Culture and gambling fallacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Euro-Canadians and Chinese typically hold different theories about change; Euro-Canadians often engage in linear thinking whereas Chinese often engage in non-linear thinking. The present research investigated the effects of culture-specific theories of change in two related gambling fallacies: the gambler's fallacy (GF; the belief that one is due for a win after a run of losses) and the hot-hand fallacy (HHF; the belief that one's winning streak is likely to continue). In Study 1, participants predicted the outcome of a coin toss following a sequence of tosses. Study 2 involved predicting and betting on the outcome of a basketball player's shot following a sequence of shots. In Study 1, Asians (mainly Chinese) were significantly more likely than Euro-Canadians to believe that they would win (correctly predict the coin toss) after a series of losses (a non-linear thinking pattern), suggesting greater susceptibility to the gambler's fallacy. In Study 2, Euro-Canadians were more likely than Chinese to predict outcomes consistent with a basketball player's streaks (a linear thinking pattern), suggesting greater susceptibility to the hot hand fallacy. By illustrating the role of cultural differences in cognition, these findings contribute to our understanding of why certain cultural groups, such as Chinese, are more susceptible to gambling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".