Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 1087–1093 | Cite as

Reducing the illusion of control when an action is followed by an undesired outcome

  • Helena Matute
  • Fernando Blanco
Brief Report

Abstract

The illusion of control is the belief that our behavior produces an effect that is actually independent from it. This illusion is often at the core of superstitious and pseudoscientific thinking. Although recent research has proposed several evidence-based strategies that can be used to reduce the illusion, the majority of these experiments have involved positive illusions—that is, those in which the potential outcomes are desired (e.g., recovery from illness or earning points). By contrast, many real-life superstitions and pseudosciences are tied to negative illusions—that is, those in which the potential consequences are undesired. Examples are walking under a ladder, breaking a mirror, or sitting in row 13, all of which are supposed to generate bad luck. Thus, the question is whether the available evidence on how to reduce positive illusions would also apply to situations in which the outcomes are undesired. We conducted an experiment in which participants were exposed to undesired outcomes that occurred independently of their behavior. One strategy that has been shown to reduce positive illusions consists of warning people that the outcomes might have alternative causes, other than the participants’ actions, and telling them that the best they can do to find out whether an alternative cause is at work is to act on only about 50 % of the trials. When we gave our participants this information in an experiment in which the outcomes were undesired, their illusion was enhanced rather than reduced, contrary to what happens when the outcome is desired. This suggests that the strategies that reduce positive illusions may work in just the opposite way when the outcome is undesired.

Keywords

Causal learning Probability learning Human associative learning Causal reasoning Reinforcement learning 

Notes

Author note

Support for this research was provided by Grant No. PSI2011-26965 from the Dirección General de Investigación Científica y Técnica of the Spanish government, and by Grant No. IT363-10 from the Departamento de Educación, Universidades, e Investigación of the Basque government. We thank Itxaso Barberia, Oskar Pineño, Miguel A. Vadillo, Sonia Vegas, and Ion Yarritu for illuminating discussions.

References

  1. Aeschleman, S. R., Rosen, C. C., & Williams, M. R. (2003). The effect on non-contingent negative and positive reinforcement operations on the acquisition of superstitious behaviors. Behavioural Processes, 61, 37–45. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00158-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgments of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441–485. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alloy, L. B., & Clements, C. M. (1992). Illusion of control: Invulnerability to negative affect and depressive symptoms after laboratory and natural stressors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 234–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barberia, I., Blanco, F., Cubillas, C. P., & Matute, H. (2013). Implementation and assessment of an intervention to debias adolescents against causal illusions. PLoS ONE, 8, e71303. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071303 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanco, F., & Matute, H. (2013). Exploring the factors that encourage and maintain the illusion of control: The case of preventive illusions. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. Blanco, F., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2009). Depressive realism: Wiser or quieter? Psychological Record, 59, 551–562.Google Scholar
  7. Blanco, F., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2011). Making the uncontrollable seem controllable: The role of action in the illusion of control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1290–1304. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2011.552727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanco, F., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2012). Mediating role of the activity level in the depressive realism effect. PLoS ONE, 7, e46203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046203 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanco, F., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2013). Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency. Learning & Behavior, 41, 333–340. doi: 10.3758/s13420-013-0108-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blanco, F., Barberia, I., & Matute, H. (2014). The lack of side effects of an ineffective treatment facilitates the development of erroneous belief in its effectiveness. PLoS ONE 9(1), e84084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084084
  11. Bloom, C. M., Venard, J., Harden, M., & Seetharaman, S. (2007). Non-contingent positive and negative reinforcement schedules of superstitious behaviors. Behavioural Processes, 75, 8–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blum, S. H., & Blum, L. H. (1974). Do’s and dont’s: An informal study of some prevailing superstitions. Psychological Reports, 35, 567–571. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1974.35.1.567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2010). Special Eurobarometer 340: Science and technology. Brussels, Belgium: Author. Downloaded June 25, 2010, from ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_en.htm#340
  15. Hannah, S., & Beneteau, J. L. (2009). Just tell me what to do: Bringing back experimenter control in active contingency tasks with the command-performance procedure and finding cue density effects along the way. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 59–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matute, H. (1995). Human reactions to uncontrollable outcomes: Further evidence for superstitions rather than helplessness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 142–157.Google Scholar
  18. Matute, H. (1996). Illusion of control: Detecting response–outcome independence in analytic but not in naturalistic conditions. Psychological Science, 7, 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matute, H., Vadillo, M. A., Vegas, S., & Blanco, F. (2007). Illusion of control in Internet users and college students. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10, 176–181. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9971 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matute, H., Yarritu, I., & Vadillo, M. A. (2011). Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 392–405. doi: 10.1348/000712610X532210 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKay, R. T., & Dennett, D. C. (2009). The evolution of misbelief. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(6), 493–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore, D. W. (2005). Three in four Americans belief in paranormal. Princeton, NJ: Gallup News Service. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx
  23. Msetfi, R. M., Murphy, R. A., Simpson, J., & Kornbrot, D. E. (2005). Depressive realism and outcome density bias in contingency judgments: The effect of the context and intertrial interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Musca, S. C., Vadillo, M. A., Blanco, F., & Matute, H. (2010). The role of cue information in the outcome-density effect: Evidence from neural network simulations and a causal learning experiment. Connection Science, 22, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rudski, J. M., Lischner, M. I., & Albert, L. M. (1999). Superstitious rule generation is affected by probability and type of outcome. Psychological Record, 49, 245–260.Google Scholar
  26. Shanks, D. R., Holyoak, K. J., & Medin, D. L. (Eds.). (1996). The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 34. Causal learning. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Skinner, B. F. (1948). “Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sloman, S. A. (2013). Counterfactuals and causal models: Introduction to the special issue. Cognitive Science, 37, 969–976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 192–210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tobacyk, J. (1988). A revised paranormal belief scale. Rushton: Louisiana Tech University.Google Scholar
  31. Tobacyk, J., & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1029–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vadillo, M. A., Matute, H., & Blanco, F. (2013). Fighting the illusion of control: How to make use of cue competition and alternative explanations. Universitas Psychologica, 12, 261–269.Google Scholar
  33. White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. (2002). Final report. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2004). Measuring superstitious belief: Why lucky charms matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1533–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yarritu, I., Matute, H., & Vadillo, M. A. (2013). Illusion of control: The role of personal involvement. Experimental Psychology. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000225 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de DeustoBilbaoSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Fundamentos y Métodos de la PsicologíaUniversidad de DeustoBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations