바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1226-9654
  • E-ISSN2733-466X
  • KCI

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.32 No.3

Citation Share

마음 속임: 세부 특징 수준에서 나타나는 선택맹

Sleight of Mind: Choice Blindness at a Simple Feature Level

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.3, pp.279-289
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.3.003
나종인 (Center for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis)
김민식 (연세대학교)
나종인, & 김민식. (2020). 마음 속임: 세부 특징 수준에서 나타나는 선택맹. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 32(3), 279-289, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.3.003

Abstract

Choice blindness, the failure to notice mismatches between an intended choice and presented outcome, has mostly been documented in decision-making tasks focusing on preferences, opinions, and facial recognition. To expand upon the existing choice blindness literature, we investigated whether the effect occurs in a non-ambiguous decision-making situation. To test this, we examined if conspicuous mismatches were detected when a simple single feature was manipulated using unidimensional stimuli. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with two bars of differing length and were told to choose the longer bar. Afterwards, their selection was presented on screen and participants had to enter how much longer their selection was than the other. In a few trials, however, the relationship between choice and outcome was manipulated and participants received the bar they did not choose. Consistent with previous experiments, only 20% of the manipulations were detected. To make sure participants actually interacted with the stimuli, in Experiment 2, participants had to adjust the length of the chosen bar themselves. While detection rates rose, choice blindness was still existent. Experiment 3 investigated the effect of task-relevancy on choice blindness. Participants were more susceptible to choice blindness when a task-irrelevant feature was swapped rather than a task-relevant feature. The principal finding was that, though all accurately remembered the difference, most were unaware of the mismatch even when the sole feature was manipulated. Also, both task-relevancy and stimulus similarity moderated the effect, hinting that both top-down and bottom-up attention plays a role.

keywords
choice blindness, working memory, selective attention, decision making, conscious awareness, 선택맹, 작업기억, 선택적 주의, 의사결정, 의식적 자각

참고문헌

1.

Ariely, D., & Norton, M. I. (2008). How actions create –not just reveal–preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 13-16.

2.

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.

3.

Beck, M. R., & Levin, D. T. (2003). The role of representational volatility in recognizing pre-and postchange objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 458-468.

4.

Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187-217.

5.

Festinger, L., (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

6.

Hall, L., Johansson, P., Tarning, B., Sikström, S., &Deutgen, T. (2010). Magic at the marketplace: CB for the taste of jam and the smell of tea. Cognition, 117, 54-61.

7.

Hollingworth, A. (2003). Failures of retrieval and comparison constrain change detection in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 388-03.

8.

Johansson, P., Hall, L., Gulz, A., Haake, M., &Watanabe, K. (2007). CB and trust in the virtual world. Technical Report of IEICE: HIP, 107, 83-86.

9.

Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., & Olsson, A. (2005). Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple desicion task. Science, 310, 116-119.

10.

Johansson, P., Hall, L., Tärning, B., Sikström, S., &Chater, N. (2013). Choice blindness and preference change: You will like this paper better if you (believe you) chose to read it! Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 281-289.

11.

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality:Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.

12.

Levin, D. T., & Simons, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 501-506.

13.

Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Pieters, M. (2011). Misinformation increases symptom reporting: A test-retest study. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports, 2(10), 1-6.

14.

Rensink, R. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245-277.

15.

Sagana, A., Sauerland, M., & Merkelbach, H. (2013). “This is the person you selected”: About being blind for one’s own eyewitness identification decision

16.

Sauerland, M., Sagana, A., & Otgaar, H. (2012). Theoretical and legal issues related to CB for voices. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 371-381.

17.

Sauerland, M., Schell, J., Collaris, J., Reimer, N., Schneider, M., & Merkelbach, H. (2013b). “Yes, I have sometimes stolen bikes”: Blindness for norm-violating behaviors and implications for suspect interrogations. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 31, 239-255.

18.

Sharot, T., Velasquez, C. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2010). Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science, 21, 1231-1235.

19.

Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 644-649.

20.

Sirigu, A., Daprati, E., Ciancia, S., Giraux, P., Nighoghossian, N., Posada, A., & Haggard, P. (2004). Altered awareness of voluntary action after damage to the parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 80–84.

21.

Triesch, J., Ballard, D. H., Mayhoe, M. M., & Sullivan, B. T. (2003). What you see is what you need. Journal of Vision, 3, 86-94.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책