Cognitive biases
The illusion of control: why we feel we can influence chance
Every Saturday Boris watches a movie with four friends. The film is chosen by whoever is lucky: five cards lie face down on the table, and one of them has a star drawn on it. Boris always draws his card himself and takes his time. Once a friend simply stuck a card in his hand, and Boris didn’t like it: “Let me do it myself.” As if his own card were luckier.
This is the illusion of control: we exaggerate our influence over things that depend largely on chance. Especially when we take part ourselves, act, or everything looks familiar. The odds do not change, though: the star lies where it lies.
Below, we look at what scientists found, where their conclusions turned out to be disputed, and when a sense of control helps and when it gets in the way. In the middle of the article you will draw a card twice, like Boris, and compare your answers.
Contents
In short: how the illusion of control works
What the illusion of control is
The name was coined by the psychologist Ellen Langer. In a 1975 paper she described six experiments. In all of them only chance decided the outcome, but the game was given things that usually come with games of skill: a rival, a choice, familiar objects, the chance to act yourself. And people began to behave with more confidence than the odds allowed.
For example, in one of the experiments, lottery participants were either allowed to choose a ticket themselves or were simply handed one. Then they were asked to sell the ticket back. According to the retelling in a later 2017 paper (we could not read the original), those who chose for themselves asked on average about four times more.
How far this can be trusted. In a 2013 summary of studies, the illusion of control appeared again and again, and the effect averaged from moderate to strong. But scientists measured it in very different ways, so the authors of the summary warn that several different phenomena may be hiding under one name.
And with the best-known example, choosing a ticket, things turned out to be more complicated. In a large 2021 check, 17 experiments were run with more than ten thousand people. Choosing by itself almost never made people think their odds were higher. When a difference was found after all, the cause was something else: some people believed beforehand that identical options were actually not identical. The authors suggest other explanations for the old experiment too. Langer’s tickets had different pictures, and a person could simply like their own ticket more. And giving away a card you chose yourself and then seeing it win is especially upsetting.
Try it yourself: Boris’s cards
The game takes a couple of minutes. Here is what will happen.
Step 1. The first Saturday. You take a card out of five. Then you answer what you think the chance is that you have the star, and whether you would swap cards with a friend.
Step 2. The second Saturday. The same thing, with one difference. On one of the Saturdays you draw the card yourself, and on the other a friend hands it to you. Which Saturday comes first is decided by chance for each player.
Step 3. The cards are turned over, and you see both of your answers side by side.
Why are the cards face down and all identical? So that none is liked more than the others: that leaves only the difference between “drew it myself” and “was handed it.” And why are the cards revealed only at the end? So that luck or bad luck on the first Saturday doesn’t affect the answer on the second.
What usually happens. Many people’s estimates of the chance are the same on both Saturdays, and that is the right answer: one star among five cards is 1 in 5 either way. This resembles what the large 2021 check found. If a difference does appear, it is more likely elsewhere: you don’t want to give up your own card, while one you were handed is not as hard to part with. Langer saw a similar reluctance to part with a chosen ticket in her experiments.
What the game can and can’t show. You play once and without a real prize, and the odds are stated to you outright. If you don’t want to swap your card, the game can’t tell what lies behind it: the feeling “my card is luckier” or reluctance to regret it later. Scientists argue about exactly this, too.
When it is not a mistake. The feeling “I can influence this” often helps. The psychologists Shelley Taylor and Jonathon Brown wrote in a 1988 review that a slightly exaggerated sense of control seems to support a good mood and help people take on hard work. That is their conclusion from the research, and not everyone agrees with it. The illusion becomes a mistake when it makes us pay, take risks, or turn down a better option.
Why it feels that way
Usually effort really does help. The more carefully you prepare, the tastier the dinner. The more you train, the better you play. We get used to it: “I did it myself, I tried, so it turned out better.” And this habit kicks in even where nothing depends on us.
The psychologist Suzanne Thompson in a 1999 review lists when the illusion appears most often. When a person takes part in the matter themselves. When the setting is familiar. When they know in advance which outcome they want and think about success. And when it matters a lot to them to keep everything under control. In her view, we judge our influence by two simple signs: “I wanted this” and “I did something for it.” In a game of chance both signs are there, but real influence is not.
Where it gets in the way
Gambling and lotteries. Lucky numbers, the “right” throw of the dice, your own betting system. The feeling “I’m running the game” does not change the odds: in lotteries and casinos the player loses on average, however they choose. This follows from the rules of such games, not from a single study.
Work and money. A good year is easy to explain by your own skill, even if chance helped. And then you confidently repeat the same thing where chance will turn out differently. This is an everyday observation. It is worth keeping in mind when you assess your own success or someone else’s: survivorship bias also speaks of a similar trap.
Small rituals. Sitting in a “lucky” seat, wearing a “lucky” shirt to an exam. As long as the ritual calms you and costs nothing, there is no harm. It is bad if it replaces preparation.
Attachment to what is ours stands nearby too. A similar feeling arises when you don’t want to sell your own thing for less than the asking price. The article on loss aversion is about this.
How to tell influence from luck
The illusion of control is one of the biases on the cognitive bias map, in the section on how we make sense of things. Next to it is the IKEA effect: why something made with our own hands seems more valuable than the same thing ready-made.
Frequently asked questions
So there is no need to control anything?
There is. The illusion of control is about chance: cards, dice, the weather on a wedding day. Where something really does depend on you, effort pays off. The important thing is not to confuse the two.
If I pick a lottery ticket myself, do my chances go up?
No. Every ticket has the same chance, whoever picks it. The large 2021 check showed that people usually don’t start to feel luckier from choosing either. But giving up what you chose does feel like a pity afterward.
Is the illusion of control the same thing in every experiment?
Not necessarily. According to the 2013 summary, the effect kept appearing, but scientists measured it in very different ways, so the authors warn that several different phenomena may be hiding under one name.
