Second-guessing yourself leads to worse decisions, study finds

When facing a tough decision, it pays to trust your gut.

Second-guessing yourself leads to worse decisions, study finds
Pixabay
  • A recent study examined the accuracy of predictions of soccer matches on a popular betting website.
  • The users were allowed to revise their bets up until the match started.
  • Surprisingly, the results revealed that the revised bets were much more likely to be incorrect.


Imagine you were asked to predict the score of an upcoming match between your favorite sports team and its rival. Now, imagine you were allowed to revise your prediction at any time before the match. Would it do you any good?

Probably not. A new study suggests that it's better to trust your gut and stick to your original prediction. Published in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, the study examined the accuracy of predictions made by 150 users of a popular sports betting website. In total, these users made 57,000 predictions on the final scores of soccer matches in the English Premier League during the 2017-2018 season.

Users were allowed to revise their predictions anytime before the match. But that was rare: The average user only revised about 15 out of 380 predictions, and the majority of these revisions were typically made minutes before the match began, possibly after learning new information that might affect the outcome. Some revisions were made weeks or months before the match, but ultimately, the average time between the first and final predictions was two days.

Why did users change their minds?

"We can only speculate, but we might imagine that game players input their initial forecast, following which they look at the latest online betting odds on the match, or look for other information which might affect their judgement, such as news on team selection for the match," the researchers wrote. "Alternatively, these revisions could simply be the result of changes to initial judgements without any new information."

You might think the ability to revise your prediction would be an advantage. After all, maybe you had more time to carefully consider which team is more likely to win. Maybe public opinion on the two teams had shifted over time. Or maybe one of the teams had recently begun an incredible winning streak.

But the results of the study showed that prediction accuracy decreased significantly — by about 17 percent — when users revised their original predictions. Why? Given that the study controlled for variations by players and teams, it's unlikely that the drop-off in accuracy was due to some matches being harder to predict than others, or some users being better predictors than others.

Pixabay

One possible explanation is a behavioral bias that describes how people are likely to overreact to news that is salient. So, when you learn, for instance, that a player on one of the teams was injured, you might respond excessively to that news, leading you to revise your original prediction.

The results revealed that revisions made after a longer period of time, as opposed to just a few minutes, were much less likely to be correct. Also, users were less likely to predict correctly when their revised predictions included higher scores, for example, changing a 1-2 outcome to a 2-3 outcome. Interestingly, most users underestimated the likelihood of a 0-0 draw. Broadly, this suggests that we tend to falsely believe it's more likely for something to happen than nothing.

Trust your gut

The researchers wrote that their findings "could have relevance to other contexts where judgmental forecasting explicitly takes place and which have real economic importance, such as in company management and planning, financial markets and macroeconomic policy."

Of course, sometimes new information should cause us to revise our decisions. But for situations where new information is unlikely to significantly alter the outcome, the results suggest it's best to make a decision and stick with it.

This aligns with research from Stanford professor Baba Shiv, an expert in the neuroscience of decision-making. Shiv's research found that, even though we often face tough trade-offs when making complex and emotional decisions, a key component of successful decisions is staying committed to our choice. Shiv told Stanford Business magazine: "When you feel a trade-off conflict, it just behooves you to focus on your gut."

‘Designer baby’ book trilogy explores the moral dilemmas humans may soon create

How would the ability to genetically customize children change society? Sci-fi author Eugene Clark explores the future on our horizon in Volume I of the "Genetic Pressure" series.

Surprising Science
  • A new sci-fi book series called "Genetic Pressure" explores the scientific and moral implications of a world with a burgeoning designer baby industry.
  • It's currently illegal to implant genetically edited human embryos in most nations, but designer babies may someday become widespread.
  • While gene-editing technology could help humans eliminate genetic diseases, some in the scientific community fear it may also usher in a new era of eugenics.
Keep reading Show less

Designer uses AI to bring 54 Roman emperors to life

It's hard to stop looking back and forth between these faces and the busts they came from.

Meet Emperors Augustus, left, and Maximinus Thrax, right

Credit: Daniel Voshart
Technology & Innovation
  • A quarantine project gone wild produces the possibly realistic faces of ancient Roman rulers.
  • A designer worked with a machine learning app to produce the images.
  • It's impossible to know if they're accurate, but they sure look plausible.
Keep reading Show less

A psychiatric diagnosis can be more than an unkind ‘label’

A popular and longstanding wave of thought in psychology and psychotherapy is that diagnosis is not relevant for practitioners in those fields.

Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images for Sotheby's
Mind & Brain
When I was training as a clinical psychologist, I had a rotation in a low-cost psychotherapy clinic.
Keep reading Show less

Spinal cord injury breakthrough makes paralyzed mice walk again

Scientists regenerate damaged spinal cord nerve fibers with designer protein, helping paralyzed mice walk again.

The paralyzed mice started to walk two to three weeks following treatment.

Credit: Lehrstuhl für Zellphysiologie
Surprising Science
  • Researchers from Germany use a designer protein to treat spinal cord damage in mice.
  • The procedure employs gene therapy to regenerate damaged nerve fibers that carry signals to and from the brain.
  • The scientists aim to eventually apply the technique to humans.
Keep reading Show less
Mind & Brain

Ten things you may not know about anxiety

Cold hands and feet? Maybe it's your anxiety.

Scroll down to load more…
Quantcast