Rationality of weather predictions and insurance purchases: testing the gambler’s and hot hand fallacies

Abstract

Deviations from the rational behaviour assumed in many economic models have been found in a variety of settings. Two such deviations, the gambler’s and hot hand fallacies have been found in lab settings, as well as in consequential real-world decisions. Previous economic experiments have shown that the behaviour of professionals can differ from that of the general population. In this paper, we use data from two experiments conducted with a particular group of professionals who make yearly high-stakes decisions in the face of uncertain weather and market conditions: agricultural producers. In the experiments, participants were asked to make predictions about the coming year’s weather and market conditions and make decisions in a familiar decision context. Results indicate evidence of the gambler’s fallacy, such that participants were less likely to predict a good outcome if the previous outcome(s) were good. We also observe that participants were more likely to gamble if a previous gamble was successful, but find no impact on two successful gambles. These combined results indicate that even professionals with many years of experience can exhibit behaviours that deviate from those assumed by classical models.