Illusion of control or passive superstition? A comparison of two explanations for irrational gambling beliefs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The "illusion of control" is a dominant cognitive illusion in disordered gambling, but its role in shaping irrational gambling beliefs has been questioned by recent null experimental findings. Here, we aimed to test this recent work, in a preregistered Bayesian framework, by additionally correlating the dependent variable (nonuniform probabilistic beliefs) with self-reported gambling behavior and by exploring "passive superstition" as an alternative driver of these irrational gambling beliefs. METHOD: = 42.5 years). Participants estimated the likelihood of each box winning, with any estimates outside the 33%-34% interval categorized as irrational "nonuniform" probabilistic beliefs. "Preselection" participants gave estimates prior to box selection, "post-no-choice" participants had their box randomly selected, and participants in the treatment "postchoice" condition selected their own box. Whether participants gambled within the past 12 months (gambling status), Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score, and passive superstition scores were used as additional predictors. RESULTS: Comparing postchoice participants with post-no-choice participants (95% CI [0.80, 1.22]) and comparing postchoice with preselection participants (95% CI [0.88, 1.34]) yielded substantial support for a null effect. Gambling status supported substantial evidence for a null effect (95% CI [0.92, 1.30]), whereas higher PGSI (95% CI [1.08, 1.13]) and higher passive superstition scores (95% CI [1.08, 1.10]) overwhelmingly predicted our outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Active choice elements in illusions of control may have been overemphasized in irrational gambling beliefs compared to passive superstitions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.023 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".