ArticlePloS one2025
An improved modeling approach to investigate biases in human random number generation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Random behavior is stable across tasks and time.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, a novel computational model was proposed to investigate the processes and biases involved in human random number generation (RNG). This two-parameter model includes a repetition parameter and a side-switching parameter representing influences of the immediately preceding number on the choice of the next number. We propose two changes to the model. First, we replace the side-switching parameter with a more general and less task-dependent distance parameter, which accounts for the tendency to select subsequent numbers that tend to be either closer to or further away from the previous number on the selected response pad. Second, we extend the computational model by adding a third parameter to account for the human tendency to select subsequent numbers with greater probability the longer the respective number has not been previously selected, following the pattern of the well-known gambler's fallacy. This new "cycling" parameter takes into account the most recent and all previous selections. The generalized distance parameter, and particularly the new cycling parameter, improved the fit of the model to human-generated sequences and the rate of successful predictions of the next choice from 14.09% to 26.48%, significantly exceeding the expected chance value of 1/9 = 11.1%. Model-driven simulations also showed that the extended three-parameter model could better account for systematic patterns that can be observed in human RNG tasks. The improved model could be useful in many contexts where human biases in RNG tasks are analyzed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.