In this article, we describe a classroom demonstration that uses the Gambler's Fallacy to illustrate misconceptions about random processes and how they affect statistical interpretation. The demonstration used a database collected from simulated gambling by students picking professional football games with the point spread (i.e., a real-life random process). The results of student picks illustrated that random processes are not self-correcting and reinforced the relation between sample size and variability. Formal and informal feedback from students indicated that the demonstration was well received and recommended for future classes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bar-HillelM.WagenaarW. A. (1993). The perception of randomness. In KerenG.LewisC. (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 369–393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2.
CanesM. E. (1974). The market for pro football betting.Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
3.
DillbeckM. C. (1983). Teaching statistics in terms of the knower. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 18–20.
4.
GilovichT.ValloneR.TverskyA. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295–314.
5.
KarylowskiJ. (1985). Regression toward the mean effect: No statistical background required. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 229–230.
6.
LevinJ. R. (1982). Modifications of a regression-toward-the-mean demonstration. Teaching of Psychology, 9, 237–238.
7.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110.
8.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
