Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Representativeness
- Part III Causality and attribution
- Part IV Availability
- Part V Covariation and control
- 15 Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments
- 16 The illusion of control
- 17 Test results are what you think they are
- 18 Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities
- 19 Learning from experience and suboptimal rules in decision making
- Part VI Overconfidence
- Part VII Multistage evaluation
- Part VIII Corrective procedures
- Part IX Risk perception
- Part X Postscript
- References
- Index
16 - The illusion of control
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2013
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Representativeness
- Part III Causality and attribution
- Part IV Availability
- Part V Covariation and control
- 15 Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments
- 16 The illusion of control
- 17 Test results are what you think they are
- 18 Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities
- 19 Learning from experience and suboptimal rules in decision making
- Part VI Overconfidence
- Part VII Multistage evaluation
- Part VIII Corrective procedures
- Part IX Risk perception
- Part X Postscript
- References
- Index
Summary
While most people will agree that there is much overlap between skill and luck, a full understanding of how inextricably bound the two are has yet to be attained. In principle the distinction seems clear. In skill situations there is a causal link between behavior and outcome. Thus, success in skill tasks is controllable. Luck, on the other hand, is a fortuitous happening. Success in luck or chance activities is apparently uncontrollable. The issue of present concern is whether or not this distinction is generally recognized. The position taken here is that it is not. While people may pay lip service to the concept of chance, they behave as though chance events are subject to control. If this is correct, it is of interest to determine the variables responsible for this confusion. …
Some observational support for the assertion that people treat chance events as controllable comes from sociologists Goffman (1967) and Henslin (1967). While studying gambling practices in Las Vegas, Goffman noted that dealers who experienced runs of bad luck ran the risk of losing their jobs. Henslin studied dice playing and noted that dice players clearly behave as if they were controlling the outcome of the toss. They are careful to throw the dice softly if they want low numbers or to throw hard for high numbers. They believe that effort and concentration will pay off.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Judgment under UncertaintyHeuristics and Biases, pp. 231 - 238Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1982
- 17
- Cited by