http://mindhacks.com/2010/07/17/researchers-implant-false-symptoms/ Neuroscience and psychology tricks to find out what's going on inside your brain. Fri, 25 May 2012 22:09:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://mindhacks.com/2010/07/17/researchers-implant-false-symptoms/#comment-4713 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:18:01 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/researchers-implant-false-symptoms/#comment-4713 An even more intense stake could be introduced by trying to introduce choice blindness during diagnoses given by a doctor.

]]> http://mindhacks.com/2010/07/17/researchers-implant-false-symptoms/#comment-4712 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:09:55 +0000 http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/researchers-implant-false-symptoms/#comment-4712 This has me ruminating over choice blindness tasks in general. If one were to alter the task so that the participants spent more time discussing their choice, would they be more apt to catch the switch? And, if there was more at stake in the choice, would that also work against the blindness.
Maybe part of it could be attributed to how transient the memory of the choice is, so altering the stakes to make the participant more emotional invested, as well as asking them to do more intense cognitive processing over it would tend to work against the blindness.
I’m not at all sure though.
What if you were to try implanting false choices to an architect who is designing a house. They could work with a client who would be given a set of options and have the architect influence the choice (a is better than b based on what you said about x y and z. client agrees and picks a). Then later the client could be reviewing plans with the architect and pretend like the architect chose b.
That’s a lot of thought going in to a choice, and you could alter the stakes by tweaking the payment terms from the client.

]]>