IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0058254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing in Freedom or Forced to Choose? Introspective Blindness to Psychological Forcing in Stage-Magic

Author

Listed:
  • Diego E Shalom
  • Maximiliano G de Sousa Serro
  • Maximiliano Giaconia
  • Luis M Martinez
  • Andres Rieznik
  • Mariano Sigman

Abstract

We investigated an individual ability to identify whether choices were made freely or forced by external parameters. We capitalized on magical setups where the notion of psychological forcing constitutes a well trodden path. In live stage magic, a magician guessed cards from spectators while inquiring how freely they thought they had made the choice. Our data showed a marked blindness in the introspection of free choice. Spectators assigned comparable ratings when choosing the card that the magician deliberately forced them compared to any other card, even in classical forcing, where the magician literally handles a card to the participant This observation was paralleled by a laboratory experiment where we observed modest changes in subjective reports by factors with drastic effect in choice. Pupil dilatation, which is known to tag slow cognitive events related to memory and attention, constitutes an efficient fingerprint to index subjective and objective aspects of choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego E Shalom & Maximiliano G de Sousa Serro & Maximiliano Giaconia & Luis M Martinez & Andres Rieznik & Mariano Sigman, 2013. "Choosing in Freedom or Forced to Choose? Introspective Blindness to Psychological Forcing in Stage-Magic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-9, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0058254
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058254
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058254&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0058254?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrés Rieznik & Lorena Moscovich & Alan Frieiro & Julieta Figini & Rodrigo Catalano & Juan Manuel Garrido & Facundo Álvarez Heduan & Mariano Sigman & Pablo A Gonzalez, 2017. "A massive experiment on choice blindness in political decisions: Confidence, confabulation, and unconscious detection of self-deception," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0058254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.