Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dlb68 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T15:59:31.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Illusion of control and the pursuit of authority

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Randolph Sloof  and
Ferdinand A. von Siemens
Randolph Sloof*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tinbergen Institute, Gustav Mahlerplein 117, 1082 MS Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ferdinand A. von Siemens*
Affiliation:
Goethe University Frankfurt, Grueneburgplatz 1, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany CESifo, Poschingerstrasse 5, 81679 Munich, Germany
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We measure participants’ willingness to pay for transparently useless authority—the right to make a completely uninformed task decision. We further elicit participants’ beliefs about receiving their preferred outcome if they make the decision themselves, and if another participant makes the decision for them. We find that participants pay more to make the decision themselves if they also believe that they can thus increase the probability of getting their preferred outcome. Illusion of control therefore exists in a controlled laboratory environment with monetary incentives and is connected to peoples’ pursuit of authority.

Keywords

Control preferencesIllusion of controlAllocation of decision rights

JEL classification

D23: Organizational Behavior • Transaction Costs • Property Rights C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D80: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 556 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartling, B, Engl, F, & Weber, RA (2015). Game form misconceptions are not necessary for a willingness-to-pay vs. willingness-to-accept gap. Journal of the Economic Science Associations, 1, 72–85. 10.1007/s40881-015-0008-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartling, B, Fehr, E, & Herz, H (2014). The intrinsic value of decision rights. Econometrica, 82(6), 2005–2039. 10.3982/ECTA11573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, P, Dewatripont, M Gibbons, R, & Roberts, J (2013). Authority in organizations. Handboook of organizational economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press 342–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, JM, & Cooper, HM (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3(4), 381–393. 10.1007/BF00994052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, TN, & Plott, CR (2014). Misconceptions and game form recognition: Challenges to theories of revealed preferences and framing. Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 1235–1270. 10.1086/677254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G, & Gneezy, U (2010). Portfolio choice and risk attitudes: An experiment. Economic Inquiry, 48(1), 133–146. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00219.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb-Clark, DA, & Schurer, S (2013). Two economists’ musings on the stability of locus of control. Economic Journal, 123, 359–400. 10.1111/ecoj.12069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohmen, T, Falk, A, Huffman, D, & Sunde, U (2009). Homo reciprocans: Survey evidence on prevalence, behavior and success. Economic Journal, 119(536), 592–612. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02242.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominguez Martinez, S, Sloof, R, & von Siemens, FA (2014). Monitored by your friends, not your foes: Strategic ignorance and the delegation of real authority. Games and Economic Behavior, 85, 289–305. 10.1016/j.geb.2014.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A, & Kosfeld, M (2006). The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1611–1630. 10.1257/aer.96.5.1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fast, NJ, Gruenfeld, DH, Sivanathan, N, & Galinsky, AD (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psycholgical Science, 20(4), 502–508. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02311.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E, Herz, H, & Wilkening, T (2013). The lure of authority: Motivation and incentive effects of power. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1325–1359. 10.1257/aer.103.4.1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton-O’Creevy, M, Nicholson, N, Soane, E, & Willman, P (2003). Trading on illusions: Unrealistic perceptions of control and trading performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 53–68. 10.1348/096317903321208880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, NJ (2003). Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon Spaghetti organization. Organization Science, 14(3), 331–349. 10.1287/orsc.14.3.331.15166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, R, Matouschek, N, Roberts, J Gibbons, R, & Roberts, J (2013). Decisions in organizations. Handbook of organizational economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press 373–431. 10.1515/9781400845354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E (2009). A mechanism for eliciting probabilities. Econometrica, 77, 603–606. 10.3982/ECTA7833Google Scholar
Langer, EJ (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328. 10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, D, Grossman, Z, & Fackler, R (2014). The control premium: A preference for payoff autonomy. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 6(4), 138–161.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J, Cialdini, RB, Hanna, B, & Knopoff, K (1998). Faith in supervision and the self-enhancement bias: Two psychological reasons why managers don’t empower workers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 313–321. 10.1207/s15324834basp2004_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, CR, & Zeiler, K (2005). The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures to eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545. 10.1257/0002828054201387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, CR, & Zeiler, K (2007). Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory?. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1449–1466. 10.1257/aer.97.4.1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, CR, & Zeiler, K (2011). The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures to eliciting valuations: Reply. American Economic Review, 101(2), 1012–1028. 10.1257/aer.101.2.1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powdthavee, N, & Riyanto, YE (2015). Would you pay for transparently useless advice? A test of boundaries of beliefs in the folly of predictions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 257–272. 10.1162/REST_a_00453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, LJ (1971). Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336), 783–801. 10.1080/01621459.1971.10482346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlag, K, Tremewan, J, & van der Weele, J (2015). A penny for your thoughts: A survey of methods for eliciting beliefs. Experimental Economics, 18(3), 457–490. 10.1007/s10683-014-9416-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, SC (1999). Illusion of control: How we overstimate our personal influence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 187–190. 10.1111/1467-8721.00044CrossRefGoogle Scholar