IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_4764.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Illusion of Control and the Pursuit of Authority

Author

Listed:
  • Randolph Sloof
  • Ferdinand von Siemens

Abstract

In a laboratory experiment, we measure subjects’ willingness to pay for a transparently useless decision right concerning the choice between two real effort tasks. We also elicit for each participant her change in beliefs about the likelihood of receiving her preferred task if she rather than another participant makes the decision. Participants pay more to keep control if they - irrationally - believe that they can increase the probability of getting their preferred task by keeping control. We thus document that illusion of control exists in a controlled environment with monetary incentives, and that illusion of control might affect people’s pursuit of authority.

Suggested Citation

  • Randolph Sloof & Ferdinand von Siemens, 2014. "Illusion of Control and the Pursuit of Authority," CESifo Working Paper Series 4764, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_4764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp4764.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean‐Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra, 2011. "Apparent Overconfidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1591-1625, September.
    2. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    3. David Owens Jr. & Zachary Grossman Jr. & Ryan Fackler Jr., 2014. "The Control Premium: A Preference for Payoff Autonomy," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 138-161, November.
    4. Deborah A. Cobb‐Clark & Stefanie Schurer, 2013. "Two Economists' Musings on the Stability of Locus of Control," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 358-400, August.
    5. Nattavudh Powdthavee & Yohanes E. Riyanto, 2015. "Would you Pay for Transparently Useless Advice? A Test of Boundaries of Beliefs in The Folly of Predictions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 257-272, May.
    6. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    7. Björn Bartling & Florian Engl & Roberto A. Weber, 2015. "Game form misconceptions are not necessary for a willingness-to-pay vs. willingness-to-accept gap," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 72-85, July.
    8. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
    9. Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz & Tom Wilkening, 2013. "The Lure of Authority: Motivation and Incentive Effects of Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1325-1359, June.
    10. Björn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz, 2014. "The Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 2005-2039, November.
    11. Edi Karni, 2009. "A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 603-606, March.
    12. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay--Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 1012-1028, April.
    13. Gunnthorsdottir, Anna & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon, 2002. "Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 49-66, February.
    14. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    15. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, January.
    16. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    17. Michael Kosfeld & Armin Falk, 2006. "The Hidden Costs of Control," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1611-1630, December.
    18. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    19. Nicolai J. Foss, 2003. "Selective Intervention and Internal Hybrids: Interpreting and Learning from the Rise and Decline of the Oticon Spaghetti Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 331-349, June.
    20. Dominguez-Martinez, Silvia & Sloof, Randolph & von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2014. "Monitored by your friends, not your foes: Strategic ignorance and the delegation of real authority," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 289-305.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hausfeld, Jan & Fischbacher, Urs & Knoch, Daria, 2020. "The value of decision-making power in social decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 898-912.
    2. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Victor Klockmann & Alicia von Schenk & Ferdinand von Siemens, 2021. "Division of Labor and the Organization of Knowledge in Production: A Laboratory Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 8822, CESifo.
    5. Silvia Lübbecke & Wendelin Schnedler, 2020. "Don't patronize me! An experiment on preferences for authorship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 420-438, April.
    6. Pinger, Pia & Schäfer, Sebastian & Schumacher, Heiner, 2018. "Locus of control and consistent investment choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 66-75.
    7. Pikulina, Elena S. & Tergiman, Chloe, 2020. "Preferences for power," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    8. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart & Maya Jalloul, 2024. "Decreasing Differences in Expert Advice," Working Papers 408394204, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    9. Xu, Zhicheng, 2023. "Obedience to the symbol of authority: Experimental evidence on the symbolic source of legitimate authority," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Klockmann, Victor & von Schenk, Alicia & von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2021. "Division of labor and the organization of knowledge in production: A laboratory experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 196-210.
    11. Jean-Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2022. "Belief Elicitation When More than Money Matters: Controlling for "Control"," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 837-888, August.
    12. Enrique Fatas & Antonio J. Morales, 2018. "The joy of ruling: an experimental investigation on collective giving," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 179-200, August.
    13. Elias Bouacida & Renaud Foucart, 2022. "Rituals of Reason," Working Papers 344119591, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Randolph Sloof & Ferdinand von Siemens, 2015. "Decision Initiation, Decision Implementation, and the Allocation of Decision Rights," CESifo Working Paper Series 5509, CESifo.
    2. Fehr, Dietmar & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2015. "The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap: A failed replication of Plott and Zeiler," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 120-128.
    3. Silvia Dominguez Martinez & Randolph Sloof, 2016. "Communication versus (Restricted) Delegation: An Experimental Comparison," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-050/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Dominguez-Martinez, Silvia & Sloof, Randolph & von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2014. "Monitored by your friends, not your foes: Strategic ignorance and the delegation of real authority," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 289-305.
    5. Wagner, Alexander K. & Granic, Dura-Georg, 2017. "Tie-Breaking Power in Committees," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168187, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. João V. Ferreira & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Benoît Tarroux, 2017. "On the Roots of the Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights: Evidence from France and Japan," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 2017-11, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    7. Ferreira, João V. & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Tarroux, Benoît, 2020. "On the roots of the intrinsic value of decision rights: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 110-122.
    8. David Danz & Dorothea Kübler & Lydia Mechtenberg & Julia Schmid, 2015. "On the Failure of Hindsight-Biased Principals to Delegate Optimally," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1938-1958, August.
    9. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    10. Uzma Afzal & Giovanna d'Adda & Marcel Fafchamps & Farah Said, 2016. "Gender and Agency within the Household: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan," Framed Field Experiments 00555, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Alessandro De Chiara & Ester Manna, 2019. "Delegation with a Reciprocal Agent," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 651-695.
    12. Özalp Özer & Upender Subramanian & Yu Wang, 2018. "Information Sharing, Advice Provision, or Delegation: What Leads to Higher Trust and Trustworthiness?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 474-493, January.
    13. Victor Klockmann & Alicia von Schenk & Ferdinand von Siemens, 2021. "Division of Labor and the Organization of Knowledge in Production: A Laboratory Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 8822, CESifo.
    14. Silvia Lübbecke & Wendelin Schnedler, 2020. "Don't patronize me! An experiment on preferences for authorship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 420-438, April.
    15. Bull, Charles & Courty, Pascal & Doyon, Maurice & Rondeau, Daniel, 2019. "Failure of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism in inexperienced subjects: New tests of the game form misconception hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 235-253.
    16. Juan Dubra & Jean-Pierre Benoît & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2019. "Belief elicitation when more than money matters," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1901, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    17. Eckel, Catherine C. & Fatas, Enrique & Kass, Malcolm, 2022. "Sacrifice: An experiment on the political economy of extreme intergroup punishment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. Tomas Sjöström & Levent Ülkü & Radovan Vadovic, 2017. "Free to Choose: Testing the Pure Motivation Effect of Autonomous Choice," Carleton Economic Papers 17-11, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    19. Burdin, Gabriel & Halliday, Simon & Landini, Fabio, 2018. "The hidden benefits of abstaining from control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Klockmann, Victor & von Schenk, Alicia & von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2021. "Division of labor and the organization of knowledge in production: A laboratory experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 196-210.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    control preferences; illusion of control; allocation of decision rights;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_4764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.