Overstepping the boundaries of free choice: Folk beliefs on free will and determinism in real world contexts

Osman, Magda

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2019.102860

Cited by 7 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…dancing, singing) still adhere to some of the critical criteria of free action (e.g. Deutschländer, et al, 2017;Malle & Knobe, 1997;Monroe & Malle, 2010;Osman, 2020;Stillman, et al, 2011). Nonetheless, the main point here is that the samples included in studies on folk beliefs matters for claims about the universality of psychological constructs.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Day to day manipulation without awareness In Osman's (2020) study people gave ratings of the contexts from a general perspective, and this may explain why there was such a high consensus across participants. By basing their ratings on a general perspective, people may have recruited what they thought were societal beliefs, and this might also explain the absence of demographic influences.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous work suggests that that people associate greater levels of personal responsibility with actions that they judge to be free (Deutschländer et al, 2017;Monroe & Malle, 2010;Shepard, 2015;Stillman et al, 2001). To extend this work and Osman's (2020) study, the present study also includes two ratings related to responsibility.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One possible explanation for this is that people are recruiting common folk beliefs about influences of external actors or mechanisms are occurring (e.g. Osman, 2020). For instance, whether or not common beliefs about advertising, such as subliminal methods (e.g.…”

Section: The Impact Of Context On Ratings Of Agentic and Affective Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the few studies on folk beliefs examining free will in day to day contexts, most have addressed the first question (e.g. Deutschländer, Pauen, & Haynes, 2017;Malle & Knobe, 1997;Monroe & Malle, 2010;Stillman, Baumiester, & Mele, 2011), and only one has addressed the latter (Osman, 2020). The latter question, concerning common beliefs about situations where people believe they might be manipulated without their awareness, is also the main focus of the present study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Public perceptions of manipulations on behavior outside of awareness.

Osman¹,

Bechlivanidis²

2024

Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the role of individual differences (e.g. age, gender, education level, political affiliation, religiosity) and stance (general vs. personal) on contexts associated with manipulations without awareness. In all three studies people were presented with several real world contexts. They first rated the extent to which there was manipulation of behavior without awareness, and then provided additional ratings of agentic (e.g. free choice, conscious intentions, conscious control, responsibility) and affective (certainty, satisfaction, concern) experiences. Study 1 (N = 222) replicated prior findings: when taking a general stance, the relationship between ratings of manipulation without awareness and ratings of agentic experiences was determined by context. These findings extended to Study 2 (N = 377) and Study 3 (N = 283) where people were asked to take a personal stance, i.e. to consider situations of possible manipulation that they themselves have experienced, and provided ratings of their experiences. Across all three studies people showed remarkable agreement, indicating that individual differences played no substantive role in the patterns of ratings, but stance and context did. People taking a general stance rated Research and Therapy as the most common contexts where they suspected manipulation without awareness, but for those taking a personal stance, Media and Marketing were the most common. The findings are discussed in reference to key theories (e.g. Dynamic Monitoring and Control theory, Reactance Theory, Selfdetermination theory, Social Learning theory) that explain why people place high such a premium on agentic experiences.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Impact Of Context On Ratings Of Agentic and Affective Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Public perceptions of manipulations on behavior outside of awareness.

Osman¹,

Bechlivanidis²

2024

Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ethics of generative AI and manipulation: a design-oriented research agenda

Klenk

2024

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generative AI enables automated, effective manipulation at scale. Despite the growing general ethical discussion around generative AI, the specific manipulation risks remain inadequately investigated. This article outlines essential inquiries encompassing conceptual, empirical, and design dimensions of manipulation, pivotal for comprehending and curbing manipulation risks. By highlighting these questions, the article underscores the necessity of an appropriate conceptualisation of manipulation to ensure the responsible development of Generative AI technologies.

show abstract

Impact of personalizing experiences of manipulation outside of awareness on autonomy.

Osman¹,

Bechlivanidis²

2024

Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies examining the relationship between beliefs about manipulation of behavior outside of awareness and free will reveal a weak association between both constructs. That is, people reconcile the two in such a way that there is room for free will despite mechanisms determining their behavior. The present study further explores the association between judgments of manipulation outside of awareness and free will, along with other judgments (ultimate control, personal experience, concern) in real-world scenarios where manipulation is expected to occur. The aim was to examine whether the relationship between manipulation outside of awareness and free will could be amplified if personalizing the experiences of the real-world examples was emphasized. To this end, Studies 1a (N = 111) and 1b (N = 106; replication) emphasized that people could have been manipulated, and in Studies 2a (N = 106) and 2b (N = 104; replication) emphasized that they had actually been manipulated. The findings revealed that when the degree of personalization increased, so did the strength of the negative correlation between judgments of manipulation without awareness and free will. A meta-analysis of all studies (8 studies, N = 1,230) that examined this relationship was conducted to locate where (by context, by individual scenario) the relationship between manipulation outside of awareness and free will was strongest. The findings reveal that the strongest associations were found in scenarios that are most prototypically associated with the unconscious (e.g., sleep research, subliminal priming, subliminal advertising, hypnotherapy).

show abstract

Overstepping the boundaries of free choice: Folk beliefs on free will and determinism in real world contexts

Cited by 7 publications

References 35 publications

Public perceptions of manipulations on behavior outside of awareness.

Public perceptions of manipulations on behavior outside of awareness.

Ethics of generative AI and manipulation: a design-oriented research agenda

Impact of personalizing experiences of manipulation outside of awareness on autonomy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About