Illusion of control by proxy: Placing one's fate in the hands of another
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present set of studies, we investigated how perceptions of other people's luck are used in an attempt to maximize one's own outcomes. Specifically, it was hypothesized that people will defer to a lucky other in games of chance to maximize winning potential, i.e. the illusion of control by proxy. In Experiment 1, participants were told that they would receive a scratch-and-win lottery ticket as a gratuity for participating. As hypothesized, participants were more likely to allow a confederate to either pick their lottery ticket if they perceived the confederate to be personally lucky than if such perceptions where not facilitated. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants interacted with a confederate over the Internet. As predicted, participants were more likely to allow a gambling partner (a confederate) to spin a roulette wheel (Experiment 2), and bet more money on the outcome of the spin (Experiment 3) if they were made to believe their partner was lucky. The expanded reach of the illusion of control phenomena is discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".