Editing Gambler's fallacy (section)

===Possible solutions===
The gambler's fallacy is a deep-seated cognitive bias and can be very hard to overcome. Educating individuals about the nature of randomness has not always proven effective in reducing or eliminating any manifestation of the fallacy. Participants in a study by Beach and Swensson in 1967 were shown a shuffled deck of index cards with shapes on them, and were instructed to guess which shape would come next in a sequence. The [[Treatment and control groups|experimental group]] of participants was informed about the nature and existence of the gambler's fallacy, and were explicitly instructed not to rely on run dependency to make their guesses. The [[control group]] was not given this information. The response styles of the two groups were similar, indicating that the experimental group still based their choices on the length of the run sequence. This led to the conclusion that instructing individuals about randomness is not sufficient in lessening the gambler's fallacy.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Beach | first1 = L. R. | last2 = Swensson | first2 = R. G. | year = 1967 | title = Instructions about randomness and run dependency in two-choice learning | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 75 | issue = 2| pages = 279–282 | doi=10.1037/h0024979| pmid = 6062970 }}</ref>

An individual's susceptibility to the gambler's fallacy may decrease with age. A study by Fischbein and Schnarch in 1997 administered a questionnaire to five groups: students in grades 5, 7, 9, 11, and college students specializing in teaching mathematics. None of the participants had received any prior education regarding probability. The question asked was: "Ronni flipped a coin three times and in all cases heads came up. Ronni intends to flip the coin again. What is the chance of getting heads the fourth time?" The results indicated that as the students got older, the less likely they were to answer with "smaller than the chance of getting tails", which would indicate a negative recency effect. 35% of the 5th graders, 35% of the 7th graders, and 20% of the 9th graders exhibited the negative recency effect. Only 10% of the 11th graders answered this way, and none of the college students did. Fischbein and Schnarch theorized that an individual's tendency to rely on the [[representativeness heuristic]] and other cognitive biases can be overcome with age.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Fischbein | first1 = E. | last2 = Schnarch | first2 = D. | year = 1997 | title = The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions | journal = Journal for Research in Mathematics Education | volume = 28 | issue = 1| pages = 96–105 | doi=10.2307/749665| jstor = 749665 }}</ref>

Another possible solution comes from Roney and Trick, [[Gestalt psychology|Gestalt]] psychologists who suggest that the fallacy may be eliminated as a result of grouping. When a future event such as a coin toss is described as part of a sequence, no matter how arbitrarily, a person will automatically consider the event as it relates to the past events, resulting in the gambler's fallacy. When a person considers every event as independent, the fallacy can be greatly reduced.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Roney | first1 = C. J. | last2 = Trick | first2 = L. M. | year = 2003 | title = Grouping and gambling: A gestalt approach to understanding the gambler's fallacy | journal = Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 57 | issue = 2| pages = 69–75 | doi=10.1037/h0087414| pmid = 12822837 }}</ref>

Roney and Trick told participants in their experiment that they were betting on either two blocks of six coin tosses, or on two blocks of seven coin tosses. The fourth, fifth, and sixth tosses all had the same outcome, either three heads or three tails. The seventh toss was grouped with either the end of one block, or the beginning of the next block. Participants exhibited the strongest gambler's fallacy when the seventh trial was part of the first block, directly after the sequence of three heads or tails. The researchers pointed out that the participants that did not show the gambler's fallacy showed less confidence in their bets and bet fewer times than the participants who picked with the gambler's fallacy. When the seventh trial was grouped with the second block, and was perceived as not being part of a streak, the gambler's fallacy did not occur.

Roney and Trick argued that instead of teaching individuals about the nature of randomness, the fallacy could be avoided by training people to treat each event as if it is a beginning and not a continuation of previous events. They suggested that this would prevent people from gambling when they are losing, in the mistaken hope that their chances of winning are due to increase based on an interaction with previous events.