The body says it all: non verbal indicators of choice-awareness
Mouratidou, Alexandra LU ; Zlatev, Jordan LU and van de Weijer, Joost LU
(2024)
In Cognitive Semiotics
17(2).
p.233-266
- Abstract
- Recent work in cognitive science argues for the illusory nature of conscious will and considers occasional “blindness” to manipulations as indicative of our lack of awareness in choice making (e.g., Dennett, 1996; Johansson et al., 2013; Wegner, 2018). This claim is based upon the tendency of experimental participants not to detect such manipulations, and the similarity between verbal justifications to choices participants had and had not made. Using a cognitive-semiotic framework, and relying on previous research, we argue that such conclusions are problematic, as they underestimate the embodied and intersubjective character of human meaning making. We support this through a novel approach to the investigation of choice awareness and... (More)
- Recent work in cognitive science argues for the illusory nature of conscious will and considers occasional “blindness” to manipulations as indicative of our lack of awareness in choice making (e.g., Dennett, 1996; Johansson et al., 2013; Wegner, 2018). This claim is based upon the tendency of experimental participants not to detect such manipulations, and the similarity between verbal justifications to choices participants had and had not made. Using a cognitive-semiotic framework, and relying on previous research, we argue that such conclusions are problematic, as they underestimate the embodied and intersubjective character of human meaning making. We support this through a novel approach to the investigation of choice awareness and manipulation detection by going beyond language into other bodily sign and signal systems that involve different degrees of awareness from both the producer’s and the interpreter’ side.
We report on a study where 41 participants were first asked to choose from pairs of photographs of human faces the one they found most attractive and then to justify their choices, without knowing that for some of the trials they were asked to justify a choice that they had not made. Participants’ verbal responses were categorized according to the type of trial and detection into (i) non-manipulated, (ii) detected-manipulated, and (iii) non-detected manipulated trials. Further, participants’ bodily expressions for each of the trials were assessed on the basis of a tentative cline from signals to signs including five different Categories of Bodily Expression (CBE): Adaptors, Torso, Head, Face and Hand expressions. We found notable differences in participants’ responses to different trials, in at least three aspects: (a) duration, (b) rates of occurrence of the five CBEs and (c) variety of how those were used. Thus, despite whether the detection of the manipulation was verbally expressed, it was manifested in participants’ longer time of assessing the assumed choices, increased rates of bodily expressions, and engagement of more parts of their bodies during the non-detected than actual choice trials.
Our findings speak against one of the tenets of claims against our reliability as conscious agents: the homogeneity between participants’ verbal reports justifying choices they made and choices they did not, with assumptions of “confabulation” even when choice manipulation is not involved (e.g., Johansson 2006). In contrast, we argue for a degree of awareness of the manipulations, even in verbally “non-detected” manipulations, and even if this awareness is not focal, but a matter of pre-reflective, marginal consciousness manifested in the use of participants’ bodily expressions, such as adaptors. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/e76eb4f7-50b9-48a1-b740-913152d8347a
- author
- Mouratidou, Alexandra
LU
; Zlatev, Jordan
LU
and van de Weijer, Joost
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2024
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- cognitive semiotics, phenomenology, bodily behavior, gestures, adaptors, choice making, choice blindness, manipulation detection, signs systems, signals systems
- in
- Cognitive Semiotics
- volume
- 17
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 233 - 266
- publisher
- De Gruyter
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85209222206
- ISSN
- 2235-2066
- DOI
- 10.1515/cogsem-2024-201
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- e76eb4f7-50b9-48a1-b740-913152d8347a
- date added to LUP
- 2024-02-21 07:43:59
- date last changed
- 2025-02-04 10:32:45
@article{e76eb4f7-50b9-48a1-b740-913152d8347a,
abstract = {{Recent work in cognitive science argues for the illusory nature of conscious will and considers occasional “blindness” to manipulations as indicative of our lack of awareness in choice making (e.g., Dennett, 1996; Johansson et al., 2013; Wegner, 2018). This claim is based upon the tendency of experimental participants not to detect such manipulations, and the similarity between verbal justifications to choices participants had and had not made. Using a cognitive-semiotic framework, and relying on previous research, we argue that such conclusions are problematic, as they underestimate the embodied and intersubjective character of human meaning making. We support this through a novel approach to the investigation of choice awareness and manipulation detection by going beyond language into other bodily sign and signal systems that involve different degrees of awareness from both the producer’s and the interpreter’ side.<br/><br/>We report on a study where 41 participants were first asked to choose from pairs of photographs of human faces the one they found most attractive and then to justify their choices, without knowing that for some of the trials they were asked to justify a choice that they had not made. Participants’ verbal responses were categorized according to the type of trial and detection into (i) non-manipulated, (ii) detected-manipulated, and (iii) non-detected manipulated trials. Further, participants’ bodily expressions for each of the trials were assessed on the basis of a tentative cline from signals to signs including five different Categories of Bodily Expression (CBE): Adaptors, Torso, Head, Face and Hand expressions. We found notable differences in participants’ responses to different trials, in at least three aspects: (a) duration, (b) rates of occurrence of the five CBEs and (c) variety of how those were used. Thus, despite whether the detection of the manipulation was verbally expressed, it was manifested in participants’ longer time of assessing the assumed choices, increased rates of bodily expressions, and engagement of more parts of their bodies during the non-detected than actual choice trials. <br/><br/>Our findings speak against one of the tenets of claims against our reliability as conscious agents: the homogeneity between participants’ verbal reports justifying choices they made and choices they did not, with assumptions of “confabulation” even when choice manipulation is not involved (e.g., Johansson 2006). In contrast, we argue for a degree of awareness of the manipulations, even in verbally “non-detected” manipulations, and even if this awareness is not focal, but a matter of pre-reflective, marginal consciousness manifested in the use of participants’ bodily expressions, such as adaptors.}},
author = {{Mouratidou, Alexandra and Zlatev, Jordan and van de Weijer, Joost}},
issn = {{2235-2066}},
keywords = {{cognitive semiotics; phenomenology; bodily behavior; gestures; adaptors; choice making; choice blindness; manipulation detection; signs systems; signals systems}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{233--266}},
publisher = {{De Gruyter}},
series = {{Cognitive Semiotics}},
title = {{The body says it all: non verbal indicators of choice-awareness}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2024-201}},
doi = {{10.1515/cogsem-2024-201}},
volume = {{17}},
year = {{2024}},
}