{"id":4205,"date":"2018-04-26T20:15:06","date_gmt":"2018-04-27T00:15:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/?p=4205"},"modified":"2020-02-07T11:17:03","modified_gmt":"2020-02-07T16:17:03","slug":"shoot-to-get-hot-shoot-to-stay-hot-or-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/2018\/04\/26\/shoot-to-get-hot-shoot-to-stay-hot-or-not\/","title":{"rendered":"Shoot to get hot, shoot to stay hot – or not?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Picture this: you\u2019re watching your favorite professional basketball team on television
\nwhen suddenly their best player gets fouled again<\/em>\u2014that\u2019s already the sixth time tonight, and he
\nhasn\u2019t missed a free throw yet! You watch eagerly as he steps to the free throw line for the first
\nof two shots. He bounces the ball, once, twice, stares down the rim, and shoots\u2014swish\u2014a
\nperfect shot once again. The referee hands him the ball for his second and final shot while you
\nthink to yourself, \u201cThere is no way he will miss this shot, he\u2019s hot and having a great night. He
\nhasn\u2019t missed a single free throw all night, and he just made the first shot, so this one has to go
\nin.\u201d But your confidence is shattered when the ball leaves his hands and soars just a bit too far,
\nbricking off of the backboard<\/p>\n

\"\"

Nothing but air.<\/p><\/div>\n

and into the hands of the other team. If this situation sounds
\nfamiliar to you, then you\u2019ve fallen victim to what psychologists call the \u201cHot Hand Fallacy,\u201d or
\nthe erroneous<\/em> belief that someone\u2019s performance in a sporting event or similar life circumstance
\nis expected to occur in significant \u201cstreaks\u201d\u2014in other words, good outcomes are more likely to
\noccur in conjunction with other good outcomes, and, likewise, bad with bad.<\/p>\n

Yes, that\u2019s right, the erroneous<\/span> belief, as there exists significant research that tells us that
\nthe state of a player \u201cbeing hot\u201d is nothing more than a figment of our imagination. If you have
\ntrouble believing this, then you\u2019re not alone. Gilovich et al.\u2019s extensive 1985 study found that
\n91% of college-aged basketball fans believed that one is more likely to make a shot after just
\nhaving made a basket as opposed to missing a basket. Furthermore, the participants, on average,
\nestimated a player was nearly 20% more likely to make a shot after having made one compared
\nto after having missed one (Gilovich, Tversky, & Vallone, 1985).<\/p>\n

So, if this belief is so ingrained in people\u2019s minds, how can it be wrong? Gilovich and company turned to statistics to disprove the perceived phenomenon. First, they looked at the Philadelphia
\n76ers\u2019 1980-1981 season shooting statistics, and searched for what they called \u201cruns\u201d or streaks
\nof either makes or misses (a streak is a continuous sequence of either makes or misses ). They compared the actual amount
\nof streaks a player had to the expected amount they would have had if their shots were
\nindependent of one another, and found that of the 76ers, all nine players, shot nearly equal to or
\nlower than the expected number of runs, suggesting that there is no such thing as a shooter<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The 76ers squad in question<\/p><\/div>\n

getting \u201chot\u201d (Gilovich, Tversky, & Vallone, 1985). They calculated this expected number by looking at the shooters’ shots made and shots missed, then assumed a random dispersion of makes and misses from there.
\nThis study delved even further into the hot hand effect, analyzing free-throws in both
\nprofessional games and a controlled shooting experiment, and consistently found that basketball
\nshots were independent of one another (Gilovich, Tversky, & Vallone, 1985). So, how do they
\naccount for the widespread, fallacious belief that players can have a \u201chot hand\u201d?<\/p>\n

To explain this common, allegedly erroneous conviction, the researchers turned to errors in pattern recognition. Pattern recognition is a cognitive process in which, by using information from memory, one is able to
\nmake meaning of their environmental stimuli. In this pattern recognition system, bottom-up and
\ntop-down processing work in tandem to allow for fast recognition of meaningful stimuli.
\nBottom-up processing relies entirely on stimuli alone. If humans utilized only bottom-up
\nprocessing, then the \u201chot hand\u201d effect would be non-existent, as we would only be able to
\nconsider each shot independently without drawing on prior knowledge or experience. However,
\ntop-down processing allows humans to do just that\u2014it integrates conceptual knowledge and
\nexpectations into the pattern recognition system. This is why the word superiority effect <\/a>exists,
\nin which we are more easily able to recognize a letter when it appears in a word than when it
\nappears alone. In this case, top-down processing is immensely helpful in improving reading
\ncomprehension and speed, but top-down processing is not all its cut out to be, as humans often
\nhave a tendency to recognize meaningful patterns in everything. For an example, see face-<\/a>
\npareidolia<\/a>, the phenomenon in which one sees faces in inanimate objects.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The Wolverines barely miss an easy basket…I bet the Mules could take them<\/p><\/div>\n

In the case of the Hot Hand Fallacy, researchers conducting the 1985 experiments cited
\ntop-down processing as the reason for erroneous conceptions of a \u201chot hand\u201d (Gilovich, Tversky,
\n& Vallone, 1985). First, they reasoned that a fan\u2019s intuition in a player being on a good or bad
\nshooting streak could be influenced by other facets of their game, such as their defensive play or
\nrebound total (Gilovich, Tversky, & Vallone, 1985). In this scenario, the other facets of a
\nplayer\u2019s game are the prior experiences and conceptual knowledge that the fan will apply to the
\nstimulus, the player\u2019s shooting performance. From there, the fan makes a prediction regarding
\nthe next shot that is based off of many more factors than simply the player\u2019s shooting ability.
\nThe researchers also considered the common event in which the basketball nearly goes
\nthrough the hoop, but pops out or is just slightly off target. This is objectively a miss, a negative
\nevent, however, the study found that if a player is perceived as being \u201chot,\u201d then this close-call
\nmissed basket is interpreted as a positive event, a continuation of the hot streak (Gilovich,
\nTversky, & Vallone, 1985). Conversely, if the player is perceived as being on a \u201ccold\u201d streak, the
\nnear-miss is considered to be validation and continuation of the player\u2019s stretch of poor shooting
\n(Gilovich, Tversky, & Vallone, 1985). In this scenario, if the spectator used only bottom-up
\nprocessing, then the ball barely missing the hoop would be considered to be a negative event
\nregardless of circumstance. However, top-down processing would cause one to erroneously also
\nconsider the previous shots leading up to the missed shot, which could lead to the interpretation
\nthat a nearly-missed shot was actually a continuation of a \u201chot\u201d streak (Gilovich, Tversky, &
\nVallone, 1985). This manipulation of an outcome to match one’s expectations is a common phenomenon known as the expectation bias<\/a>. Gilovich et al. claimed that, in reality, it was a miss in a far more random series of successes and failures (Gilovich, Tversky, & Vallone, 1985). In other words, they determined
\nthat each shot was independent\u2014its probability of going in was unrelated to the outcome of
\nprevious shots\u2014and our interpretation that the outcomes of shots is related was the result of
\nerroneous pattern recognition.<\/p>\n

So, if this truly is a fallacious interpretation of random events, why does it occur? Researchers have proposed that the Hot Hand Fallacy is the result of evolution <\/a>(Wilke & Barrett, 2009). They theorize early humans adapted to recognize patterns of clumped, related information as opposed to processing their environment as a series of random events (Wilke & Barrett, 2009). For example, consider foraging and hunting. When encountering food sources, it would be important to recognize where the most fruit tends to grow, where prey tends to graze, etc. If humans considered each hunt or foraging session as an independent event, then their search for food would be based entirely off of bottom-up processes, such as footprints or other sensory clues. However, the evolution of top-down processing allowed humans to recall prior knowledge and experience – they could seek out popular breeding grounds, recognize that animals need water and search near rivers, and learn what plants grow where and what animals graze where. By processing information as a meaningful series of patterned clumps, humans became much more efficient. However, you certainly may not feel more efficient when you realize that half of the sports predictions you’ve ever made have been based off of misplaced pattern recognition.<\/p>\n

Now, there is more at stake here than just the intuitive predictions of fans and spectators.
\nGilovich et al. also interviewed the players and coach of the same Philadelphia 76ers team about
\nthe idea of a player having \u201chot hands.\u201d After a series of questions\u2014including \u201cIs it important
\nfor players on a team to pass the ball to someone who has just made several shots in a row?\u201d to
\nwhich every member of the team responded \u201cyes\u201d\u2014it was clear that coaches and players often
\nmade crucial game-time decisions based on the Hot Hand Fallacy, which is based off of an error
\nmade in the pattern recognition process.<\/p>\n

Perhaps you are still skeptical. Perhaps you don\u2019t buy their method, don\u2019t subscribe to
\ntheir statistics, or simply do not agree with Gilovich et al.\u2019s conclusion due to your own personal
\nexperiences.<\/p>\n

Well, you\u2019re certainly not alone.<\/p>\n

Gilovich et al.\u2019s infamous 1985 paper, \u201cThe hot hand in basketball: On the misperception
\nof random sequences,\u201d came under significant fire in the decades that followed its publication,
\nsparking the epic saga surrounding the \u201chot hand\u201d effect.
\nIn 2002, Kevin Korb and Michael Stillwell gave a presentation at the International
\nConference of Cognitive Science critiquing Gilovich et al.\u2019s approach to analysis, claiming that
\nit lacked statistical power (Korb & Stillwell, 2002). Statistical power<\/a> describes a statistical method’s ability to recognize significant effects when significant effects do exist.<\/p>\n

The next year, J.J. Koehler and Caryn Conley recognized the cognitive psychology
\ncommunity\u2019s concerns with Gilovich et al.\u2019s statistical analysis methods, and designed a new
\nmethodology that not only took these apprehensions into consideration but also analyzed
\nperformances at the NBA Long Distance Shootout contest and identified when television
\nannouncers deemed a certain player \u201con fire\u201d (Conley & Koehler, 2003). They determined that
\nthe original 1985 study, despite its lack of statistical power, was correct to conclude that the Hot
\nHand Fallacy was indeed a fallacy.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

It only took thirty years for someone to analyze a sport other than basketball<\/p><\/div>\n

However, more research followed from Green and Zwiebel in 2014, when they
\ninvestigated the Hot Hand Effect in baseball and found evidence for its existence in ten statistical
\ncategories, such as RBIs or Home Runs (Green & Zwiebel, 2014). They believe that spectators are correct to use their top-
\ndown processing and prior knowledge in the prediction of short-term performance of athletes,
\nbut that the sport of basketball, due to the existence of defensive pressure, is an inappropriate
\nsetting to test for a Hot Hand Effect (Green & Zwiebel, 2014). They argue that prior literature has falsely categorized the Hot Hand Effect as a mistake, when in reality it is a viable, necessary adjustment made to account for equilibrium (Green & Zwiebel, 2014). This
\nsuggests that pattern recognition is essential for the human predictive abilities because it allows
\none to adjust for equilibrium, to notice trends in performance and respond accordingly. Another
\nstudy also found evidence of a Hot Hand Effect, but this time in basketball, returning to the roots
\nof this problematic cognitive dilemma and offering the saga a satisfying conclusion (Miller &
\nSanjurjo, 2016). It did so through more powerful statistical methods. Decades after the original study, it seems as if we’re actually correct to perceive athletic performance in “hot” or “cold” streaks.<\/p>\n

The saga of the Hot Hand “Fallacy” has been a landmark in cognitive psychology. For decades, the findings of Gilovich et al. stood uncontested, temporarily proving human intuition to be at fault. However, modern researchers have proven why no psychological discovery can ever be set in stone. Through new statistical methods and a broader range of analysis, it seems that humans are actually correct to identify patterns in seemingly random sequences.<\/p>\n

References:<\/p>\n

Gilovich, T., Tversky, A., & Vallone, R. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Green, B., & Zwiebel, J. (2017). The Hot-Hand Fallacy: Cognitive Mistakes or Equilibrium Adjustments? Evidence from Major League Baseball. Management Science<\/em>, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1287\/mnsc.2017.2804.<\/p>\n

Koehler, J. J., & Conley, C. (2003). The \u201chot hand\u201d myth in professional basketball. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, <\/em>25, 253-259, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1123\/jsep.25.2.253.<\/p>\n

Korb, K. B., & Stillwell, M. (2002). The story of the hot hand: Powerful myth or powerless critique? Presented at International Conference on Cognitive Science.<\/p>\n

Miller, J. B., & Sanjurjo, A. (2016). Surprised by the Gambler\u2019s and hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers. IGIER Working Paper No. 552, http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.2627354.<\/p>\n

Wilke, A., & Clark Barrett, H. (2009). The hot hand phenomenon as a cognitive adaptation to clumped resources. Evolution and Human <\/em>Behavior, <\/i>30, 161-169, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.evolhumbehav.2008.11.004.<\/p>\n

Images:<\/p>\n

Image 1: https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/gameon\/2013\/04\/04\/steve-nash-dwight-howard-free-throws\/2052547\/<\/p>\n

Image 2: http:\/\/www.tradingcarddb.com\/ViewCard.cfm\/sid\/25504\/cid\/2987177\/1980-81-Topps—Team-Posters-12-Philadelphia-76ers<\/p>\n

Image 3: https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?biw=1536&bih=735&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=JGfiWtCQLM67ggeO5qfQDw&q=basketball+rolls+around+rim+gif&oq=basketball+rolls+around+rim+gif&gs_l=psy-ab.3…5632.9501.0.9625.14.12.2.0.0.0.133.898.7j3.10.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.5.373…0j0i8i30k1j0i24k1.0.grzIYFcjX_c#imgrc=zT43lcS0sDaPKM:<\/p>\n

Image 4: http:\/\/www.masnsports.com\/steve-melewski\/2018\/03\/walk-off-win-adam-jones-homers-in-the-11th-for-the-win.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Picture this: you\u2019re watching your favorite professional basketball team on television when suddenly their best player gets fouled again\u2014that\u2019s already the sixth time tonight, and he hasn\u2019t missed a free throw yet! You watch eagerly as he steps to the free throw line for the first of two shots. He bounces the ball, once, twice, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8569,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[80218],"tags":[129793,705],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4205"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8569"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4205"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4205\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5417,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4205\/revisions\/5417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}