Abstract
To declare a phenomenon an illusion would require no logical (theoretical) and empirical support for it after exhaustive research. Yet both types of evidence for psychological momentum (PM) abound in the literature, from individual sport performance to mutual fund investing. For example, it is well established that momentum-based investing provides consistent outperformance. However, in their commentary, the authors focus narrowly on one segment of sporting behavior, especially basketball studies, in which “hot hand” has only been tested based on 1 performance criterion—shooting percentages or probabilities—when a true test of “hotness” would require inclusion of multiple performance indicators. These studies are also marred by major theoretical and methodological deficiencies. Coupled with the propositional and provisional nature of scientific knowledge, one is left with no basis for making generalized statements about illusion and randomness of PM. As Gleiser (2014, p. 44) so eloquently states, “Data without theory is lame; theory without data is blind.” To move forward, we have formulated the theoretical parameters of the phenomenon and show evidence indicating that performance successes not only occur in sequence, but higher-ranked players are able to put together more frequent and more lasting strings of successful performances; they also bounce back more quickly from failures. All in all, PM is alive and well. Its theoretical properties have been put forth for the first time, and empirical evidence is mounting for its effects in various domains of human behavior and performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.