[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/23-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gambling habits and Probability Judgements in a Bayesian Task Environment

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Dickinson
  • Parker Reid
Abstract
Little is known about how gamblers estimate probabilities from multiple information sources. This paper reports on a preregistered study that administered an incentivized Bayesian choice task to n=465 participants (self-reported gamblers and non-gamblers). The task elicits subjective probability estimates for a particular event given the base rate probability and new evidence information for that event, which allows for an assessment of one’s probability assessment accuracy. Furthermore, we also estimate the degree to which both sources of information are weighted in forming subjective probability estimates. Our data failed to support our main hypotheses that experienced online gamblers would be more accurate Bayesian decision-makers compared to non-gamblers, that gamblers experienced in games of skill (e.g., poker) would be more accurate than gamblers experienced only in non-skill games (e.g., slots), or that accuracy would differ in females compared to males. Pairwise comparisons between these types of participants also failed to show any difference in decision weights placed on the two information sources. Exploratory analysis, however, revealed interesting effects related to self-reported gambling frequency. Specifically, more frequent online gamblers had lower Bayesian accuracy than infrequent gamblers. Also, those scoring higher in a cognitive reflection task were more Bayesian in weighting information sources when making belief assessments. While we report no main effect of sex on Bayesian accuracy, exploratory analysis found that the decline in accuracy linked to self-reported gambling frequency was stronger for females. Decision modeling finds a decreased weight place on new evidence (over base rate odds) in those who showed decreased accuracy, which suggests a proper incorporation of new information into one’s probability assessments is important for more accurate assessment of probabilities in uncertain environments. Our results link frequency of gambling to worse performance in the critical probability assessment skills that should benefit gambling success (i.e., in skill-based games). Additional research is needed to better understand why a higher frequency of gambling is associated with lower Bayesian accuracy and why this association is greater in females compared to males. Key Words: Gambling, Bayes Rule, Probability Judgements, Cognitive Reflection

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Dickinson & Parker Reid, 2023. "Gambling habits and Probability Judgements in a Bayesian Task Environment," Working Papers 23-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:23-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp2303.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    2. Goodwin, Paul & Önkal, Dilek & Stekler, Herman O., 2018. "What if you are not Bayesian? The consequences for decisions involving risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(1), pages 238-246.
    3. Grether, David M., 1992. "Testing bayes rule and the representativeness heuristic: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-57, January.
    4. Holt, Charles A. & Smith, Angela M., 2009. "An update on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 125-134, February.
    5. M.S.M. Lim & G. Jocham & L.T. Hunt & T.E.J. Behrens & R.D. Rogers, 2015. "Impulsivity and predictive control are associated with suboptimal action-selection and action-value learning in regular gamblers," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 489-505, December.
    6. Dickinson, David L. & McElroy, Todd, 2019. "Bayesian versus heuristic-based choice under sleep restriction and suboptimal times of day," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 48-59.
    7. Cowley, Elizabeth & Briley, Donnel A. & Farrell, Colin, 2015. "How do gamblers maintain an illusion of control?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2181-2188.
    8. David L. Dickinson & Eugenio Caleb Garbuio, 2020. "The Influence of Dietary Patterns on Outcomes in a Bayesian Choice Task," Working Papers 21-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:181-190 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. David M. Grether, 1980. "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 95(3), pages 537-557.
    11. Barash, Jori & Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Heuristic to Bayesian: The evolution of reasoning from childhood to adulthood," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 305-322.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gergely Hajdu & Balázs Krusper, 2023. "Choice-induced Sticky Learning," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp349, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    2. Crosetto, Paolo & Filippin, Antonio & Katuščák, Peter & Smith, John, 2020. "Central tendency bias in belief elicitation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    4. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    5. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    6. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Ambuehl, Sandro & Li, Shengwu, 2018. "Belief updating and the demand for information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 21-39.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:962-987 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Alexander Coutts, 2019. "Good news and bad news are still news: experimental evidence on belief updating," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 369-395, June.
    10. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Hügelschäfer, Sabine, 2012. "Faith in intuition and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 182-192.
    11. Bachmann, Kremena, 2024. "Do you have a choice?: Implications for belief updating and the disposition effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Piotr Evdokimov & Umberto Garfagnini, 2023. "Cognitive Ability and Perceived Disagreement in Learning," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 381, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & Mark A Lane & John A List & Jeffrey A Livingston & Michael J Seiler, 2023. "Can wishful thinking explain evidence for overconfidence? An experiment on belief updating," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 35-54.
    14. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:962-987 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Charness, Gary & Dave, Chetan, 2017. "Confirmation bias with motivated beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-23.
    16. Piotr Evdokimov & Umberto Garfagnini, 2022. "Higher-order learning," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1234-1266, September.
    17. Robalo, Pedro & Sayag, Rei, 2018. "Paying is believing: The effect of costly information on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 114-125.
    18. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Marklein, Felix & Sunde, Uwe, 2009. "Biased probability judgment: Evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 903-915, December.
    19. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Hügelschäfer, Sabine, 2016. "Faith in intuition and cognitive reflection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 61-70.
    20. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "Understanding the Technology of Computer Technology Diffusion: Explaining Computer Adoption Patterns and Implications for the Wage Structure," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 17(3-4), pages 37-70, September.
    21. David L. Dickinson & Eugenio Caleb Garbuio, 2020. "The Influence of Dietary Patterns on Outcomes in a Bayesian Choice Task," Working Papers 21-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    22. Asanov, Igor, 2021. "Bandit cascade: A test of observational learning in the bandit problem," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 150-171.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gambling; bayes rule; probability judgements; cognitive reflection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:23-03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.