Image: From "Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception," by Jennifer A. Whitson and Adam D. Galinsky, in Science, Vol. 322; October 3, 2008
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Imagine a time in your life when you felt out of control—anything from getting lost to losing a job. Now look at the top illustration on this page. What do you see? Such a scenario was presented to subjects in a 2008 experiment by Jennifer Whitson of the University of Texas at Austin and her colleague Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University. Their study, entitled “Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception,” was published in Science.
Defining “illusory pattern perception” (what I call “patternicity”) as “the identification of a coherent and meaningful interrelationship among a set of random or unrelated stimuli ... (such as the tendency to perceive false correlations, see imaginary figures, form superstitious rituals, and embrace conspiracy beliefs, among others),” the researchers’ thesis was that “when individuals are unable to gain a sense of control objectively, they will try to gain it perceptually.” As Whitson explained the psychology to me, “Feelings of control are essential for our well-being—we think clearer and make better decisions when we feel we are in control. Lacking control is highly aversive, so we instinctively seek out patterns to regain control—even if those patterns are illusory.”
Whitson and Galinsky sat subjects before a computer screen, telling one group they must guess which of two images embodied an underlying concept the computer had selected. For example, they might see a capital A and a lowercase t colored, underlined, or surrounded by a circle or square. Subjects would then guess at an underlying concept, such as “all capital As are red.” There was no actual underlying concept—the computer was programmed to tell the subjects randomly that they were either “correct” or “incorrect.” Consequently, they developed a sense of lacking control.
Another group did not receive randomized feedback and so felt more in control. In the second part of the experiment subjects were shown 24 “snowy” photographs, half of which contained hidden images such as a hand, horses, a chair or the planet Saturn, whereas the other half just consisted of grainy random dots. Although nearly everyone saw the hidden figures, subjects in the lack-of-control group saw more figures in the photographs that had no embedded images.
In another experiment Whitson and Galinsky had subjects vividly recall an experience in which they either had full control or lacked control over a situation. The subjects then read scenarios in which the characters’ success or failure was preceded by unconnected and superstitious behaviors, such as foot stomping before a meeting where the character wanted to have ideas approved. The subjects were then asked whether they thought the characters’ behavior was related to the outcome. Those who had recalled an experience in which they lacked control perceived a significantly greater connection between the two unrelated events than did those who recalled an experience in which they had felt control. Interestingly, the low-control subjects who read a story about an employee who failed to receive a promotion tended to believe that a behind-the-scenes conspiracy was the cause.
In their final experiment Whitson and Galinsky created a sense of lacking control in two groups of subjects, then asked one group to contemplate and affirm their most important values in life—a proven technique for reducing learned helplessness. The researchers then presented those same snowy pictures, finding that those who lacked control but had no opportunity for self-affirmation saw more nonexistent patterns than did those in the self-affirmation condition.
In 1976 Harvard psychologist Ellen J. Langer and Judith Rodin, now president of the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a study in a New England nursing home in which the residents were given plants, but only some had the opportunity to water them. Those residents who were in charge of watering the plants lived longer and healthier lives than the others, even those given plants watered by the staff. The sense of control had the apparent effect on physical health and well-being.
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add Commenti always feel that i am in control, however, there is always a negative effect that i am quite tired and feel pressure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi always feel that i am in control, however, there is always a negative effect that i am quite tired and feel pressure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the experiment did not said much. Having the control of the situation is good and must be good for well-being too, but we never gonna have the control of everything. Act like this is ignore the imensity oh the nature! And could result in fatigue and pressure, which proofs that not always having the of everything is good for well-being . Have a balance of life... thats important! Dont try to control everything! Its impossible!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExamining the sample image objectively, the inner ring of the Saturn-like image is the most regular, symmetrical, nearly unbroken line of all the mostly irregular lines. The spherical formation is also quite regular. The outer ring is much more broken, but is also regular and symmetric to the more unbroken inner ring. I strongly suspect that standard image enhancement computer software would resolve a Saturn-like image from this noisy image.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least from this report, its seems it is the researchers who have lost control of their experiments.
Being allowed to comment this article gives me an illusion of control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing allowed to comment this article gives me an illusion of control over it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI interpret the little marks above to mean that people who feel they have less control see patterns where there is none. How can I make sure that interpretation doesn't mean I'm lacking control?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeck yeah this totally is correct. It applies to Congress easily. You lack any control and yet for some reason still think its rituals make any kind of sense. Boo yah!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving seen the top picture in the paper article, I know that the picture accompanying this on-line version is not the "top" picture; it's the second picture. so people reading this on-line won't get the full effect referred to. Nonetheless, maybe those of us who are not psychologists can use these ideas to figure out how to allow someone opposing us to have at least the illusion of control so we "get our way" in a "win-win" way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthomasehealy – Thanks for pointing out the editorial trickery and perceptively identifying the fundamental issue at work here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who are unaware of the evidentiary basis for a particular assertion (ourselves included) conflicting with their own can only perceive opposition to be intention to dominate or control assessments. Well, this is one way of putting it, anyway.
As a corollary to this article: excessive faith in science grants the "illusion of control."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbestofnothing - Allegorically: those who are incompetent cannot distinguish between those who are competent and those who are not. All in good fun, of course...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLack of control lead to the invention of god(s)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuperstition = religion = lack of knowledge = ignorance.
i dont understand it all,but,i believe that human is the biggest in the unniverse~
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting to see the extend this could be pushed to. The research put people into situations where they lacked control temporarily, but what about those who feel they lack control chronically in their lives? Is there a correlation between people who feel they have little control over their lives ( or external locus) and their seeing things such as the supernatural? Could this explain why certain people can "see ghosts?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEditors: the caption for the illustration included on this website states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'From "Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception," by Jennifer A. Whitson and Adam D. Galinsky, in Science, Vol. 322; October 3, 2008'
However, Science, Vol. 322 is dated 21 Nov. 2008 and does not contain the referenced article.
Yes! Our sense of vision can 'visualize' anything anytime! In psychology, this was once aptly called "Gestalt", which means "figure", or, con-figuration. The configuration of a literally supra-natural 'Big Brother' figure, that answers, but never does, to the name of 'God', is only human! Brain scans prove that our imaginations light up the very same recognition areas as if we saw 'God' for real - so, where's the demarcation line between real and surreal, anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the worst article that I have ever read in SA. Until there is direct evidence of a brain state associated with "control" or "lack of control" this is just some BFSkinner BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it lack of control, or just one way that anxiety is created or increased in some people? Thus, is it anxiety that increases the search for patterns? Humans are natural pattern generators. I think anxiety makes us work harder at patterning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think a pattern is false or unusable only when it proves itself unable to satisfy the original motive. Abstract art is based on 'false' patterns. It works because one person's false pattern is another person's satisfaction. LVP
Is it lack of control, or just one way that anxiety is created or increased in some people? Thus, is it anxiety that increases the search for patterns?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are natural pattern generators. I think anxiety makes us work harder at it.
I think a pattern is 'false' or unusable only when it proves itself unable to satisfy the original motive. Abstract art is based on 'false' patterns. It works because one person's false pattern is another person's satisfaction. LVP
Very interesting study!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust curious why is it that "contemplating and affirming their most important values in life" are "a proven technique for reducing learned helplessness"?
Also, in the study about plants, it seems to be suggesting that responsibilities give them more of a "sense of control", but I don't agree, certainly not in my workplace! :) There can be so many explanations, maybe it's just the mere presence of the plant!
Right. Feelings of anxiety, or fear, motivate us to search harder or perhaps 'more creatively' for solutions to the problems at hand. For instance, fear of not having enough food for the winter will motivate one's creative efforts to find a method to preserve food. Perhaps the stress will cause one to try some pretty strange things. Of course, accumulated scientific knowledge, as well as historical and passed-on traditions, will aid in the search.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a well-known empirical connection between levels of arousal, or stress/anxiety, and 'performance'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes%E2%80%93Dodson_law
The experiments done in this work likely increased arousal and stress--things which, although still difficult to measure objectively, are more tractable than vague notions of 'feelings of control'.
Finding more patterns in random 'snowy images' may be a sign of improved problem solving ability or greater creativity. Scientists, too, need to be aroused and creative if they are to come up with new solutions to pressing dilemmas.
Shermer's interprets this work as some sort of scientific explanation for supernatural thinking. Another interpretation is that our greatest scientists, people like Newton and Einstein and others, are mostly likely to see 'illusory' patterns that no one else can see.
I also think that a gestalt or symbiosis of patterns--whether the collection contains workable or superstitious patterns in the mix--produces self.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLVP
Then, the illusion of control is just another 'false' pattern.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLVP
The 'illusion of control' is another 'false' pattern.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLVP
Sorry for the duplication. The website appears slow on the uptake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLVP
Well, although I can see some value within the study... corellation is not causation. I believe there are too many "outliers" not considered in this study. What about ruling out right brain/left brain thinkers. Abstract versus concrete thinkers. So basically, the concept of "imagination", boils down to control. If this is so, what is wrong with that and it is not necessarily a bad label!!! If not for imagination, would we have made it out of the stone age?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my view,due to the integrity of perception,everyone prone to interpret something reasonably in our daily life ,and to reach the balance point.So no matter how we get in or out of control over the world,even increasing the illusory pattern perception ,maybe that is good for you but not for others ,it is significant to figure out how works of the cognitive mechanism and what pattern of perception will benefit us to recognize the regular or inregular things around the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is how I imagine the origin and context of pattern making.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.larryvanpelt.ca/LF/files/Media/Elipse.jpg
Stone age or whenever, it started back there somewhere.
Shaman, story-telling, print, electronic media and Internet--
I'm calling the whole accumulation: thought universe.
And it is growing by leaps and bounds!
The study is important for naming 'patterning' as a subject of study.
In this title, Shermer (and Galinsky) take great liberty with words in order to promote their own prejudices. Consider the implications of equating "Illusory patterns" with "superstitions". If this were true, it would imply that any scientific theory that is proven wrong (illusory pattern) was a superstition of the scientist who proposed it... not such a "bright" idea!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther writers have used Galinsky's work to promote their own beliefs. A very recent example was published in the Economist. http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15328544
The writer presents Galinsky's study that "power corrupts"; but the writer then implies that fair, moral rulers are "wimps". A reader decries this remark, and suggests that Galinsky should have included "intelligence" as a study parameter.
But even that reader's suggestion promotes a prejudice. Using Galinsky's work, the aformentioned reader's hypothesis might say that lower intelligence: 1. combined with power, leads to moral corruption; and, 2.combined with lack of power causes illusory patterns. While these statements might appeal to those who consider themselves "bright", they are unscientific, aberrant extentons of Galinsky's results. They simply promote a form of intellectual elitism.
So how should Galinsky's results be interpretted? Not at all! The studies are simply preliminary evidence of very complex self-mind interactions. The results do not prove anything about evolutionary religion, or that politicians are corrupt, or that scientists are bright. Taken by themselves, these studies can't be touted as proof of anyone's prejudices! A true skeptic would carefully avoid this type of pseudo-scientific speculation.
sunspot – Very well said. One might even extend your summation to suggest that a truly scientific publication would avoid publishing such articles!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’ve not been following psychology or testing, etc., but I think you make a good point. I recall as a young person receiving a test score for ‘pattern recognition’. Presuming that someone who received an exceptionally high percentile ranking in such a test did so because they successfully identified more existing patterns than most others who took the test, the population of individuals who did not identify many of the patterns would have been very large. If, for some reason, those who pursue careers in psychology tend to be not proficient in recognizing patterns, they could perceive those that can to be somehow abhorrent. This could leave psychologists puzzled as to why many others perceive undetectable patterns. There could be an undetected pattern here…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is one of the primary reasons people create or join religions(particularly Abrahamic ones). Religions offer a sense of control. As the article says, if "individuals are unable to gain a sense of control objectively, they will try to gain it perceptually". Thats how religion works. People are told to rely on personal perceptive experiences instead of objective evidence, and in return, they get a sense of control over their lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, prayer gives people a way to think they are helping when they are unable to directly help. The heaven/hell afterlife lets people think they control what happens after death.
As mentioned in comment 30 below, the author's application of these results to religion is merely a reflection of a pre-formed notion that religion is an illusion. This study could just as easily be used to support the notion that atheists
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisform the "head in sand" illusion that the universe is an accident, in order to regain control from the concept of an all-knowing God.
Do you see how the results of this study can be used to say anything that you want them to say? That places such conclusions squarely into the realm of pure speculation. Galinsky and Shermer should know better than to encourage this kind of misuse of scientific studies.
Sunspot, I disagree. Even if one religion is true, that would still mean the vast majority of religions and religious people aren't worshipping a real being. These religions would still need an explanation, and a desire for control would provide one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if the US gov uses the Advanced EHF Military Communications Satellites to talk to you right inside your head, and you were told of it before hand but no one believes you now, does that count? Like mind control is now, and you all don't even get it, doom, doom......unless you start talking about how to ban space based weapons like this. Is your dog a spy, you sure he wants food, or something else? Why are you looking at me like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to say, I wish it was a joke....it's not. Remote viewing through other peoples eyes is a fact. Anyone have a bolometer that works between 800 and 850 GHz?
Several commentators have made aspersions insinuating that “Scientific American” has become a less credible source of scientific information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooking back at “Scientific American” issues published in the 1980s and 1990s, they were full of articles written by, or attributed to, eminent scientists who have made significant contributions to their specific field of study. Those articles generally provided a summarial overview of the current state of a particular field of science. This is the basis for the excellent reputation of “Scientific American”.
Unfortunately, it does seem that most current SciAm articles represent an interpretation of a recently published scientific journal article, prepared by a journalist who read the research and may have conducted a phone interview with one of the authors. While this redirection of SciAm may have been necessary for its continuation, I suspect it had more to do with the business plans prepared by MBAs majoring in greed, like most of today’s commercial enterprises. I hope that SciAm is now more effective in the marketplace, but I do find the old issues more interesting and enlightening.
@animea90 - "These religions would still need an explanation, and a desire for control would provide one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this logic applies, then atheism also requires an explanation, and similarly, "a desire for control would provide one.".
The problem with applying Galinsky's study to explanations is that it explains anything or anyone with whom you do not agree. In your mind, their "false belief" is an illusion, so claiming that their belief evolved from a need for control is a tautology; it explains nothing. The conclusions about superstition give the false impression of an explanation. However, a skeptic should guard against this kind of self deception.
Any study that appears to affirm one's pre-conceived ideas should be the most suspect of all studies. This is the basis of the argumant against "creation science". It is an equally valid argument against Galinsky's contrived "explanation" of superstitions, and the implications for religions.
this explains why when i was younger, the less control I had over my life/finances, the luckier I felt when buying lottery tickets...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand why ICU nurses have learned to be superstitious about the "Q" word ("quiet") . NEVER say "it looks like it's going to be a QUIET night in the ICU ..." ~ because that will ensure that all kinds of craziness starts with patients crashing, new admissions, equipment failures, etc.!
'hidden images such as a hand, horses, a chair or the planet Saturn'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe weakness in this study (and in scientific approaches to apophenia in general) is the assumption that sensory data has inherent 'meaning'.
In the figure shown, the assumption is that we are 'meant' to see Saturn - that there is a 'right' answer. The fact that the data may have been derived from a degraded photo of 'Saturn' is irrelevant - it could have been randomly generated as far as the viewer is concerned.
Anyone seeing a paperclip and a coin are dismissed as 'wrong', as seeing something 'illusory'.
Do you ever find yourself staring at the clouds or the ceiling and seeing some sort of a pattern?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you answered yes then according to the latest scientific research you feel lack of control in your life.
Setting aside the controversial nature of research methods, I wonder about the extent to which one can interpret and push the results of the study. So to answer my own question in the beginning all the time! I space out, I see a horse on the moon, a female face on my wooden door and dollar bills on toilet paper to mention just a few. To be short, Ive been patternizing as long as I can remember! Does that mean Ive been feeling out of control all my life? Do people make art because they simply feel out of control? What about children who find hearts in the sky? Okay, I get the potheads and the religious freaks, although even these cases are somewhat debatable. But overall, I think its quite dangerous to make such sweeping generalizations about causality between lack of control and illusory pattern perception.
As mentioned before, Gestalt theory has been studied and applied to work with people and organizations to achieve personal growth and interpersonal awareness. If it is indeed in our nature to see patterns, I believe the authors are not the exception. I think Ill stop writing now before I loose control:)
The essence of compromise...let the "other side" have a little bit of control so they feel more secure (less threatened) by your proposed change. Lincoln was great at it. So's Obama.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this