↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 1,359)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Control blindness: Why people can make incorrect inferences about the intentions of others
Published in
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, January 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13414-016-1268-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew B. S. Willett, Richard S. Marken, Maximilian G. Parker, Warren Mansell

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Unspecified 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 54%
Unspecified 4 15%
Sports and Recreations 3 12%
Computer Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2018.
All research outputs
#280,743
of 13,603,570 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
#14
of 1,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,835
of 373,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
#1
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,603,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.