Banking on a Bad Bet: Probability Matching in Risky Choice Is Linked to Expectation Generation
Open accessAbstract
Probability matching is the tendency to match choice probabilities to outcome probabilities in a binary prediction task. This tendency is a long-standing puzzle in the study of decision making under risk and uncertainty, because always predicting the more probable outcome across a series of trials (maximizing) would yield greater predictive accuracy and payoffs. In three experiments, we tied the predominance of probability matching over maximizing to a generally adaptive cognitive operation that generates expectations regarding the aggregate outcomes of an upcoming sequence of events. Under conditions designed to diminish the generation or perceived applicability of such expectations, we found that the frequency of probability-matching behavior dropped substantially and maximizing became the norm.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
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
Self-citationSearching for Patterns in Random Sequences.
Wolford, G., Newman, S. E., Miller, M. B., & Wig, G. S. (2004) · Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · doi:10.1037/h0087446 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Derks, P. L., & Paclisanu, M. I. (1967). Simple strategies in binary prediction by children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 73 , 278-285.
- Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Kogler, C., & Kuhberger, A. (2007). Dual process theories: A key for understanding the diversification bias? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 34 , 145-154.
- Parducci, A., & Polt, J. (1958). Correction vs. noncorrection with changing reinforcement schedules. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 51 , 492-495.
- Wilson, W. A., Jr., & Rollin, A. R. (1959). Two-choice behavior of rhesus monkeys in a noncontingent situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 58 , 174-180.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- James, G., & Koehler, D. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- James, Greta
- ORCID
- Koehler, Derek J.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-05-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 707-711
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2163612855
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- zenodo.org
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- probability matching, maximization, decision making under risk, prediction, outcome probability, expectations, adaptive cognition, choice probabilities
- MeSH terms
- Choice Behavior, Games, Experimental, Humans, Probability, Probability Learning, Risk-Taking, Uncertainty
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
