Simulated thought insertion: Influencing the sense of agency using deception and magic

Olson, Jay A.; Landry, Mathieu; Appourchaux, Krystèle; Raz, Amir

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2016.04.010

Cited by 33 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This relationship was not further influenced by previously provided information. Further studies show that initially provided information can become redundant ( Olson et al, 2016 ; Thibault et al, 2018 ). In these studies, the researchers used a “placebo machine,” a mock MRI scanner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magic Performances – When Explained in Psychic Terms by University Students

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paranormal beliefs (PBs), such as the belief in the soul, or in extrasensory perception, are common in the general population. While there is information regarding what these beliefs correlate with (e.g., cognitive biases, personality styles), there is little information regarding the causal direction between these beliefs and their correlates. To investigate the formation of beliefs, we use an experimental design, in which PBs and belief-associated cognitive biases are assessed before and after a central event: a magic performance (see also Mohr et al., 2018). In the current paper, we report a series of studies investigating the “paranormal potential” of magic performances (Study 1, N = 49; Study 2, N = 89; Study 3, N = 123). We investigated (i) which magic performances resulted in paranormal explanations, and (ii) whether PBs and a belief-associated cognitive bias (i.e., repetition avoidance) became enhanced after the performance. Repetition avoidance was assessed using a random number generation task. After the performance, participants rated to what extent the magic performance could be explained in psychic (paranormal), conjuring, or religious terms. We found that conjuring explanations were negatively associated with religious and psychic explanations, whereas religious and psychic explanations were positively associated. Enhanced repetition avoidance correlated with higher PBs ahead of the performance. We also observed a significant increase in psychic explanations and a drop in conjuring explanations when performances involved powerful psychic routines (e.g., the performer contacted the dead). While the experimentally induced enhancement of psychic explanations is promising, future studies should account for potential variables that might explain absent framing and before–after effects (e.g., emotion, attention). Such effects are essential to understand the formation and manipulation of belief.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magic Performances – When Explained in Psychic Terms by University Students

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the magic slang they are called “forces” and they seek to overwhelm the spectator by not giving them time to think or reflect, controlling all their reactions. The main characteristic of a good “force” is that the spectator always considers that they have made a free choice ( Shalom et al, 2013 ; Olson et al, 2015 ; Olson et al, 2016 ). Even in those cases, when they subsequently rationalize the causes of their decisions, they end up justifying them using fallacious arguments, which the magician knows have not been part of the choice set, a situation that has been dubbed "choice blindness" ( Johansson et al, 2005 , 2006 ).…”

Section: Survey Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the cognitive bases of illusionism

Camı́

Gomez‐Marin

Martı́nez

2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive scientists have paid very little attention to magic as a distinctly human activity capable of creating situations that are considered impossible because they violate expectations and conclude with the apparent transgression of well-established cognitive and natural laws. This illusory experience of the “impossible” entails a very particular cognitive dissonance that is followed by a subjective and complex “magical experience”. Here, from a perspective inspired by visual neuroscience and ecological cognition, we propose a set of seven fundamental cognitive phenomena (from attention and perception to memory and decision-making) plus a previous pre-sensory stage that magicians interfere with during the presentation of their effects. By doing so, and using as an example the deconstruction of a classic trick, we show how magic offers novel and powerful insights to study human cognition. Furthermore, live magic performances afford to do so in tasks that are more ecological and context-dependent than those usually exploited in artificial laboratory settings. We thus believe that some of the mysteries of how the brain works may be trapped in the split realities present in every magic effect.

show abstract

“…Developmental psychologists harbor a long tradition of incorporating conjuring techniques into their experimental designs (e.g., Baillargeon and Devos, 1991 ), but in recent years, conjuring techniques have also been used to study deception in adults. For example, magic techniques have been used to secretly switch cards and induce choice blindness (Johansson et al, 2005 ), whilst others have used magic to convince people that a brain imaging machine could read or influence their thoughts (Olson et al, 2016 ). Conjuring techniques provide extremely useful experimental tools that allow us to explore psychological phenomena that would otherwise be difficult to study.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst much of the research has focused on misdirection (for review see Kuhn and Martinez, 2012 ), the psychology of magic has expanded into fields such as decision making (Olson et al, 2015 ), problem solving (Danek et al, 2014 ), object permanence (Beth and Ekroll, 2014 ), pattern completion (Barnhart, 2010 ; Ekroll et al, 2013 ), belief formation (Parris et al, 2009 ; Subbotsky, 2010 ), visualmotor action (Cavina-Pratesi et al, 2011 ), sense of agency (Olson et al, 2016 ), and perceptual anticipation (Kuhn and Land, 2006 ; Kuhn and Rensink, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%