Imagine an experiment in which you can press a button and a nearby light sometimes turns on, even though the program actually changes the light independently at random. If the light comes on frequently anyway, many people may still feel that their presses helped. This tendency to overestimate personal influence over uncontrollable or weakly controllable outcomes is usually called the illusion of control.
It need not involve pretence or superstition. When judging causation, the mind notices whether an outcome follows an action. If a desired outcome occurs often, actions and outcomes frequently appear close together. Active involvement also makes one’s own movements especially salient, while the question ‘Would the light have come on when I did nothing?’ receives less attention. Frequent co-occurrence can therefore be misread as stronger control. A better judgement compares two conditions: how often the light appears after pressing and how often it appears without pressing.
However, the claim that merely offering a choice creates an illusion of control is not robust. A newer series of experiments found that choosing a number in a draw with objectively identical odds rarely raised expectations of success. When differences appeared, they may have reflected participants’ prior belief that the options were not truly equivalent. The illusion is not a switch that activates in every setting; it varies with outcome frequency, feedback, existing beliefs, task design and measurement.
In everyday life, it is more useful to inspect the feedback structure than to blame oneself for ‘thinking too much’. Does the outcome occur just as often without the action? When the action changes, does the outcome change systematically? Those comparisons pull the feeling of control back towards evidence.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4013923/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620958009
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.