The article explores the illusion of control, which is the tendency to overestimate one's ability to influence uncontrollable outcomes. The authors propose that this illusion is not primarily driven by personal involvement or social motivations but by a bias in contingency detection, specifically when the probability of the action (the potential cause) is high. They test this hypothesis in two experiments using a yoked design, where participants either actively tried to obtain an outcome or observed the same events. The results show that those who acted more frequently developed stronger illusions, and their yoked counterparts also showed increased illusions. This suggests that the probability of the action, rather than personal involvement, is the key factor in the illusion of control. The findings challenge the traditional motivational approach, which attributes the illusion to self-esteem protection, and support a cognitive account that focuses on biased contingency detection.The article explores the illusion of control, which is the tendency to overestimate one's ability to influence uncontrollable outcomes. The authors propose that this illusion is not primarily driven by personal involvement or social motivations but by a bias in contingency detection, specifically when the probability of the action (the potential cause) is high. They test this hypothesis in two experiments using a yoked design, where participants either actively tried to obtain an outcome or observed the same events. The results show that those who acted more frequently developed stronger illusions, and their yoked counterparts also showed increased illusions. This suggests that the probability of the action, rather than personal involvement, is the key factor in the illusion of control. The findings challenge the traditional motivational approach, which attributes the illusion to self-esteem protection, and support a cognitive account that focuses on biased contingency detection.