Abstract:In many tasks, human behavior is far noisier than is optimal. Yet when asked to behave randomly, people are typically too predictable. We argue that these apparently contrasting observations have the same origin: the operation of a general-purpose local sampling algorithm for probabilistic inference. This account makes distinctive predictions regarding random sequence generation, not predicted by previous accounts—which suggests that randomness is produced by inhibition of habitual behavior, striving for unpredictability. We verify these predictions in two experiments: people show the same deviations from randomness when randomly generating from non-uniform or recently-learned distributions. In addition, our data show a novel signature behavior, that people's sequences have too few changes of trajectory, which argues against the specific local sampling algorithms that have been proposed in past work with other tasks. Using computational modeling, we show that local sampling where direction is maintained across trials best explains our data, which suggests it may be used in other tasks too. While local sampling has previously explained why people are unpredictable in standard cognitive tasks, here it also explains why human random sequences are not unpredictable enough. When explicitly asked to be random, people are not random enough. Previous accounts of these random generation tasks have argued that people are effortfully trying not to be predictable. In many other tasks, however, people also show random behavior, even when it is unnecessary or outright disadvantageous. Here, we try to bridge this apparent gap. We hypothesize that the randomness people produce when trying to be random and the randomness that they display when trying to make the best choice has the same common mechanism: drawing mental samples to make judgments and decisions. In two experiments, we compare previous random generation accounts, which are task-specific in nature, to the more general account of mental sampling that has been used to explain how people behave in many other domains. We find that the flexibility of human random generation in our data is better explained by the mental sampling account. We also find a novel empirical signature of momentum in random generation, which points to a new kind of mental sampling algorithm. If mental sampling governs behavior in random generation tasks and elsewhere, then this task has great promise in helping to understand wider human behavior.

Mistaking randomness for free will

Why Can't We Accurately Predict Others' Decisions? Prediction Discrepancy in Risky Decision-Making

Willed Action, Free Will, and the Stochastic Neurodynamics of Decision-Making

Noise In The Brain, Decision-Making, Determinism, Free Will, And Consciousness

Randomness: off with its heads (and tails)

A Model of Free Will for Artificial Entities

Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion

Free Will and Physics

Systems of random variables and the Free Will Theorem

Studies in subjective probability l: Prediction of random events

Folk Intuitions About Free Will and Moral Responsibility: Evaluating the Combined Effects of Misunderstandings About Determinism and Motivated Cognition

Explaining the flaws in human random generation as local sampling with momentum

Free will without consciousness?

Surprising sounds influence risky decision making

Free will:Illusion,Dissonance and Answers

Neural Correlates of Different Randomization Tasks

Randomize at Your Own Risk: on the Observability of Ambiguity Aversion

Free to help? An experiment on free will belief and altruism

Randomize at your own Risk

For Whom Does Determinism Undermine Moral Responsibility? Surveying the Conditions for Free Will Across Cultures

Free will: An Example of the Dopaminergic System