{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02099737532808399, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003499562554680665, 'mean_word_length': 5.537142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Beliefs about what types of mechanisms produce random sequences

Although many researchers use Wagenaar’s framework for understanding the factors that people use to determine whether a process is random, the framework has never undergone empirical scrutiny. This paper uses Wagenaar’s framework as a starting point and examines the three properties of his framework—independence of events, fixed alternatives, and equiprobability. We find strong evidence to suggest that independence of events is indeed used as a cue toward randomness. Equiprobability has an effect on randomness judgments. However, it appears to work only in a limited role. Fixedness of alternatives is a complex construct that consists of multiple sub-concepts. We find that each of these sub-concepts influences randomness judgments, but that they exert forces in different directions. Stability of outcome ratios increases randomness judgments, while knowledge of outcome ratios decreases randomness judgments. Future directions for development of a functional framework for understanding perceptions of randomness are suggested. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.