Probability matching: Encouraging optimal responding in humans.
Abstract
Two hundred undergraduate students participated in a repeated-trials binary choice procedure in which choice of one outcome was correct on 75% of trials. Subjects received 192 trials and were divided into five conditions: (1) control; (2) subjects were given the actual probabilities; (3) subjects were told if they did well they could leave early; (4) competition condition; (5) midway through the task subjects were asked to recommend a strategy for another subject. Half of the subjects in each group were told that the best they could do was to be correct on 75% of the trials. This manipulation permitted assessment of the hypothesis that subjects in probability-matching tasks are seeking a strategy that will be correct on 100% of the trials. The results partially confirmed this hypothesis. In addition, two of the variables improved performance significantly (giving probabilities and asking subjects to recommend a strategy). However, while subjects in all groups improved significantly over trials, optimal choice did not occur in this task.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Probability matching and strategy availability
J. Koehler, D., & James, G. (2010) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.38.6.667 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Probability matching and statistical naïveté
Barlow, M., Doan, T., Friedman, O., & Denison, S. (2025) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2025.10014 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fantino, E., & Esfandiari, A.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-63
- ISSN
- 1196-1961 (ISSN-L)
- 1878-7290
- OpenAlex
- W2076510226
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH057127, MH 57127)
- 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, binary choice, competition, strategy recommendations, performance improvement, experiential learning, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Competitive Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Probability Learning, Psychomotor Performance
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
