Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/335200 
Year of Publication: 
2025
Series/Report no.: 
Helsinki GSE Discussion Papers No. 52
Publisher: 
Helsinki Graduate School of Economics, Helsinki
Abstract: 
People often draw inferences from sequences of past performance, sometimes perceiving patterns even in random outcomes. This has fueled debates regarding phenomena such as the hot hand and gambler's fallacies. With the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for forecasting and decision support, it becomes important to understand how people form beliefs from sequences of outcomes attributed to such systems. We report results from a preregistered online experiment (N = 900) in which identical outcome sequences were attributed to an AI model, a human forecaster, or a random device. Belief updating in response to higher prior success rates was strongest for human forecasters, weakest for random devices, and intermediate for AI. Reactions to streaks were similar for AI and human sources, in contrast to the strong reversal expectations observed for random sequences. Performance feedback did not alter the relative reliance on AI versus human sources. Overall, AI is perceived as quasi-human-imbued with some intentionality, yet not fully agentic.
Subjects: 
Artificial intelligence
beliefs
hot hand
decision analysis
experimental economics
JEL: 
C91
D81
D83
D91
ISBN: 
978-952-7543-51-1
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.