Illusions of control without delusions of grandeur.
Journal
Cognition
ISSN: 1873-7838
Titre abrégé: Cognition
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0367541
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
26
03
2020
revised:
05
08
2020
accepted:
07
08
2020
pubmed:
20
9
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
19
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We frequently experience feelings of agency over events we do not objectively influence - so-called 'illusions of control'. These illusions have prompted widespread claims that we can be insensitive to objective relationships between actions and outcomes, and instead rely on grandiose beliefs about our abilities. However, these illusory biases could instead arise if we are highly sensitive to action-outcome correlations, but attribute agency when such correlations emerge simply by chance. We motion-tracked participants while they made agency judgements about a cursor that could be yoked to their actions or follow an independent trajectory. A combination of signal detection analysis, reverse correlation methods and computational modelling indeed demonstrated that 'illusions' of control could emerge solely from sensitivity to spurious action-outcome correlations. Counterintuitively, this suggests that illusions of control could arise because agents have excellent insight into the relationships between actions and outcomes in a world where causal relationships are not perfectly deterministic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32949908
pii: S0010-0277(20)30248-1
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104429
pmc: PMC7684464
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104429Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Cognition. 2009 Jan;110(1):74-83
pubmed: 19038380
Conscious Cogn. 2010 Dec;19(4):1045-57
pubmed: 20598906
Elife. 2020 Apr 20;9:
pubmed: 32310086
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e53421
pubmed: 23285293
Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Jun;31(4):684-96
pubmed: 21482326
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 May;76(4):1057-68
pubmed: 24554231
Psychol Res. 2004 Apr;68(2-3):138-54
pubmed: 14685854
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987 Feb;52(2):419-31
pubmed: 3559899
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 23;13(8):e0202690
pubmed: 30138367
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Feb 28;109(9):3593-8
pubmed: 22331901
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Apr 1;4:63
pubmed: 31069261
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(1):47-66
pubmed: 16430328
Front Neuroinform. 2013 Aug 02;7:14
pubmed: 23935581
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Jan 27;365(1538):319-30
pubmed: 20026469
J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2019 Oct;45(4):373-389
pubmed: 31380677
Psychol Rev. 1961 Sep;68:301-40
pubmed: 13774292
Nature. 2011 Sep 14;477(7364):317-20
pubmed: 21921915
Front Psychol. 2016 Aug 29;7:1272
pubmed: 27621713
Elife. 2019 Feb 06;8:
pubmed: 30724733
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2005 Jul;193(7):480-7
pubmed: 15985843
Curr Biol. 2013 Oct 21;23(20):2028-32
pubmed: 24094850
Conscious Cogn. 2008 Mar;17(1):136-44
pubmed: 17306565
Cognition. 2009 Dec;113(3):314-328
pubmed: 19285311
Psychol Med. 2010 Mar;40(3):433-40
pubmed: 19607754
Nat Neurosci. 2002 Apr;5(4):382-5
pubmed: 11896397
Exp Psychol. 2014 Jan 01;61(1):38-47
pubmed: 23948387
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1979 Dec;108(4):441-85
pubmed: 528910
Cognition. 2009 Feb;110(2):279-83
pubmed: 19110240
iScience. 2020 May 22;23(5):101112
pubmed: 32408176
Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 Apr;20(4):260-281
pubmed: 26952739