Literature DB >> 31900799

Are random events perceived as rare? On the relationship between perceived randomness and outcome probability.

Karl Halvor Teigen1, Gideon Keren2.   

Abstract

Many daily life events, from lotteries to coincidental encounters, occur partly or entirely randomly or "by chance." Six experiments, in two different languages, explored how perceptions of randomness are related to the perceived probability of the same events-specifically, whether low-probability events were viewed as more random than similar events that were judged (rightly or wrongly) to be more likely. The experiments suggest that low-probability outcomes of stochastic events are indeed considered as being more random than medium and highly likely outcomes, even when all are produced by a "blind" (hence random) process. Degree of randomness involved in catching a bus was inversely related to the subjective probability estimates of the same event, both for correct and incorrect estimates. Unlikely coincidences were perceived to be more random than the same events presented in a more likely frame. The outcome of a match between two soccer teams was  deemed to be more random when the weaker team wins than when the stronger team wins. Only extremely deviant outcomes-for instance, a top student who fails on two successive exams-made some people reject the randomness account, presumably believing that such extreme events must have a causal explanation. We conclude that people generally associate randomness with low-probability events, indicating outcomes that "cannot be predicted."

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coincidences; Event perception; Randomness judgments; Subjective probabilities

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31900799     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-01011-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  18 in total

Review 1.  The production and perception of randomness.

Authors:  Raymond S Nickerson
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty.

Authors:  Craig R Fox; Yuval Rottenstreich
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2003-05

3.  The impact of event vividness, event severity, and prior paranormal belief on attributions towards a depicted remarkable coincidence experience: Two studies examining the misattribution hypothesis.

Authors:  Paul Rogers; Pamela Qualter; Dave Wood
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2016-02-02

4.  Luck, risk, and blame.

Authors:  Stale Fredriksen
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2005-10

5.  Waiting for the bus: when base-rates refuse to be neglected.

Authors:  Karl Halvor Teigen; Gideon Keren
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2006-05-24

Review 6.  What's next? Judging sequences of binary events.

Authors:  An T Oskarsson; Leaf Van Boven; Gary H McClelland; Reid Hastie
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 17.737

7.  Hindsight Bias.

Authors:  Neal J Roese; Kathleen D Vohs
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-09

8.  Lucky or clever? From expectations to responsibility judgments.

Authors:  Tobias Gerstenberg; Tomer D Ullman; Jonas Nagel; Max Kleiman-Weiner; David A Lagnado; Joshua B Tenenbaum
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2018-05-03

9.  It's no accident: Our bias for intentional explanations.

Authors:  Evelyn Rosset
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-08-09

10.  Accidents and acts of God: a history of the terms.

Authors:  H Loimer; M Guarnieri
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.