Cited by 223Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The smart potential behind probability matching

Open access
Gaissmaier, Wolfgang, Schooler, Lael J.·2008·Cognition

Abstract

Probability matching is a classic choice anomaly that has been studied extensively. While many approaches assume that it is a cognitive shortcut driven by cognitive limitations, recent literature suggests that it is not a strategy per se, but rather another outcome of people's well-documented misperception of randomness. People search for patterns even in random sequences, which results in probability matching at the outcome level. Previous studies have supported this by the finding that distracting people with a secondary verbal working memory task presumably prevents the pattern search, resulting in more maximizing behavior that is considered more rational. The current paper demonstrates with two experiments that there is actually truth in both accounts. For some participants, probability matching indeed seems to be the result of a cognitive shortcut, a simple "win-stay, lose-shift" strategy, and in one experiment identified these as participants low in working memory capacity. For others, however, a potentially smart pattern search strategy underlies probability matching. These probability matchers (who still look irrational in the absence of patterns) actually have a higher chance of finding a pattern if one exists. Contrary to the almost uniformly negative perception of probability matching, we therefore conclude that there can be a potentially smart strategy behind probability matching.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.007

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Harris, T. (1991). The silence of the lambs. New York: St. Martin's Press (first edition in 1988).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gaissmaier, W., & Schooler, L. J.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
Corresponding author
Gaissmaier, Wolfgang
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
109
Issue
3
Pages
416-422
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091318897
Cited by
223
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 17
FWCI
5.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
probability matching, pattern search, win-stay lose-shift strategy, working memory capacity, cognitive shortcuts, decision-making, rationality
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Cognition, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Processes, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Probability Learning, Visual Perception, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review