Neuroscience
Whether it's in the financial markets or on the football pitch, most people believe in runs or streaks of luck. We tend to think that if a stock has risen for several successive days, or if a team has put together a string of wins, then the chances of a future good outcome are increased. However this belief is often a fallacy because streaks are a natural part of any random sequence (and see here).
Now Kurt Carlson and Suzanne Shu report that the key moment we perceive a streak as having occurred is after three repeats – what they call the 'rule of three'. In other words, we don't read meaning into a repeat of two, and we don't read any additional meaning into streaks of more than three.
In one study, students were asked to decide how much fictional inheritance to invest in a stock. After hearing the stock had risen for one day or for two consecutive days, there was little increase in the amount they chose to invest. The largest jump in the students' investment decision came after they learned the stock had risen for three consecutive days. By contrast, hearing that the stock had risen for four, five or even six consecutive days didn't make any further impact on their decision making.
Other support for the rule of three came from an analysis of basketball data and of how streaks are discussed in sports journalism.
Carlson and Shu say the 'rule of three' has implications in real life. For example, in sports gambling, a team that has won three games in a row will be overpriced by the bookies (because most punters will have acted as though the team has an increased chance of winning), while a team that has lost three in a row will be under-priced. “A savvy gambler (who is aware of the rule of three) might do well to bet against teams that have won three games in a row and bet for teams that have lost three games in a row,” they said.
_________________________________
Carlson, K.A. & Shu, S.B. (2007). The rule of three: How the third event signals the emergence of a streak. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 104, 113-121.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
- Olympics Feast Special
As we enter the home straight towards the close of the 2012 Olympics, here's a handy links round-up: Fancy becoming a sports psychologist? There are plenty of pointers in this video, plus lots more resources from the BPS Going For Gold sports psychology...
- We're Useless At Choosing Between Time-saving Options
From a host preparing for a dinner party to a country constructing a new national stadium, we all tend to underestimate how long things are going to take - an error that's been dubbed the 'planning fallacy'. According to Ola Svenson, contributing...
- Our Belief In Psychological Momentum And The Laws Of Physics
Would you say a sportswoman is more or less likely than usual to win her next game if she won her last game? What about if she had won her last two games? If, like most people, you think her chances of future success are greater following a series of...
- Patients With Tourette's Have More Self-control, Not Less
People with Tourette’s syndrome can’t stop themselves from making sudden repeated movements or noises, so you might infer that they have an impairment in their mental control processes. On the contrary, according to a new study they actually have...
- Torture Psychology And The American Psychological Association (apa)
New developments in torture psychology and the APA, as reported by James Risen in the New York Times: Critic of Psychologists’ Role in Interrogation Is Asked to Reconsider By James Risen The New York Times 15 April 2016 Article [Photo by Anthony...
Neuroscience
The rule of three
Whether it's in the financial markets or on the football pitch, most people believe in runs or streaks of luck. We tend to think that if a stock has risen for several successive days, or if a team has put together a string of wins, then the chances of a future good outcome are increased. However this belief is often a fallacy because streaks are a natural part of any random sequence (and see here).Now Kurt Carlson and Suzanne Shu report that the key moment we perceive a streak as having occurred is after three repeats – what they call the 'rule of three'. In other words, we don't read meaning into a repeat of two, and we don't read any additional meaning into streaks of more than three.
In one study, students were asked to decide how much fictional inheritance to invest in a stock. After hearing the stock had risen for one day or for two consecutive days, there was little increase in the amount they chose to invest. The largest jump in the students' investment decision came after they learned the stock had risen for three consecutive days. By contrast, hearing that the stock had risen for four, five or even six consecutive days didn't make any further impact on their decision making.
Other support for the rule of three came from an analysis of basketball data and of how streaks are discussed in sports journalism.
Carlson and Shu say the 'rule of three' has implications in real life. For example, in sports gambling, a team that has won three games in a row will be overpriced by the bookies (because most punters will have acted as though the team has an increased chance of winning), while a team that has lost three in a row will be under-priced. “A savvy gambler (who is aware of the rule of three) might do well to bet against teams that have won three games in a row and bet for teams that have lost three games in a row,” they said.
_________________________________
Carlson, K.A. & Shu, S.B. (2007). The rule of three: How the third event signals the emergence of a streak. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 104, 113-121.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
- Olympics Feast Special
As we enter the home straight towards the close of the 2012 Olympics, here's a handy links round-up: Fancy becoming a sports psychologist? There are plenty of pointers in this video, plus lots more resources from the BPS Going For Gold sports psychology...
- We're Useless At Choosing Between Time-saving Options
From a host preparing for a dinner party to a country constructing a new national stadium, we all tend to underestimate how long things are going to take - an error that's been dubbed the 'planning fallacy'. According to Ola Svenson, contributing...
- Our Belief In Psychological Momentum And The Laws Of Physics
Would you say a sportswoman is more or less likely than usual to win her next game if she won her last game? What about if she had won her last two games? If, like most people, you think her chances of future success are greater following a series of...
- Patients With Tourette's Have More Self-control, Not Less
People with Tourette’s syndrome can’t stop themselves from making sudden repeated movements or noises, so you might infer that they have an impairment in their mental control processes. On the contrary, according to a new study they actually have...
- Torture Psychology And The American Psychological Association (apa)
New developments in torture psychology and the APA, as reported by James Risen in the New York Times: Critic of Psychologists’ Role in Interrogation Is Asked to Reconsider By James Risen The New York Times 15 April 2016 Article [Photo by Anthony...