of psychology.

[10]  M. A. Metzger.  Biases in Betting: An Application of Laboratory Findings , 1985, Psychological reports.

[11]  Seth Bullock,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[12]  Charles T. Clotfelter,et al.  The "Gambler&Apos;S Fallacy" in Lottery Play , 1991 .

[13]  P. Derks,et al.  Simple strategies in binary prediction by children and adults. , 1967 .

[14]  M. Jarvik,et al.  Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  Mari Riess Jones,et al.  From probability learning to sequential processing: A critical review. , 1971 .

[16]  W. Edwards,et al.  Probability learning in 1000 trials. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  J. L. Cowan,et al.  The Gambler's Fallacy , 1969 .

[18]  Philip J. Cook,et al.  Notes: The Gambler's Fallacy in Lottery Play , 1993 .

[19]  Robert Ladouceur,et al.  Erroneous Perceptions in Generating Sequences of Random Events1 , 1996 .

[20]  M. Wertheimer,et al.  A source book of Gestalt psychology. , 1939 .

[21]  O. Reiser,et al.  Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[22]  G. Keren,et al.  The Two Fallacies of Gamblers: Type I and Type II , 1994 .

[23]  D. C. Nicks.  Prediction of sequential two-choice decisions from event runs. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  W. Edwards,et al.  Supplementary report:unlearning the gambler's fallacy. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  A. Neuringer.  Can people behave "randomly?": The role of feedback. , 1986 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  BELIEF IN THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS , 1971, Pediatrics.

[27]  Refractor.  Vision , 2000, The Lancet.