IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0045457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lifting the Veil of Morality: Choice Blindness and Attitude Reversals on a Self-Transforming Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Hall
  • Petter Johansson
  • Thomas Strandberg

Abstract

Every day, thousands of polls, surveys, and rating scales are employed to elicit the attitudes of humankind. Given the ubiquitous use of these instruments, it seems we ought to have firm answers to what is measured by them, but unfortunately we do not. To help remedy this situation, we present a novel approach to investigate the nature of attitudes. We created a self-transforming paper survey of moral opinions, covering both foundational principles, and current dilemmas hotly debated in the media. This survey used a magic trick to expose participants to a reversal of their previously stated attitudes, allowing us to record whether they were prepared to endorse and argue for the opposite view of what they had stated only moments ago. The result showed that the majority of the reversals remained undetected, and a full 69% of the participants failed to detect at least one of two changes. In addition, participants often constructed coherent and unequivocal arguments supporting the opposite of their original position. These results suggest a dramatic potential for flexibility in our moral attitudes, and indicates a clear role for self-attribution and post-hoc rationalization in attitude formation and change.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Hall & Petter Johansson & Thomas Strandberg, 2012. "Lifting the Veil of Morality: Choice Blindness and Attitude Reversals on a Self-Transforming Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0045457
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045457
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045457&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0045457?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2008. "How are preferences revealed?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1787-1794, August.
    2. Szenberg, Michael & Ramrattan, Lall & Gottesman, Aron A. (ed.), 2006. "Samuelsonian Economics and the Twenty-First Century," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199298839.
    3. Eric Luis Uhlmann & David A. Pizarro & David Tannenbaum & Peter H. Ditto, 2009. "The motivated use of moral principles," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 479-491, October.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:479-491 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2008. "How are preferences revealed?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1787-1794, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.
    2. Cheung, Tracy & Junghans, Astrid & Dijsterhuis, Garmt & Kroese, Floor & Johansson, Petter & Hall, Lars & De Ridder, Denise, 2015. "C(l)ue Me In - Enhancing Consumers' Attention to Ingredient List Information," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202723, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0188825 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Somerville, Jason & McGowan, Féidhlim, 2016. "Can chocolate cure blindness? Investigating the effect of preference strength and incentives on the incidence of Choice Blindness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-11.
    5. Lars Hall & Thomas Strandberg & Philip Pärnamets & Andreas Lind & Betty Tärning & Petter Johansson, 2013. "How the Polls Can Be Both Spot On and Dead Wrong: Using Choice Blindness to Shift Political Attitudes and Voter Intentions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-6, April.
    6. Patrick O. Waeber & Natasha Stoudmann & James D. Langston & Jaboury Ghazoul & Lucienne Wilmé & Jeffrey Sayer & Carlos Nobre & John L. Innes & Philip Fernbach & Steven A. Sloman & Claude A. Garcia, 2021. "Choices We Make in Times of Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Owen McLaughlin & Jason Somerville, 2013. "Choice blindness in financial decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 577-588, September.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0108515 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:plo:pone00:0226799 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:577-588 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lotta Stille & Emelie Norin & Sverker Sikström, 2017. "Self-delivered misinformation - Merging the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van Hoorn, André, 2018. "Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-65.
    2. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    3. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    4. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    5. Yildiz, Özgür, 2014. "Lehren aus der Verhaltensökonomik für die Gestaltung umweltpolitischer Maßnahmen [Lessons from behavioral economics for the design of environmental policy measures]," MPRA Paper 59360, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Belton, Cameron A. & Lunn, Peter D., 2020. "Smart choices? An experimental study of smart meters and time-of-use tariffs in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    7. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    8. Martin Binder & Leonhard K. Lades, 2015. "Autonomy-Enhancing Paternalism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 3-27, February.
    9. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    10. Wehner, Nicholas & Mackay, Mary & Jennings, Sarah & van Putten, E.I. & Sibly, Hugh & Yamazaki, Satoshi, 2018. "When push comes to shove in recreational fishing compliance, think ‘nudge’," MarXiv 2fyuc, Center for Open Science.
    11. Katherine Baicker & Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein, 2015. "Behavioral Hazard in Health Insurance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1623-1667.
    12. Filippo Maria D’Arcangelo & Ilai Levin & Alessia Pagani & Mauro Pisu & Åsa Johansson, 2022. "A framework to decarbonise the economy," OECD Economic Policy Papers 31, OECD Publishing.
    13. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2021. "Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 679-697, July.
    14. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    15. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    16. Moscati, Ivan, 2021. "On the recent philosophy of decision theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115039, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Necker, Sarah & Voskort, Andrea, 2014. "Intergenerational transmission of risk attitudes – A revealed preference approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 66-89.
    18. Bart Defloor & Elsy Verhofstadt & Luc Van Ootegem, 2017. "The Influence of Preference Information on Equivalent Income," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 489-507, March.
    19. Timmons, Shane & Barjaková, Martina & McElvaney, Terry & Lunn, Pete, 2019. "Can official advice improve mortgage-holders’ perceptions of switching? An experimental investigation," Papers WP612, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    20. Hammitt, James K. & Herrera-Araujo, Daniel, 2018. "Peeling back the onion: Using latent class analysis to uncover heterogeneous responses to stated preference surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 165-189.

    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:pone00:0045457. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.