How Do We Judge Personal Control? Unconfounding Contingency and Reinforcement in Control Judgments

• Published in: Basic and applied social psychology 2007, Vol.29 (1), p.75-84
• Main Authors: Thompson, Suzanne C., Nierman, Angela, Schlehofer, Michèle M., Carter, Erin, Bovin, Michelle J., Wurzman, Loryana, Tauber, Peter, Trifskin, Sharone, Marks, Peter, Sumner, Jennifer, Jackson, Ashley, Vonasch, Andrew
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; College students; Confounding factors; Contingencies; Estimation; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Judgment; Perceptions; Personal control; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Self regulation; Social attribution, perception and cognition; Social psychology
• ISSN: 0197-3533; 1532-4834
• DOI: 10.1080/01973530701331189

One of the few studies to examine judgments of personal control in a contingency situation found that participants did not overestimate their control on a task where actual control was possible. However, that study used a design that confounded control and reinforcement. In this study, control (none, medium, high) and reinforcement (low, high) were independently manipulated. College students (N = 100) participated in a computer task in which they pressed or did not press the space bar, after which a target or nontarget screen appeared. Participants rated their control over the appearance of the target screen. Support was found for the idea that in some situations of actual control, illusions of control are found: high-control participants with high reinforcement overestimated their control. Results also indicated that underestimators, accurate estimators, and overestimators used different information when estimating their levels of control. Causes and implications are discussed.