Final answer:
The belief in being 'due' to win a lottery due to not having won previously is a result of the gambler's fallacy, not the representativeness heuristic. Each lottery event is independent, and past outcomes do not influence the likelihood of winning in the future.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that believing you will win a million-dollar lottery is a result of the representativeness heuristic is false. The belief that one is due to win a lottery because they haven't won in a long time is actually a manifestation of the gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias where someone mistakenly believes that if an event hasn't occurred recently, it is overdue and more likely to happen in the future. For example, someone who has been buying lottery tickets for twenty years and hasn't won may feel they are more likely to win soon, despite each lottery draw being an independent event.
The representativeness heuristic, on the other hand, involves judging the likelihood of an event by comparing it to an existing prototype in our minds. This does not directly relate to the belief in becoming 'due' to win the lottery. Therefore, the person's reasoning is not stemming from representativeness heuristic but from the gambler's fallacy, related to a misunderstanding of chance and probability.