Motivated reasoning in the prediction of sports outcomes and the belief in the “hot hand”

References

• Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). From a fixation on sports to an exploration of mechanism: The past, present, and future of hot hand research. Thinking and Reasoning, 12, 431–444. doi: 10.1080/13546780600717244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayton, P., & Fischer, I. (2004). The hot hand fallacy and the gambler’s fallacy: Two faces of subjective randomness? Memory & Cognition, 32, 1369–1378. doi: 10.3758/BF03206327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayton, P., Hunt, A. J., & Wright, G. (1989). Psychological conceptions of randomness. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 221–238. doi: 10.1002/bdm.3960020403
   Google Scholar
• Babad, E. (1987). Wishful thinking and objectivity among sports fans. Social Behaviour, 2, 231–240.
   Google Scholar
• Babad, E., & Katz, Y. (1991). Wishful thinking – Against all odds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1921–1938. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00514.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-Eli, M., Avugos, S., & Raab, M. (2006). Twenty years of “hot hand” research: Review and critique. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 525–553. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel, M., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1991). The perception of randomness. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 12, 428–454. doi: 10.1016/0196-8858(91)90029-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boynton, D. M. (2003). Superstitious responding and frequency matching in the positive bias and gambler’s fallacy effects. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 91, 119–127. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00064-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, B. D., & Corpus, B. (2004). Randomness and inductions from streaks: “Gambler’s fallacy” versus “hot hand”. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 179–184. doi: 10.3758/BF03206480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 23–43. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.23
   Google Scholar
• Caruso, E., Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2010). The intentional mind and the hot hand: Perceiving intentions makes streaks seem likely to continue. Cognition, 116, 149–153. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and non-preferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk, R., & Konold, C. (1997). Making sense of randomness: Implicit encoding as a basis for judgment. Psychological Review, 104, 301–318. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, I., & Savranevski, L. (2015). Extending the two faces of subjective randomness: From the gambler’s and hot-hand fallacies toward a hierarchy of binary sequence perception. Memory & Cognition, 43, 1056–1070. doi: 10.3758/s13421-015-0523-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsyth, D. R., & Schlenker, B. R. (1977). Attributing the causes of group performance: Effects of performance quality, task importance, and future testing. Journal of Personality, 45, 220–236. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00148.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295–314. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(85)90010-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669–679. doi: 10.1177/0146167292186002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes, L. L. (1982). Doing the impossible: A note on induction and the experience of randomness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 8, 626–636.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malle, B., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101–121. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1996.1314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, A., Ferreira, M. B., & Sherman, S. J. (2013). Flexibility in motivated reasoning: Strategic shifts of reasoning modes in covariation judgment. Social Cognition, 31, 465–481. doi: 10.1521/soco_2012_1004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, A., Garcia-Marques, L., Ferreira, M. B., & Mendonça, C. (2015). Goal-driven reasoning overcomes cell D neglect in contingency judgements. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 238–249. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.982129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, A., Sherman, S. J., Ferreira, M. B., & Mendonça, C. (2015). Strategic numeracy: Self-serving reasoning about health statistics. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 165–173. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1018991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, M. W., Sheldon, O. J., Ames, D. R., & Young, M. J. (2007). Metaphors and the market: Consequences and preconditions of agent and object metaphors in stock market commentary. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 174–192. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (2002). The production and perception of randomness. Psychological Review, 109, 330–357. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oskarsson, A. T., Van Boven, L., McClelland, G. H., & Hastie, R. (2009). What’s next? Judging sequences of binary events. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 262–285. doi: 10.1037/a0014821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2005). Is there an “I” in “team”? The role of the self in group-serving judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 108–120. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steimer, A., & Mata, A. (2016). Motivated implicit theories of personality: My weaknesses will go away, but my strengths are here to stay. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 415–429. doi: 10.1177/0146167216629437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110. doi: 10.1037/h0031322
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyszka, T., Zielonka, P., Dacey, R., & Sawicki, P. (2008). Perception of randomness and predicting uncertain events. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 83–110. doi: 10.1080/13546780701677669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wann, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Influence of spectator’s identification on evaluation of the past, present, and future performance of a sports team. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 547–552. doi: 10.2466/pms.1994.78.2.547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weary-Bradley, G. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56–71. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.56
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaccaro, S. J., Peterson, C., & Walker, S. (1987). Self-serving attributions for individual and group performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 257–263. doi: 10.2307/2786826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar