Two investigations tested the hypothesis that the need for a randomly determined outcome influences the degree of perceived skill involved in attaining the outcome, which, in turn, influences the confidence in attaining the outcome. In Study 1, food-deprived or food-satiated subjects expected to have a good or poor chance of winning a food incentive in a drawing. Compared to food-satiated subjects, food-deprived subjects thought the drawing involved more skill, and they were more confident about winning. In Study 2, state lottery players reported their incomes, how much skill they thought playing the lottery involved, and how confident they were about winning Path analyses showed that income negatively affected skill ratings, and skill ratings positively affected confidence-in-winning ratings. Results were replicated using comparable questions about a lottery-sponsored rub-off card game. Results are discussed in terms of Langer's propositions regarding the illusion of control.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alloy, L. B. , & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgements of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General108, 441-485.
2.
Baron, R. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Biner, P. M. , & Hua, D. M. (in press). Determinants of the magnitude of goal valence: The interactive effects of need, instrumentality, and the difficulty of goal attainment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology.
4.
Biner, P. M. , Hua, D. M., Kidd, H. J., & Spencer, P. M. (1991). Incentive strength, need state, instrumental task difficulty, and the magnitude of goal valence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 442-448.
5.
Bouts, P. , & Van Avermaet, E. (1992). Drawing familiar or unfamiliar cards: Stimulus familiarity, chance orientation, and the illusion of control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 331-335.
6.
Brehm, J. W. , & Self, E. (1989). The intensity of motivation. In M. R. Rozenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 109-131). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
7.
Brehm, J. W. , Wright, R. A., Solomon, S., Silka, L., & Greenberg, J. (1983). Perceived difficulty, energization, and the magnitude of goal valence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 21-48.
8.
Bruner, J. S. , & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33-44.
9.
Burger, J. M. (1985). Desire for control and achievement-related behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1520-1533.
10.
Burger, J. M. (1986). Desire for control and the illusion of control: The effects of familiarity and sequence of outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 66-76.
11.
Burger, J. M. , & Schnerring, D. A. (1982). The effects of desire for control and extrinsic rewards on the illusion of control and gambling. Motivation and Emotion, 6, 329-335.
12.
Dickerson, M. , & Adcock, S. (1987). Mood, arousal and cognitions in persistent gambling: Preliminary investigation of a theoretical model. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3, 3-15.
13.
Dunn, D. S. , & Wilson, T. D. (1990). When the stakes are high: A limit to the illusion-of-control effect. Social Cognition, 8, 305-323.
14.
Dykstra, S. P. , & Dollinger, S. J. (1990). Model competence, depression, and the illusion of control. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 235-238.
15.
Fiske, S. T. , & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
Fleming, J. H. , & Darley, J. M. (1990). The purposeful-action sequence and the illusion of control: The effects of foreknowledge and target involvement on observers' judgments of others' control over ran-dom events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 346-357.
17.
Gilovich, T. , & Douglas, C. (1986). Biased evaluations of randomly determined gambling outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 228-241.
18.
Gollwitzer, P. M. , & Kinney, R. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on the illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 531-542.
19.
Griffiths, M. D. (1990). The cognitive psychology of gambling. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 6, 31-42.
20.
Judd, C. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in evaluation research. Evaluation Research, 5, 602-619.
21.
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.
22.
Langer, E. J. , & Roth, J. (1975). Heads I win, tails it's chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 951-955.
23.
Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
24.
Nisbett, R. E. , & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
Pinder, C. C. (1991). Valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 144-164). New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
Porter, L. W. , & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
27.
The sourcebook of zip code demographics. (1990). Fairfax, VA: CICA Marketing Systems.
28.
Taylor, S. E. , & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
29.
Wright, R. A. , & Brehm, J. W. (1989). Energization and goal attractiveness. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 169-210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
