Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Hindsight Biases01:12

Hindsight Biases

3.9K
Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now? 
3.9K
Random Error01:04

Random Error

1.6K
Random or indeterminate errors originate from various uncontrollable variables, such as variations in environmental conditions, instrument imperfections, or the inherent variability of the phenomena being measured. Usually, these errors cannot be predicted, estimated, or characterized because their direction and magnitude often vary in magnitude and direction even during consecutive measurements. As a result, they are difficult to eliminate. However, the aggregate effect of these errors can be...
1.6K
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

78.9K
Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value. 
78.9K
Regression Toward the Mean01:52

Regression Toward the Mean

6.5K
Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when...
6.5K
Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error00:59

Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error

1.1K
An experiment often consists of more than a single step. In this case, measurements at each step give rise to uncertainty. Because the measurements occur in successive steps, the uncertainty in one step necessarily contributes to that in the subsequent step. As we perform statistical analysis on these types of experiments, we must learn to account for the propagation of uncertainty from one step to the next. The propagation of uncertainty depends on the type of arithmetic operation performed on...
1.1K
Expected Value01:15

Expected Value

4.2K
The expected value is known as the "long-term" average or mean. This means that over the long term of experimenting over and over, you would expect this average. The expected average is represented by the symbol μ. It is calculated as follows:
4.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Perceived Power Polarizes Moral Evaluations.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2024
Same author

Predicting Outcomes in a Sequence of Binary Events: Belief Updating and Gambler's Fallacy Reasoning.

Cognitive science·2023
Same author

Generative models for visualizing idiosyncratic impressions.

British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)·2022
Same author

The psychology of asymmetric zero-sum beliefs.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2021
Same author

Do people reason rationally about causally related events? Markov violations, weak inferences, and failures of explaining away.

Cognitive psychology·2016
Same author

Hedonomics: Bridging Decision Research With Happiness Research.

Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science·2015

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 9, 2025

A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers
08:05

A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers

Published on: January 5, 2018

9.9K

People calibrate future expectations to past performance when predicting transparently random events.

Russell Roberts1, Reid Hastie1, Alexander Todorov1

  • 1Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

PNAS Nexus
|August 28, 2025
PubMed
Summary

People tend to see patterns in random events, influencing their future expectations and risk-taking. Even with random coin tosses, success breeds optimism and risk-taking, while failure leads to pessimism and risk aversion.

Keywords:
luckpredictionrandomnessrationalityrisk

More Related Videos

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

12.2K
Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction
16:23

Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction

Published on: February 26, 2014

14.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 9, 2025

A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers
08:05

A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers

Published on: January 5, 2018

9.9K
Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

12.2K
Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction
16:23

Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction

Published on: February 26, 2014

14.5K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Behavioral Economics
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Humans often struggle to distinguish random from patterned sequences.
  • Belief in personal control can persist even in genuinely random situations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how performance feedback from a random process influences future expectations and risk-taking.
  • To examine the psychological mechanisms underlying the perception of control over random outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Five experiments involving over 12,000 participants predicting outcomes of fair coin tosses.
  • Participants received varying numbers of "successes" (correct predictions) without deception.
  • Analysis of prediction behavior, future expectations, and risk-taking propensity.

Main Results:

  • Higher success rates in predicting random coin tosses led to more optimistic future expectations and increased risk-taking.
  • Lower success rates resulted in pessimistic expectations and risk-averse behavior.
  • The strength of performance inference correlated with participants' tendency to change predictions, suggesting perceived spurious correlations.

Conclusions:

  • Individuals exhibit a strong tendency to infer predictive signals from performance in random sequences, even without evidence.
  • This inference is not explained by distorted probability beliefs or risk attitudes but by detecting illusory correlations.
  • Findings highlight a fundamental human bias in interpreting random events and its impact on decision-making.