The Prediction Order Effect: People Are More Likely to Choose Improbable Outcomes in Later Predictions

References

• American Gaming Association (2021) 2021 March Madness Wagering Estimates. Accessed August 2, 2023, https://www.americangaming.org/resources/2021-march-madness-wagering-estimates/.Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel M, Peer E, Acquisti A (2014) “Heads or tails?”—A reachability bias in binary choice. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 40(6):1656–1663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Weber M, Welfens F (2011) Reference-point formation and updating. Management Sci. 57(3):506–519.Link, Google Scholar
• Biswas D, Labrecque LI, Lehmann DR, Markos E (2014) Making choices while smelling, tasting, and listening: The role of sensory (dis) similarity when sequentially sampling products. J. Marketing 78(1):112–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlson KA, Shu SB (2007) The rule of three: How the third event signals the emergence of a streak. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 104(1):113–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheema A, Soman D (2008) The effect of partitions on controlling consumption. J. Marketing Res. 45(6):665–675.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen DL, Moskowitz TJ, Shue K (2016) Decision making under the gambler’s fallacy: Evidence from asylum judges, loan officers, and baseball umpires. Quart. J. Econom. 131(3):1181–1242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clotfelter CT, Cook PJ (1993) The “gambler’s fallacy” in lottery play. Management Sci. 39(12):1521–1525.Link, Google Scholar
• Conlisk J (1993) The utility of gambling. J. Risk Uncertainty 6(3):255–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawar N, Anderson PF (1994) The effects of order and direction on multiple brand extensions. J. Bus. Res. 30(2):119–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dayan E, Bar-Hillel M (2011) Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment Decision Making 6(4):333–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drolet A (2002) Inherent rule variability in consumer choice: Changing rules for change’s sake. J. Consumer Res. 29(3):293–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenberg AE, Baron J, Seligman ME (1998) Individual differences in risk aversion and anxiety. Psych. Bull. 87(1):245–251.Google Scholar
• Engelmann JB, Tamir D (2009) Individual differences in risk preference predict neural responses during financial decision-making. Brain Res. 1290:28–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B, Broomell SB (2020) Judgment and decision making. Annual Rev. Psych. 71:331–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaertig C, Simmons JP (2018) Do people inherently dislike uncertain advice? Psych. Sci. 29(4):504–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gal I, Baron J (1996) Understanding repeated simple choices. Thinking Reasoning 2(1):81–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Godes D, Silva JC (2012) Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Sci. 31(3):448–473.Link, Google Scholar
• Habbert R, Schroeder J (2020) To build efficacy, eat the frog first: People misunderstand how the difficulty-ordering of tasks influences efficacy. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 91:104032.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hales AH, Wesselmann ED, Hilgard J (2019) Improving psychological science through transparency and openness: An overview. Perspect. Behav. Sci. 42(1):13–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haugtvedt CP, Wegener DT (1994) Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. J. Consumer Res. 21(1):205–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM, Einhorn HJ (1992) Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psych. 24(1):1–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber M, Van Boven L, McGraw AP, Johnson-Graham L (2011) Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 115(2):283–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• James G, Koehler DJ (2011) Banking on a bad bet: Probability matching in risky choice is linked to expectation generation. Psych. Sci. 22(6):707–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kılıç A, Van Tilburg WA, Igou ER (2020) Risk‐taking increases under boredom. J. Behav. Decision Making 33(3):257–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koppell JG, Steen JA (2004) The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. J. Politics 66(1):267–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lauriola M, Panno A, Levin IP, Lejuez CW (2014) Individual differences in risky decision making: A meta‐analysis of sensation seeking and impulsivity with the balloon analogue risk task. J. Behav. Decision Making 27(1):20–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li YE, Epley N (2009) When the best appears to be saved for last: Serial position effects on choice. J. Behav. Decision Making 22(4):378–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psych. Bull. 127(2):267–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maule AJ, Hockey GRJ, Bdzola L (2000) Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: Changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Psychologica 104(3):283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers B, Schwartz A, Cooke AD (1998) Judgment and decision making. Annual Rev. Psych. 49(1):447–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers B, Ungar L, Baron J, Ramos J, Gurcay B, Fincher K, Scott SE, et al. (2014) Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Psych. Sci. 25(5):1106–1115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyvis T, Van Osselaer SM (2018) Increasing the power of your study by increasing the effect size. J. Consumer Res. 44(5):1157–1173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller JM, Krosnick JA (1998) The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quart. 62(3):291–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore DA (1999) Order effects in preference judgments: Evidence for context dependence in the generation of preferences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 78(2):146–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murdock BB (1968) Serial order effects in short-term memory. J. Experiment. Psych. 76(4):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murdock BB (1976) Item and order information in short-term serial memory. J. Experiment. Psych. General 105(2):191–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Strack F, Pfeiffer T (2000) Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 26(9):1142–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neath I (1993) Distinctiveness and serial position effects in recognition. Memory Cognition 21(5):689–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oskarsson AT, Van Boven L, McClelland GH, Hastie R (2009) What’s next? Judging sequences of binary events. Psych. Bull. 135(2):262–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pressey AW (1977) Measuring the Titchener circles and Delboeuf illusions with the method of adjustment. Bull. Psychonomic Soc. 10(2):118–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2002) Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):775–816.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roney CJ, Trick LM (2003) Grouping and gambling: A Gestalt approach to understanding the gambler’s fallacy. Canadian J. Experiment. Psych. 57(2):69–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Satopää VA, Salikhov M, Tetlock PE, Mellers B (2021) Bias, information, noise: The BIN model of forecasting. Management Sci. 67(12):7599–7618.Link, Google Scholar
• Sevilla J, Lu J, Kahn BE (2019) Variety seeking, satiation, and maximizing enjoyment over time. J. Consumer Psych. 29(1):89–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silverman J, Barasch A (2023) On or off track: How (broken) streaks affect consumer decisions. J. Consumer Res. 49(6):1095–1117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silverman J, Barasch A, Small DA (2023) Hot streak! Inferences and predictions about goal adherence. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 179:104281.Google Scholar
• Tanner RJ, Carlson KA (2009) Unrealistically optimistic consumers: A selective hypothesis testing account for optimism in predictions of future behavior. J. Consumer Res. 35(5):810–822.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1971) Belief in the law of small numbers. Psych. Bull. 76(2):105–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yacubian J, Gläscher J, Schroeder K, Sommer T, Braus DF, Büchel C (2006) Dissociable systems for gain-and loss-related value predictions and errors of prediction in the human brain. J. Neuroscience 26(37):9530–9537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaleskiewicz T (2001) Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: Personality and the dual nature of economic risk taking. Eur. J. Personality 15(S1):S105–S122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zsambok CE, Klein G (2014) Naturalistic Decision Making (Psychology Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar