IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2019-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The limitations of the representativeness heuristic: further evidence from choices between lottery tickets

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Wiktor Krawczyk

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Joanna Rachubik

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

Abstract

The representativeness heuristic (RH) proposes that people expect even a small sample to have similar characteristics to the parent population. One domain in which it appears to operate is the preference for combinations of numbers on lottery tickets: most players seem to avoid very characteristic, “unrepresentative” combinations, e.g. only containing very low numbers. Likewise, most players may avoid betting on a combination that was drawn recently, because it would seem particularly improbable to be drawn again. We confirm both of these tendencies in two field experiments, building upon Krawczyk and Rachubik (2019, KR19). However, we find no link between these two choices: it is not the same people that show the two biases. In this sense, the RH does not organize the data well. Nevertheless, there are some links related to rationality across the two choices – people who are willing to forgo a monetary payment in order to get the preferred ticket in one task are also willing to do it in the other. We find such preference to be related with misperception of probabilities and providing intuitive, incorrect answers in the Cognitive Reflection Test.

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Wiktor Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2019. "The limitations of the representativeness heuristic: further evidence from choices between lottery tickets," Working Papers 2019-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2019-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/4934/
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krawczyk, Michał Wiktor & Rachubik, Joanna, 2019. "The representativeness heuristic and the choice of lottery tickets: A field experiment," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 51-57, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:51-57 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    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. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    2. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    3. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    4. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Francis Bloch & Bhaskar Dutta & Stéphane Robin & Min Zhu, 2016. "The formation of partnerships in social networks," Post-Print halshs-01421347, HAL.
    9. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Quintanar, Sarah & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2011. "Free-Riding and Performance in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Groups," MPRA Paper 33948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Jorrat, Diego & Alfonso-Costillo, Antonio & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Exposure to the Covid-19 pandemic and generosity," MPRA Paper 103389, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Goswami, Indranil & Urminsky, Oleg, 2021. "Don’t fear the meter: How longer time limits bias managers to prefer hiring with flat fee compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 42-58.
    12. Marco Angrisani & Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2022. "Strategic Sophistication and Trading Profits: An Experiment with Professional Traders," Staff Reports 1044, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    13. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    14. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    15. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    16. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    18. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Alcocer, Christian Diego & Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Shupp, Robert, 2020. "Naive and sophisticated mixing: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 157-173.
    20. Borghans, Lex & Meijers, Huub & ter Weel, Bas, 2013. "The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for measuring IQ," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 17-28.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision making under risk; Gambler’s fallacy; Lottery choice; Perception of randomness; Number preferences in lotteries; Representativeness heuristic;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:war:wpaper:2019-11. 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: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.html .

    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.