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

Abstract

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.