The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What's next? Judging sequences of binary events.
Abstract
The authors review research on judgments of random and nonrandom sequences involving binary events with a focus on studies documenting gambler's fallacy and hot hand beliefs. The domains of judgment include random devices, births, lotteries, sports performances, stock prices, and others. After discussing existing theories of sequence judgments, the authors conclude that in many everyday settings people have naive complex models of the mechanisms they believe generate observed events, and they rely on these models for explanations, predictions, and other inferences about event sequences. The authors next introduce an explanation-based, mental models framework for describing people's beliefs about binary sequences, based on 4 perceived characteristics of the sequence generator: randomness, intentionality, control, and goal complexity. Furthermore, they propose a Markov process framework as a useful theoretical notation for the description of mental models and for the analysis of actual event sequences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An introduction to probability theory and its applications
(1958) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/0016-0032(58)90688-4 · Cited by 29,269
On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance
Carhart, M. M. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x · Cited by 17,283
Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency
JEGADEESH, N., & TITMAN, S. (1993) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04702.x · Cited by 11,584
Does the Stock Market Overreact?
De BONDT, W. F. M., & THALER, R. (1985) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb05004.x · Cited by 7,578
Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 · Cited by 4,851
An introduction to hidden Markov models
Rabiner, L., & Juang, B. (1986) · IEEE ASSP Magazine · doi:10.1109/massp.1986.1165342 · Cited by 4,775
PINKER, S. (1999) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08538.x · Cited by 3,738
Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?
Odean, T. (1998) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00072 · Cited by 3,657
The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence
SHEFRIN, H., & STATMAN, M. (1985) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb05002.x · Cited by 3,553
Belief in the law of small numbers.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031322 · Cited by 3,246
Cited by
Problematic use of the mobile phone: A literature review and a pathways model
Billieux, J. (2012) · Current Psychiatry Reviews · doi:10.2174/157340012803520522 · Cited by 794
Zeng, X., Sun, Y. H., Gao, F., Hua, L., Xu, S., & Yuan, Z. (2024) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120726 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Oskarsson, A. T., Van Boven, L., McClelland, G. H., & Hastie, R.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 262-285
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W3123045587
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 110
- FWCI
- 8.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What's next? Judging sequences of binary events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0014821
- The paper
- Oskarsson, A. T., Van Boven, L., McClelland, G. H., & Hastie, R. (2009). What's next? Judging sequences of binary events. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014821
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.