Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

04-02-2019 | Original Article

Persistence of repeated self-reported illusion of control as a product of action and outcome association in productive and preventive scenarios

Auteurs: Reinaldo Augusto Gomes Simões, Marcelo Frota Lobato Benvenuti, Aline de Souza Rodrigues, Stela Pereira Coutinho, Miguel Ángel Muñoz, Lisiane Bizarro

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Individuals interpret themselves as causal agents when executing an action to achieve an outcome, even when action and outcome are independent. How can illusion of control be managed? Once established, does it decay? This study aimed to analyze the effects of valence, probability of the outcome [p(O)] and probability of the actions performed by the participant [p(A)], on the magnitude of judgments of control and corresponding associative measures (including Rescorla–Wagner’s, Probabilistic Contrast, and Cheng’s Power Probabilistic Contrast models). A traffic light was presented on a computer screen to 81 participants who tried to control the green or red lights by pressing the spacebar, after instructions describing a productive or a preventive scenario. There were 4 blocks of 50 trials under all of 4 different p(O)s in random order (0.10, 0.30, 0.70, and 0.90). Judgments were assessed in a bidimensional scale. The 2 × 4 × 4 mixed experimental design was analyzed through General Linear Models, including factor group (between-subject valence), and block and p(O) (within subjects). There was a small effect of group and a large and direct effect of p(O) on judgments. Illusion was reported by 66% of the sample and was positive in the productive group. The oscillation of p(O) produced stronger illusions; decreasing p(O)s produced nil or negative illusions. Only Rescorla–Wagner’s could model causality properly. The reasons why p(A) and the other models could not generate significant results are discussed. The results help to comprehend the importance of keeping moderate illusions in productive and preventive scenarios.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
This situation does not make sense in many countries today. Despite legislation, in Brazil, it is still common for pedestrians not to have a preference between red and green lights. Pedestrians and vehicles often continue during the red light.
 
2
In a pre-analysis made immediately after the 18th participant’s session, a systematic sampling error was detected: Block 1 had unbalanced probabilities, with few cases of p(O) = 0.10 and 0.70 in the productive sample and few cases of p(O) = 0.30 and 0.90 in the preventive sample. The computer script was corrected, including compensation of the proportions. Unfortunately, after some days the script containing the error was put back into use by mistake. However, the chosen statistical models for the analysis were robust to unbalanced groups and were also calculated with the numeric probabilities recoded to the categorical values Low p(O), corresponding to p(O) = 0.10 and 0.30, and High p(O), corresponding to p(O) = 0.70 and 0.90, the conclusions were the same.
 
3
As participants used a mouse to click on a graphical scale without numerical labels, values from − 5 to 5 were counted as zero.
 
4
Schultz (1998) argued that dopamine neurons show activation–depression responses after liquid and food (unconditioned stimuli) reward information and conditioned reward-predicting stimuli, as well as new and salient ones, and consequently are involved in learning behavior. These neurons fail to discriminate between rewards, and emit alerting messages in situations where presence or absence of a reward is surprising: event predictability is necessary for rewarding responses. Events that are better than predicted activate dopamine neurons, events as good as predicted do not influence them, and events worse than predicted depress the neurons. So, dopamine systems are dependent on unpredictable events, and are related to reinforcement learning theories as they signalize prediction errors (both for better and for worse) through which learning occurs. Fully acquired behaviors are predictable and related events do not activate dopamine neurons.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality contingency, and prediction. In J. -A. Meyer & H. Roitblat (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognition (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality contingency, and prediction. In J. -A. Meyer & H. Roitblat (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognition (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
go back to reference Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). A causal-power theory of focal sets. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: causal learning (Vol (34, pp. 313–355). San Diego: Academic Press. Cheng, P. W., Park, J., Yarlas, A. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). A causal-power theory of focal sets. In D. R. Shanks, K. J. Holyoak & D. L. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: causal learning (Vol (34, pp. 313–355). San Diego: Academic Press.
go back to reference Chou, Y. M., Polansky, A. M., & Mason, R. L. (1998). Transforming nonnormal data to normality in statistical process control. Journal of Quality Technology, 30(2), 133.CrossRef Chou, Y. M., Polansky, A. M., & Mason, R. L. (1998). Transforming nonnormal data to normality in statistical process control. Journal of Quality Technology, 30(2), 133.CrossRef
go back to reference Matute, H., Vadillo, M. A., Blanco, F., & Musca, S. C. (2007, January). Either greedy or well informed: The reward maximization–unbiased evaluation trade-off. In Proceedings of the European Cognitive Science Conference (pp. 341–346). Hove, UK: Erlbaum. Matute, H., Vadillo, M. A., Blanco, F., & Musca, S. C. (2007, January). Either greedy or well informed: The reward maximization–unbiased evaluation trade-off. In Proceedings of the European Cognitive Science Conference (pp. 341–346). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
go back to reference Presson, P. K., & Benassi, V. A. (1996). Illusion of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(3), 493–510. Presson, P. K., & Benassi, V. A. (1996). Illusion of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(3), 493–510.
go back to reference Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory, 2, 64–99. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory, 2, 64–99.
Metagegevens
Titel
Persistence of repeated self-reported illusion of control as a product of action and outcome association in productive and preventive scenarios
Auteurs
Reinaldo Augusto Gomes Simões
Marcelo Frota Lobato Benvenuti
Aline de Souza Rodrigues
Stela Pereira Coutinho
Miguel Ángel Muñoz
Lisiane Bizarro
Publicatiedatum
04-02-2019
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01147-9