Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Click‘n’Roll: No Evidence of Illusion of Control

  • Published:
De Economist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evidence of illusion of control—the fact that people believe to have control over pure chance events—is a recurrent finding in experimental psychology. Results in economics find instead little to no support. In this paper we test whether this dissonant result across disciplines is due to the fact that economists have implemented only one form of illusory control. We identify and separately tests in an incentive-compatible design two types of control: (a) over the resolution of uncertainty, as usually done in the economics literature, and (b) over the choice of the lottery, as sometimes done in the psychology literature but without monetary payoffs. Results show no evidence of illusion of control, neither on choices nor on beliefs about the likelihood of winning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although implicitly assuming the existence of an objective measure of the probability of success that is often not available (Presson and Benassi 1996), this definition is still useful for illustrative purposes. Moreover, experimental evidence is usually obtained manipulating the intensity of the treatment aimed at triggering illusion of control. Therefore, causal evidence of the (qualitative effects of) illusion of control can be identified even when lacking any objective probability of success.

  2. Li (2011) also finds that less than 5 % of the subjects believe that having control will increase their probability of winning, even among those who choose to have control.

  3. Distinguishing the two phases of decision under risk also has the advantage of allowing to better interpret previous findings. For instance, Charness and Gneezy (2010) report that the amount invested (i.e., the choice of the lottery) does not differ, regardless of subjects expressing preferences for control or not over the resolution of uncertainty.

  4. The expected value of of the BRET task for a risk neutral player is therefore 2.5 euro.

  5. The English translation of the original German instructions is available in “Appendix”.

  6. We employed the general risk question used in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP, see Wagner et al. 2007) on a 0–10 scale: “How do you see yourself: are you generally a person who is fully prepared to take risks or do you try to avoid taking risks?” The validity of this self-reported question to elicit risk attitudes as compared to the results of incentivized lottery-based tasks has been explored by Dohmen et al. (2011), who find that self-reported answers can represent a valid low-cost substitute for incentivized lottery schemes, although the fraction of variance explained is quite low (about 6 %).

  7. Presson and Benassi (1996) argue that the measured effects of illusion of control are lower when subjects are asked the probability of success, because this is likely to make them realize that indeed such a probability cannot have changed because of the increased involvement. Our design cannot trigger such an effect because the probability is asked after the choice has been made.

  8. Note that the variable overconfidence operationalizes exactly the definition by Langer (1975) of illusion of control as an expectancy of a personal success probability inappropriately higher than the objective probability would warrant.

  9. Only in the Baseline females appear more risk averse, although at weak significance levels. No difference appears even when interacting the treatment either with academic background (Economics vs. other fields) or with previous experience with the BRET. Results are not reported but are available upon request.

References

  • Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Drevno, G. E. (1979). Mind over matter: Perceived success at psychokinesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1377–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19), 7745–7750. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812360106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2010). Portfolio choice and risk attitudes: An experiment. Economic Inquiry, 48(1), 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S. H., & Sagi, J. S. (2008). Small worlds: Modeling attitudes toward sources of uncertainty. Journal of Economic Theory, 139(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosetto, P., & Filippin, A. (2013). The ‘bomb’ risk elicitation task. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 47(1), 31–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosetto, P., & Filippin, A. (2015) The sound of others: Surprising evidence of conformist behavior. Working papers 2015-07, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL)

  • Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, D. S., & Wilson, T. D. (1990). When the stakes are high: A limit to the illusion-of-control effect. Social Cognition, 8(3), 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., & Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellner, G. (2009). Illusion of control as a source of poor diversification: Experimental evidence. The Journal of Behavioral Finance, 10(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Sharek, Z., & Moore, D. A. (2011). Keeping the illusion of control under control: Ceilings, floors, and imperfect calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K. K. (2011). Preference towards control in risk taking: Control, no control, or randomize? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43, 39–63. doi:10.1007/s11166-011-9122-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poon, D. (2011). Re-examining behavioural anomalies: Preference reversal and illusion of control. Unpublished dissertation, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales

  • Presson, P., & Benassi, V. (1996). Illusion of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(3), 493–510.

  • Rustichini, A. (2015). The role of intelligence in economic decision making. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 5, 32–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Wakker, P. (1995). Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica, 63(6), 1255–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rossum, G. (1995). Python reference manual. CWI report CS-R9525

  • Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The german socio-economic panel study (soep): Scope, evolution and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127(1), 139–169.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Milan, Via Conservatorio 7, 20122, Milan, Italy

    Antonio Filippin

  2. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Schaumburg-Lippe-Str. 5-9, 53113, Bonn, Germany

    Antonio Filippin

  3. GAEL, INRA, CNRS, Grenoble INP, Univ. Grenoble-Alpes, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Paolo Crosetto

Authors
  1. Antonio Filippin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paolo Crosetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Filippin.

Additional information

We are grateful to the Max Planck Institute in Jena for financial and logistic support and to Florian Strum and Nadine Marmai for excellent lab assistance. We thank two anonymous referee and the participants to the ESA European meeting in Prague for insightful comments. All remaining errors are ours.

Appendix: Instructions

Appendix: Instructions

1.1 Welcome Screen

You are about to participate in an experiment in which following the instructions carefully, making good decisions, and with a bit of luck, you can earn money. Different participants may earn different amounts according to their choices. For your participation in the experiment you will earn an additional show-up fee of 2.5 Euro. All the monetary values during the experiment are expressed in Euro cents.

1.2 Procedure Screen

The experiment consists of 4 stages in the following order:

  1. 1.

    An Instruction Stage that we are currently going through. At the end of this stage you will be asked some control questions to verify your understanding of the task. After everybody answers correctly, we will proceed with the following stage.

  2. 2.

    A Decision Stage, in which you will make decisions and answer questions relevant to your final payoff.

  3. 3.

    A Questionnaire, in which you will be asked a few questions not related to your final payoff.

  4. 4.

    A Feedback Stage, in which your earnings from the experiment will be privately determined. You will not be given any feedback on the monetary outcome of your decisions before the Feedback Stage.

1.3 Task Instruction Screen

On your screen you will see a field composed of boxes numbered 1 through 100. Your task is to decide on the number of boxes to collect out of 100 such boxes. You earn 10 Euro cents for each box collected. At any moment you can see the amount earned up to that point. Such earnings are only potential, however, because exactly one of these 100 boxes contains a time bomb, that if collected destroys all the boxes collected. You do not know the bombs location. You only know that it is equally likely to be in any of the 100 boxes. Moreover, even if you collect the time bomb, you will not know it until the end of the experiment.

[Baseline] To start collecting boxes you have to click the Play button that you will see on the screen. A box will automatically be collected at every second starting from the top left corner and following the numerical order until you decide to hit the Stop button when the number corresponds to how many boxes you want to collect. Once collected, each box disappears from the screen.

[Click] In order to collect each box you have to click once the Collect’ button that you will see on the screen. Boxes are collected starting from the top left corner and following the numerical order until you decide to stop collecting and hit the Stop button when the number corresponds to how many boxes you want to collect. Once collected, each box disappears from the screen. At the end of the experiment, after answering some questions and filling out a short questionnaire, the number of the box containing the bomb will be randomly determined.

[Baseline] An experimenter will come at your desk with two 10-sided dice. One will be used to determine the tens, the other the units. After letting you check that the dice are regular, the experimenter will roll them to determine the position of the bomb between 1 and 100.

[Roll] An experimenter will come at your desk with two 10-sided dice. One will be used to determine the tens, the other the units. After letting you check that the dice are regular, you will roll them twice in order to familiarize with the procedure without this counting towards your final earnings. The third time you will roll them will determine the position of the bomb between 1 and 100.

[Roll with Experience] Before the main task, an experimenter will distribute the two dice. You will have 2 min to familiarize with the dice and to check that the dice are regular. You can roll them as many times as you wish. At the end of the task an experimenter will come at your desk. You will then roll the dice once to determine the position of the bomb between 1 and 100.

If the number of the box in which the bomb is located is higher than the number of boxes you collected, you do not collect the bomb and you earn 10 Euro cents for each collected box. If the number of the box in which the bomb is located is lower than or equal to the number of boxes you collected, you do collect the bomb and you earn zero.

1.4 Control Questions

Please answer the following control questions. Answers to these questions are not relevant to your earnings. The computer will give you a feedback on whether your responses are correct or not. If you have any problems in answering, please raise your hand and an experimenter will come to assist you. After everyone answers correctly all the questions, we will proceed with the decision stage.

  1. 1.

    Suppose that the bomb is located in box 25.

    • If you collect 21 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

    • If you collect 38 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

    • If you collect 62 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

    • If you collect 79 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

  2. 2.

    Now suppose that the bomb is located in box 75.

    • If you collect 21 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

    • If you collect 38 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

    • If you collect 62 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

    • If you collect 79 boxes, how much will you earn in Euro cent?

  3. 3.

    What is the probability of the bomb being in boxes number:

    • 51 through 70

    • 21 though 50

    • 1 through 10

    • 61 through 100

  4. 4.

    The location of the bomb depends on how many boxes you decide to collect. [YES/NO]

  5. 5.

    Suppose the location of the bomb is identical to the number of boxes you collect. Will you earn a positive amount? [YES/NO]

  6. 6.

    Who will roll the dice to determine the position of the bomb? [Me/Experimenter/Another participant]

Please note that the numbers used in these questions are for illustrative purposes only. They are not meant to be a guidance for your choice.

1.5 Earmuffs Screen

Now if everything is clear please wear the earmuffs you see on your desk. You will be notified in another screen later when you have to remove them.

1.6 Decision Screen

Please choose the number of boxes to collect.

[Baseline] Hit the Play button to start collecting the boxes. One box will be automatically collected at every second.

[Click] In order to collect each box you have to click once the ‘Collect’ button.

Boxes are collected starting from the top left corner and following the numerical order. When the number corresponds to how many boxes you want to collect hit the Stop button. Then confirm your choice by clicking on ‘Confirm’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Filippin, A., Crosetto, P. Click‘n’Roll: No Evidence of Illusion of Control. De Economist 164, 281–295 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-016-9282-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-016-9282-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation