Construct · 2 fields · 3 citations

gambler's fallacy: one construct, many systems

One name. One construct. Different systems. One map.

● invariant · one bias, two systems Nearest construct by meaning·not indexed
same bias, outside the casinogambler'sfallacy2 SYSTEMSGambler's fallacyTVERSKY & KAHNEMAN · 1971Sequential-decision biasCHEN ET AL. · 2016

Spokes are the systems the one construct recurs in; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

1971Gambler's fallacy2016Sequential-decision bias
2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Cognitive psychology

Expecting chance to ‘correct’ itself

The gambler’s fallacy is the mistaken belief that in a sequence of independent chance events a run of one outcome makes the opposite outcome ‘due’, as if the roulette wheel or coin had a memory and randomness self-corrected over a short run. Tversky and Kahneman’s 1971 Belief in the law of small numbers traced it to the intuition that even small samples should mirror the parent population, and Clotfelter and Cook documented it directly in lottery players who shun recently drawn numbers. The referent is a specific misperception of independence in random sequences, measured by how choices or bets shift after streaks.[1][2]

Unit
The shift in expectation after a run of independent like outcomes
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Detected by post-streak reversals in bets or number choices against a no-memory benchmark

Behavioral economics

professionals deciding a run of independent cases tending to break a streak, as if correcting an imagined imbalance.

The identical bias surfaces far from any casino: when professionals decide a run of cases, they tend to break a streak, as if correcting an imagined imbalance in what should be independent judgments. Chen, Moskowitz, and Shue’s 2016 study found asylum judges, loan officers, and baseball umpires all less likely to repeat a decision right after making the same call on the previous case, the signature of the gambler’s fallacy in consequential settings. It is the same construct as the roulette player’s error, realized in expert decision-making and measured by autocorrelation in sequential rulings.[3]

Unit
The tendency to reverse a decision after an identical prior one
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Estimated from negative autocorrelation in sequences of quasi-random, independent decisions

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how gambler's fallacy sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this entry

Nearby constructs

Monte Carlo2 fields · 2 citationsjingle · one name, two constructsbelief4 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, four constructsbias6 fields · 8 citationsjingle · one name, six constructs

References

  1. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322
  2. Clotfelter, C. T., & Cook, P. J. (1993). The “gambler’s fallacy” in lottery play. Management Science, 39(12), 1521–1525. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.12.1521
  3. Chen, D. L., Moskowitz, T. J., & Shue, K. (2016). Decision making under the gambler’s fallacy: Evidence from asylum judges, loan officers, and baseball umpires. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3), 1181–1242. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw017

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct