Talk:Introspection illusion

Merger proposal

I suggest that Choice blindness should be a section in the Introspection illusion article, rather than its own article. Hall and Johannson explicitly describe their Choice blindness paradigm as continuation of the Nisbett and Wilson experiments that led to the use of the term "Introspection illusion", and any source which is relevant to choice blindness is also relevant to the introspection illusion. If they develop as separate articles, there will be a large, if not complete, overlap of their content. Better to integrate and have one comprehensive article. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the merge proposal. The two articles appear to be talking about essentially the same thing. Mirafra (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge now done. Thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Choice Blindness

My name is Petter Johansson, one of the researchers doing work on choice blindness. First of all, I would like to say that I am grateful for the work people have done here at Wikipedia to write about and to explain our research to the public. I am very much aware of the potential conflicts of interest in me as a researcher commenting on the content of a Wikipedia entry that describes my own research, but I have found a few dead links, and in addition I also have some small suggestions that I think would improve the content.

The work on choice blindness has from the beginning been a joint enterprise between me and my long term collaborator Lars Hall. It would therefore feel better and be more accurate if the first sentence under the choice blindness heading read: “Inspired by the Nisbett and Wilson paper, Petter Johansson, Lars Hall and colleagues investigated…”

In the text describing choice blindness, there is one sentence that is a bit problematic. At the end of the third paragraph under Choice Blindness: "Another variation involved subjects choosing between two objects displayed on powerpoint slides, then explaining their choice when the description of what they chose has been altered.[17]" The problem with referring to this study is that the study as such is not yet published; it is merely described as work in progress in a book chapter. The link to this book chapter is also dead, which makes it very hard for interested readers to follow this up.

I suggest that the entire sentence is replaced with the following sentence: "Choice blindness has also been found for moral [ref 17] and political [ref 18] attitudes".

Both these studies are published in the open access journal PLoS ONE, and are thus freely available to the public.

[17] Hall L, Johansson P, Strandberg T (2012) Lifting the Veil of Morality: Choice Blindness and Attitude Reversals on a Self-Transforming Survey. PLoS ONE 7(9): e45457. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045457 http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045457

[18] Hall, L., Strandberg, T., Pärnamets, P., Lind, A., Tärning, B. & Johansson, P. (2013). How the Polls Can Be Both Spot On and Dead Wrong: Using Choice Blindness to Shift Political Attitudes and Voter Intentions. PLoS ONE 8(4): e60554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060554 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0060554

The experiment and the methodology used are illustrated in these two open access videos, for the moral paper: http://www.lucs.lu.se/cbq and for the political paper: http://www.lucs.lu.se/cbp

These two experiments also go some way to counter the criticism on at the end of the section on choice blindness: “It is not clear, however, the extent to which these findings apply to real-life experience when we have more time to reflect or use actual faces (as opposed to gray-scale photos).[20]”

In that sentence, the reference also refers to a missing link.

Under External links, the link to the Choice Blindness lab page is dead, the correct one is: http://www.lucs.lu.se/choice-blindness-group/

Linked from the lab page, we also have a PDF that summarises the choice blindness effect and the studies done so far: http://www.lucs.lu.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Choice-Blindness-summary.pdf This could be linked from Wikipedia as well.

We would also like to start a discussion about the possibility to re-introduce choice blindness as a separate entry on Wikipedia. We have two main reasons for wanting this. Firstly, the perceptual/decision making part of the phenomenon of choice blindness is poorly represented by the focus on introspection in the current article (for example, in recent experiments we have shown that the manipulated choice feeds back and alter the participants’ preferences in subsequent choices, which show that the participants accept and integrate the choice as part of their own set of preferences, which clearly goes beyond the scope of the “introspection illusion”). Secondly, we feel choice blindness is an established and independent paradigm, that is referenced as such in the scientific literature, most notably in David Myers’ textbook Psychology, which is the most widely distributed textbook in the field of Psychology today. If we look at search volumes through Google adwords we get a hint of this, as about 200 specific searches on “introspection illusion” is made globally per month, while about 900 such searches are made for “choice blindness”.

As a separate entry, choice blindness could be linked to several other related phenomena, like: change blindness, self-perception theory, cognitive dissonance, self-knowledge as well as several choice related entries, like: cognitive biases, decision making, choice modelling, etc.

Petter Johansson (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you continuing to deal with this situation in this area? XMHNHMX (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Introspection illusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105011719/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Pronin%2C%20Wegner%2C%20McCarthy%2C%20%26%20Rodriguez%20%282006%29.pdf to http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Pronin%2C%20Wegner%2C%20McCarthy%2C%20%26%20Rodriguez%20%282006%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)