A method was described for simulating human performance on a random generation task. It was illustrated by comparing protocols thus simulated with results produced by humans themselves. Using tests to represent scores on repetition, seriation, and cycling, simulated results were similar to those of actual subjects but differed significantly from scores taken directly from truly random numbers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bar-HillelM.WagenaarW. A. (1993) The perception of randomness. In KerenG.LewisC. (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 369–393.
GinsburgN.KarpiukP. (1994) Random generation: Analysis of the responses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1059–1067.
4.
HerzogG. R. (1989) Die Zufallskonzepttheorie: Experimente zur Vorstellung vom Aufbau von Zufallsreihen. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 36, 199–220.
5.
PollackI. (1968) Computer simulation of threshold observations by method of limits. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 583–586.
6.
Rand Corporation. (1955) A million random digits with 100,000 normal deviates. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
7.
ReichenbachH. (1949) The theory of probability. Berkeley, CA: Univer. of California Press.
8.
SpattJ.GoldenbergG. (1993) Components of random generation by normal subjects and patients with dysexecutive syndrome. Brain and Cognition, 23, 231–242.
9.
WiegersmaS. (1982a) Can repetition avoidance in randomization be explained by randomness concepts?Psychological Research, 44, 189–198.
10.
WiegersmaS. (1982b) Sequential response bias in randomized response sequences: A computer simulation. Acta Psychologica, 52, 249–256.
