32 subjects attempted to generate 100 random digits. Their responses were measured using eight tests, the results of which were intercorrelated and factor analyzed. 32 simulated subjects were also generated from a table of random numbers and subjected to the same analysis. Three factors emerged from the human data: repetition, seriation, and cycling. These results support the 1970 analysis of Rabinowitz. It was suggested that these factors should be considered in any attempt to relate random production to a concept of randomness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DonaldG. (1987) The capacity for production and discrimination of random visual arrangements. Unpublished MA thesis, Lakehead Univer.
2.
EvansF. J. (1978) Monitoring attention deployment by random number generation: an index to measure subjective randomness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 35–38.
3.
GinsburgN.GoldsteinS. (1987) The measurement of visual cluster. American Journal of Psychology, 100, 193–203.
4.
GinsburgN.WiegersmaS. (1991) Response bias and the generation of random sequences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 1332–1334.
5.
GreenwoodR. E. (1955) Coupon collector's test for random digits. Mathematical Tables and Computation, 9, 1–4.
6.
HerzogG. R. (1989) Die Zufallskonzepttheorie: Experimente zur Vorstellung vom Aufbau von Zufallsreihen. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 36, 199–220.
7.
JenkinsW. O.CunninghamL. M. (1949) The guessing-sequence hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 158–168.
8.
KendallM. G.SmithB. B. (1938) Randomness and random sampling numbers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 101, 147–166.
9.
KnuthD. (1981) The art of computer programming. Vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10.
LopesL. L. (1982) Doing the impossible: a note on induction and the experience of randomness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 626–636.
11.
MitteneckerE. (1953) Perseveration und Persönlichkeit. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 1, 5–31.
12.
MitteneckerE. (1958) Die Analyse “Züfalliger” Reaktionsfolgen. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 5, 45–60.
13.
NeuringerA. (1986) Can people behave “randomly?”: the role of feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 63–75.
RabinowitzF. M. (1970) Characteristic sequential dependencies in multiple-choice situations. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 141–148.
16.
SlovicP.KunreutherH.WhiteG. F. (1974) Decision processes, rationality, and judgments of natural hazards. In WhiteG. F. (Ed.), Natural hazards. New York: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 187–206.
17.
ThorndikeE. L. (1927) The refractory period of association processes. Psychological Review, 34, 234–236.
18.
WiegersmaS. (1986) Avoidance of repetition in produced sequences and the concept of randomness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 163–168.
