Choice blindness
|
WikiDoc Resources for Choice blindness |
|
Articles |
|---|
|
Most recent articles on Choice blindness Most cited articles on Choice blindness |
|
Media |
|
Powerpoint slides on Choice blindness |
|
Evidence Based Medicine |
|
Clinical Trials |
|
Ongoing Trials on Choice blindness at Clinical Trials.gov Trial results on Choice blindness Clinical Trials on Choice blindness at Google
|
|
Guidelines / Policies / Govt |
|
US National Guidelines Clearinghouse on Choice blindness NICE Guidance on Choice blindness
|
|
Books |
|
News |
|
Commentary |
|
Definitions |
|
Patient Resources / Community |
|
Patient resources on Choice blindness Discussion groups on Choice blindness Patient Handouts on Choice blindness Directions to Hospitals Treating Choice blindness Risk calculators and risk factors for Choice blindness
|
|
Healthcare Provider Resources |
|
Causes & Risk Factors for Choice blindness |
|
Continuing Medical Education (CME) |
|
International |
|
|
|
Business |
|
Experimental / Informatics |
Please Take Over This Page and Apply to be Editor-In-Chief for this topic: There can be one or more than one Editor-In-Chief. You may also apply to be an Associate Editor-In-Chief of one of the subtopics below. Please mail us [1] to indicate your interest in serving either as an Editor-In-Chief of the entire topic or as an Associate Editor-In-Chief for a subtopic. Please be sure to attach your CV and or biographical sketch.
In psychology, choice blindness is a phenomenon in which subjects fail to detect conspicuous mismatches between their intended (and expected) choice and the actual outcome.
Writing in Science, psychologist Petter Johansson and coworkers describe choice blindness demonstrated in an experiment.
The subject is presented with two cards, on which different (female) faces appear. The subject is asked to choose which one he finds more attractive. In the non-manipulated (NM) version, the subject is handed the card that he chose and asked to say why he chose that one. In the manipulated (M) version, the experimenter uses sleight of hand techniques to switch the cards without the subject's knowledge and give the subject the other card.
The workers found that most subjects failed to notice the switch, and furthermore justified their decision using post-hoc confabulated evidence. For example, in a M trial, a subject might say "I preferred this one because I prefer blondes" when he had in fact chosen (and pointed to) the dark-haired woman, but was handed a blonde.
They point out that his experiment allows one to investigate the relationship between choice and introspection.
Johansson concludes that he has found that some normal participants unequivocally produce confabulatory reports when asked to describe the reasons behind their choices and suggests that choice blindness affords some insight into the mechanisms behind truthful report.
References
- Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., & Olsson, A. (2005). Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task. Science, Vol 310, Issue 5745, 116-119, 7 October 2005
See also
- Choice
- Choice theory
- Choice-supportive bias - memory distortion in which choices are remembered as better than they actually were.
- Self-perception theory - posits that we observe our own behavior and infer our attitudes from what we observe.
- Wason selection task