Illusion of Control: Detecting Response-Outcome Independence in Analytic but Not in Naturalistic Conditions

Abstract

Experiments in which subjects are asked to analytically assess response-outcome relationships have frequently yielded accurate judgments of response-outcome independence, but more naturalistically set experiments in which subjects are instructed to obtain the outcome have frequently yielded illusions of control The present research tested the hypothesis that a differential probability of responding p(R), between these two traditions could be at the basis of these different results Subjects received response-independent outcomes and were instructed either to obtain the outcome (naturalistic condition) or to behave scientifically in order to find out how much control over the outcome was possible (analytic condition) Subjects in the naturalistic condition tended to respond at almost every opportunity and developed a strong illusion of control Subjects in the analytic condition maintained their p(R) at a point close to 5 and made accurate judgments of control The illusion of control observed in the naturalistic condition appears to be a collateral effect of a high tendency to respond in subjects who are trying to obtain an outcome, this tendency to respond prevents them from learning that the outcome would have occurred with the same probability if they had not responded

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allan

L.G.

(1993). Human contingency judgments. Rule based or associative?Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435–448.

Allan

L.G.

Jenkins

H.M.

(1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of response alternatives. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 1–11.

Allan

L.G.

Jenkins

H.M.

(1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learning and Motivation, 14, 381–405.

Alloy

L.B.

Abramson

L.Y.

(1979) Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students. Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 108, 441–485.

Alloy

L.B.

Clements

C.M.

(1991). Illusion of control. Invulnerability to negative affect and depressive symptoms after laboratory and natural stressors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 234–245.

Chatlosh

D.L.

Neunaber

D.J.

Wasserman

E.A.

(1985). Response-outcome contingency. Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcome with college students. Learning and Motivation, 16, 1–34.

Crocker

(1981). Judgment of covariation by social perceivers. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 272–292.

Gibbon

Berryman

Thompson

R.L.

(1974). Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 585–605.

Langer

E.J.

(1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.

10.

Matute

(1994). Learned helplessness and superstitious behavior as opposite effects of uncontrollable reinforcement in humans. Learning and Motivation, 25, 216–232.

11.

Matute

(1995). Human reactions to uncontrollable outcomes. Further evidence for superstitions rather than helplessness. Quarterly, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 142–157.

12.

Shanks

D.R.

(1987). Acquisition functions in contingency judgment. Learning and Motivation, 18, 147–166.

13.

Shanks

D.R.

Dickinson

(1987). Associative accounts of causality judgement. In Bower

G.H.

, (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 21, pp. 229–261), San Diego, Academic Press.

14.

Shanks

D.R.

Dickinson

(1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory & Cognition, 19, 353–360.

15.

Shanks

D.R.

Pearson

S.M.

Dickinson

(1989). Temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality by human subject. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139–159.

16.

Skinner

E.A.

(1985). Action control judgment and the structure of control experience. Psychological Review, 92, 39–58.

17.

Wasserman

E.A.

(1990). Detecting response-outcome relations. Toward an understanding of the causal texture of the environment. In Bower

G.H.

, (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 26, pp. 27–82), San Diego Academic Press.

18.

Wasserman

E.A.

Chatlosh

D.L.

Neunaber

D.J.

(1983). Perception of causal relations in humans. Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures. Learning and Motivation, 14, 406–432.

19.

Wasserman

E.A.

Elek

S.M.

Chatlosh

D.L.

Baker

A.G.

(1993). Rating causal relations. Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 19, 174–188.

20.

Wassermann

E.A.

Neunaber

D.J.

(1986). College students responding to and rating of contingency relations. The role of temporal contiguity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 15–35.

21.

Wortman

C.B.

(1975). Some determinants of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 282–294.

22.

Wright

J.C.

(1962). Consistency and complexity of response sequences as a function of schedules of noncontingent reward. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 601–609.