The active foundations of the illusion of control: an experimental test of the Henslin effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mistaken belief that personal control can affect the outcomes of random events is seen as a core part of disordered gamblers’ irrational beliefs via the ‘illusion of control’. The present study tests the extent of action-based manifestation of the illusion of control in a dice-rolling game, which provides a novel controlled test of a claim first made by Henslin that craps gamblers tend to shake their dice harder when aiming for higher numbers. We also tested participants’ recent involvement in gambling games and rates of disordered gambling symptomology as two theoretically-informed potential moderators of any effect. An incentivized dice-rolling experiment was programmed for participants’ mobile devices, where device accelerometer data was used to animate the effects of their shaking and to record the dependent variable of shaking strength. 1,692 US-Based participants (Mean age 37.1; 60.7% male) completed 24 trials each, across which the target number that they would win a $1 bonus if rolled was varied from one to six. Participants rolled the dice 4.1% harder for the highest- (six) compared to lowest-number (one). However, the effect did not vary based on participants’ recent engagement with various gambling games, and also did not correlate with gamblers’ Problem Gambling Severity Index scores. These results uniquely demonstrate a small Henslin effect, but also challenge theoretical accounts that illusion of control effects should be higher in people with greater familiarity with a given situation (i.e. relevant gambling games), or who have higher levels of disordered gambling symptomatology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".