Control blindness: Why people can make incorrect inferences about the intentions of others

Abstract

There is limited evidence regarding the accuracy of inferences about intention. The research described in this article shows how perceptual control theory (PCT) can provide a “ground truth” for these judgments. In a series of 3 studies, participants were asked to identify a person’s intention in a tracking task where the person’s true intention was to control the position of a knot connecting a pair of rubber bands. Most participants failed to correctly infer the person’s intention, instead inferring complex but nonexistent goals (such as “tracing out two kangaroos boxing”) based on the actions taken to keep the knot under control. Therefore, most of our participants experienced what we call “control blindness.” The effect persisted with many participants even when their awareness was successfully directed at the knot whose position was under control. Beyond exploring the control blindness phenomenon in the context of our studies, we discuss its implications for psychological research and public policy.

Observers fail to detect that behavior is the control of perception: A computer demonstration of unintended writing.

“…This study replicated the earlier studies (Willett et al, 2017) showing the observers missed the controlled variables within a specific instructed task that they observed continuously, and this study extended the findings to a live observation. These studies support the case that most people do not immediately consider that behavior is a process of controlling perceived aspects of one’s body or environment when viewing someone else’s actions.…”

“…All the actors in the study reported that they were indeed following the instructions. This study therefore challenges an alternative explanation for the findings of Willett et al (2017) that the actor in the video was actually following a different instruction from the one requiring control (“to keep the knot over the dot”), such as to “draw a mirror image.” Indeed, even though the actors in the current study wrote the word “hello”, our results would indicate that the actors were not controlling for this particular perceptual result of their action.…”

“…An earlier series of three experiments (Willett, Marken, Parker, & Mansell, 2017) tested this proposal. These studies provided all the information that the participants would have needed to identify the process of control, including making the disturbance to control visible to the observer.…”

“…The earlier studies had utilized PCT to create a video of a behavior for which the controlled variable was known, and the actions required to counteract a disturbance left a clear visible trace (Willett et al, 2017). Specifically, the video showed the hands of the experimenter and a volunteer who could be seen to each draw a trace using a pen on a whiteboard.…”

Changing Behavior Using Control Theory

“…Yet observers can be mistaken in judging the nature of another person's behavior. One series of studies shows that a volunteer can be given a simple instruction (to keep a knot of a rubber band over a dot on a page while holding a pen) and yet over 90 percent of observers of this activity fail to correctly identify that this was the volunteer's instruction (Willett et al, 2017). This behavioral illusion occurs because observers notice the eyecatching features of a behavior, in this case drawing a shape on the page, and assume that what they have observed was intended or controlled.…”