I control therefore I do: Judgments of agency influence action selection
Abstract
Our sense of being agents, that is of willingly controlling both our own bodies and the external environment is ubiquitous if thin. Empirical and theoretical work on this 'sense of agency' has documented motivational, cognitive and neural influences on implicit (out of awareness) and explicit (conscious) judgments of agency. For example, fluency of action selection processes has been recently shown to affect judgments of one's degree of control over an external event. However, it is an open question whether and how such judgments of agency act as input to other processes. In this study we demonstrate that the opposite relationship between action selection and judgment of agency also exists. Specifically, we show that manipulating one's objective control over the environment influences both the speed and the frequency of performing an action associated with that control. This pattern bears a striking resemblance to the effect that tangible rewards have on action selection and suggests that positive control feedback is rewarding to the organism, consequently affecting action selection. If further corroborated this 'reward from control' may explain everyday addictions such as prolonged engagement in arcade games and pathological behaviors, such as stereotypy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Humans and other animals prefer an option leading to a choice over an option that does not, even if the choice option results in greater effort or work, suggesting an inherent reward with the exercise of control.
“Studies with both humans (Tiger, Hanley, & Hernandez, 2006) and other animals (Catania, 1975;Catania & Sagvolden, 1980;Voss & Homzie, 1970) have shown that both prefer an option leading to a choice than an option that does not, even if this option results in greater effort or worksuggesting the existence of an inherent reward with the exercise of control (Karsh & Eitam, 2015;Leotti & Delgado, 2011”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Karsh & Eitam, 2015
Autonomy-supportive conditions facilitate performance and enhance perceptions of competence, self-efficacy, and sense of agency.
“Potential consequences of autonomy-supportive conditions include facilitation of performance (Karsh & Eitam, 2015;Legault & Inzlicht, 2013) as well as the opportunity to enhance perceptions of competence, self-efficacy, and sense of agency (Chambon & Haggard, 2012).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Karsh & Eitam, 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 125
- Authors
- Karsh, N., & Eitam, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Haifa (IL)
- ORCID
- Eitam, B.
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-05
- Volume
- 138
- Pages
- 122-131
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016300526
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 4.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Keywords
- sense of agency, action selection, fluency, control feedback, addiction, stereotypy, arcade games
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Awareness, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Reward, Unconscious, Psychology, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review