COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS AMONGST THE HIGH ACHIEVING
Akash Adani, Brain Hou, Sabrina Jordan, Juliana Kemenosh, Kaitlyn MacMillan,
Kiera McKay, Anjali Prabhat, Astitva Soni, Aditya Venkatesh
Advisor: Patrick Dolan
Assistant: Bezalem Lemma
ABSTRACT
High achieving New Jersey Governor’s School students have been differentiated from the
general public based on defining attributes, such as academic excellence. However, the aptitude
of these students may not be applicable at a more basic level of cognitive processing. Previous
studies have shown the impact of various illusions, yet few have linked a relationship between
scholarly accomplishment and susceptibility to cognitive tasks. In this investigation, Governor’s
School students were compared to a control group in several cognitive illusions that tested
sensory skills, attention, perception, memory, judgment, decision-making, and self-perception in
a purported personality test. It was hypothesized that scholars would excel in logic and memory
questions because of their advanced intellectual capabilities, but that they would perform equally
as well as the general public in visual and lower-level illusions. Although results showed that the
Governor’s School scholars are almost equally as susceptible to lower-level illusions as to
logical illusions, the students did show an increased level of critical analysis as well as a lower
level of susceptibility to science and mathematics based illusions.
INTRODUCTION
Cognition refers to the conscious and subconscious mental processes involved in
acquiring knowledge and understanding, such as perceiving, memorizing, learning, and making
decisions. The purpose of cognitive psychology is to investigate how people acquire, process,
and store information, in order to understand how these factors influence behavior (1).
Cognitive illusions are stimuli that deceive the senses in order to elicit a false
interpretation of presented information. As defined by Rudiger F. Pohl, cognitive illusions are
phenomena that “lead to a perception, judgment, or memory that reliably deviates from ‘reality’”
(2). These deviations can be caused by a variety of factors. For example, many psychologists
contend that people’s perceptions are strongly impacted by their pre-existing beliefs and
expectations. In other words, people’s perceptions are largely influenced by what they expect to
see (3). This idea plays a crucial role in many of the cognitive illusions presented in this study.
There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the vulnerability of specific groups to
cognitive illusions. In this study, a group of 75 high academically achieving students from the
New Jersey Governor’s School in the Sciences (NJGSS) was given a set of cognitive illusions
disguised as a personality test presented on the online survey software Qualtrics. The control
group consisted of 75 anonymous subjects from the internet crowdsourcing marketplace Amazon
Mechanical Turks, who represented the general population.
Hypotheses (see Appendix A.I) were created based on a comparison between Governor’s
School students and the control group. Susceptibility to cognitive illusions depended on each
[2-1]
individual tested; as people perceive a certain illusions different manners. Unfortunately,
susceptibility can be altered by previous knowledge of a task; however, most perceptual illusions
still trick the brain even if the subject is aware of the con. Governor’s School participants were
expected to have more success in correctly answering logic questions due to their advanced
intellectual capabilities. Also, Governor’s School subjects were expected to have an advantage in
memory aspects of the survey, since many are accustomed to heavy memorization in their
academic classes. However, it was predicted that Governor’s School students and the control
group would be equally susceptible to visual and lower-level illusions because academic strength
would provide little advantage.
METHODS
Participants:
The focus group consisted of 75 students from the New Jersey Governor’s School in the
Sciences (NJGSS), a prestigious program for academically advanced rising high school seniors.
All of these students were 16 or 17 years old New Jersey residents. Of the total 75 students, 33
were male and 42 were female. An additional group consisted of 75 anonymous subjects from
Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a forum where businesses can access volunteers for various
jobs. These 75 subjects ranged from 20 to 70 years old with an average age of 35.3 years. There
were 35 males and 40 females, 64 of whom were from the United States.
Procedure:
Data was collected through the online survey software Qualtrics, where subjects were
asked to complete a survey composed of 17 cognitive illusions. These illusions fall under four
categories (sensation and attention; memory; judgment and decision making; perception) and are
individually explained in the following sections. The survey was presented under the guise of a
personality test so that the subjects would respond truthfully and unsuspectingly to the cognitive
tasks. As a result, 24 “filler” questions that resembled actual personality test questions and
correlated to social desirability were also woven in throughout the survey.
Control group responses were obtained via a link to the survey on MTurk, where
anonymous subjects took the survey and received 1 dollar compensation. The survey was
administered to the governor’s school students in eight half-hour sessions with approximately
nine students per session. Students were provided laptops and headphones and were supervised
by 2-3 members of the research team. All data was collected on Saturday, July 18, 2015.
Statistics:
Statistical analysis of the data in this study primarily relied on two-proportion z-tests
(unless otherwise noted), which determine whether the difference between two proportions is
significant. Results were analyzed at the 0.05 significance level such that any p-value less than
0.05 was considered significant. Statistical significance justifies the conclusion that variation in
the data was due to some external factor rather than by chance.
INDIVIDUAL TASKS
[2-2]
A. Table Top Illusion
The table top illusion (4) is the false observation that a horizontally oriented
parallelogram appears to have different dimensions when turned vertically (it looks longer and
narrower; standard compared to choice B in appendix B.I). A possible explanation is that the
brain perceives the picture as being three dimensional, so the edge of the vertical table appears
farther away and longer than the edge of the horizontal table.
The present study created a simplified forced-choice version of the task by using a picture
shown in appendix B.I (4) . Participants were presented with a horizontally oriented prism
labeled “Standard” with its top surface shaded in red, and a choice other boxes also with their top
surfaces shaded in red. One choice’s red surface was identical in dimensions to the standard,
while the other was not (drawn horizontally and perceived to be the same). Participants had to
choose which red surface had the same dimensions as the “Standard” (they also had the option to
choose neither). Two versions of the test were created (one with choice A as the correct answer
and one with choice B as the correct answer) in order to counterbalance any influence of
proximity of the correct choice to the standard. Only one version was presented to each
participant.
In the results, the present study found that the average percentages of correct responses
for the Governor’s School scholars and the control group were approximately the same (24%
versus 27%). This was consistent with the hypothesis that the scholars are equally susceptible to
this low-level perception task as the general population is.
B. Kiki and Bouba
In the origin of language it was long believed that the connections created between
sounds and meanings were arbitrary; the glaring auditory differences between words with the
same meaning in different languages are the primary citation in this argument. However, recent
research discovered that individual sounds are connected to a visual or gustatory sensation,
suggesting that language creation involved our ancestors’ interpretations of what individual
sounds mean. Key evidence for this hypothesis is the Kiki and Bouba test, which asks
participants to assign a name, Kiki or Bouba, to two meaningless shapes, one spiky and one
round. The first version of this test, published in 1929 by Kohler, used slightly different names,
but the results were the same: despite taking place in both different parts of the world and in
different time periods, people overwhelmingly assigned the name Kiki to the spiky shape and the
name Bouba to the round shape (5). In the 2001 Kiki/Bouba study, done by Ramachandran and
Hubbard, 95% of participants assigned the names as mentioned above (5). This illustrates the
concept that humans have a tendency to associate seemingly nonsensical sounds with concrete
meanings.
In the Governor’s School study, participants were presented with the image in Appendix
B.II. and asked to assign Kiki or Bouba to each shape. Although the responses were not as
striking as those of the 2001 study, 71% of the control and 77% of the Governor’s School group
chose to name the spiky shape Kiki and the square Bouba. The difference between these two
percentages was not found to be statistically significant, suggesting that sound associations are
[2-3]
not correlated with academic achievement, and that such subliminal sound connotations are
innate and universal among humans, unrelated to mental capability or external factors.
C. Priming of Ambiguous Figures
The human mind uses context clues and sensory data to create a perception of its
surroundings. When information is incomplete or ambiguous, the mind uses past experiences to
fill in holes, a phenomenon called ‘priming an ambiguity’. Perceived detail can be ambiguous,
but context clues prime the person to decipher a meaning. Keil (1978) tested this on grade
schoolers, giving them 24 pictures and 2 sentences for each picture that he showed them. After
reading one of the sentences, the children were asked a question, and Keil discovered that
different primers (sentences) elicited different responses (6).
The present study primed test subjects by inconspicuously showing students an image of
a snake, seal, or donkey. An ambiguous image of a donkey/seal (Fischer, 1968) was later
presented, and participants were asked to state what they saw. The psychology team
hypothesized that the image subjects saw earlier would influence how they perceived the
ambiguous picture (7).
Based on the data in Table 1, it is evident that the animal used to prime a person was
generally the animal that the person ended up seeing in the ambiguous picture. A person reported
a seal or a donkey more often when primed by a seal or a donkey respectively than when primed
by an unrelated animal such as a snake. The only exceptions were those in the Governor’s
School group primed with a donkey; the percentage of people who saw a donkey actually
decreased from 52% to 35% because several people saw an unlisted option (rabbit).
Table 1. Proportion of responses in the ambiguous figure task.
Reported seeing (Row)
/Primed By (Column)
Donkey
(NJGSS)
Seal
Other
(NJGSS) (NJGSS)
Donkey
(MTurk)
Seal
(MTurk)
Other
(MTurk)
Donkey
35%
27%
38%
79%
0%
21%
Seal
17%
63%
20%
72%
12%
16%
Snake
52%
32%
16%
69%
8%
23%
D. McGurk Effect
Accidentally discovered by McGurk and McDonald (1976), the McGurk effect occurs
when an auditory component of one sound is combined with a visual component of speech to
form a perception of a third sound, which is considered an intermediate phase between visual
data and auditory data. The changing visual information causes viewers to alter the way they
hear the same sound, demonstrating that modifying one component can change the perception of
a sound. However, even awareness of the effect does little to stop the perception of the third
[2-4]
sound. Speech perception is largely auditory, but information comes from several senses,
including vision. Consequently, it is predicted that subjects will most likely hear a different
sound than what is played if visual components are altered. (8).
In two videos, the sound “ba” is played. A man is mouthing “ba” in one video, while the
man is mouthing “fa” in another. One of the two videos was presented randomly to every
subject, and participants were asked to record what they heard.
This task had a strict scoring criterion, as only “fa” and “ba” responses were accepted.
Other variations, such as “va,” “pa,” or both “fa and bah,” were not included. When prompted
with the “ba” visual, 92% of Governor’s School subjects heard “ba.” With the “fa” visual, 53%
Governor’s School participants heard “fa.” Similarly, when prompted with the “ba” visual, 82%
of control subjects heard “ba.” When prompted with the “fa” visual, 57% of control participants
heard “fa.” In addition, 21% of Governor’s School students heard “ba” when the man actually
mouthed “fa,” compared to a mere 3% of control participants. A two proportion z-test showed
that there is no statistical difference (p> 0.05) between Governor’s School and control subjects.
However, a much larger percentage (18%) of Governor’s School students correctly
identified“ba” when the man mouthed “fa.” As a result, the data supports the hypothesis that
while Governor’s School scholars perform equally as well as the control group at lower-level
visual illusions, they have an increased level of critical analysis in tasks.
E. Change Blindness
In 1997, Simons and Levin pioneered research regarding change blindness, examining
people’s inability to detect changes after a brief distraction (9). For example, an early experiment
involved a conversation between a researcher and a participant, with the researcher swapping
with another during a distraction. Surprisingly, only 50% of people realized that they were
talking to someone else.
In the present study, subjects were shown a video of a conversation (Levin & Simons,
1997) that, across camera changes, included 9 editing mistakes (e.g. a scarf appears and
disappears and later reappears). Half of the participants were told to look for editing mistakes
while the other half were told to simply watch the video. The administered survey featured a
video that played for thirty-seven seconds and could only be viewed once. After viewing the
video, all subjects were asked to list as many “editing mistakes” as they could recall.
Of the Governor’s School subjects, 32.4% of the warned subjects noticed a mistake
compared to 8.3% of subjects who were not warned. In the control group, 15.8% of the warned
subjects noticed a mistake compared to 5.4% of the subjects who were not warned. A two
proportion z-test showed that the results of those warned who noticed a mistake were significant
(p = 0.05) with a p-value of 0.046, indicating that Governor’s School students were more aware
of editing mistakes after a warning. However, the percentage difference between subjects from
both groups who were able to identify a mistake without previous warning was statistically
similar. As a result, evidence supports that Governor’s School subjects can better identify
mistakes when warned, perhaps because due to a greater capacity for analysis.
F. Penny Identification
[2-5]
Nickerson and Adams (1979) conducted a series of experiments that tested people’s
memory of a penny. On all tasks, performance was low, and while participants could not identify
specific details from a penny, they could remember the general locations of features. The overall
results concluded that the memory’s representation of a penny is very indistinct, as even frequent
exposure to an object may not lead to an accurate memorization. The study revealed that longterm memory can be imprecise, and that the brain often recognizes larger details, such as color
and size, over smaller details that would distinguish the penny from other coins. (10).
In this study, participants were asked to pick the correct coin from a picture showing
different variations of the United States penny labeled A-L. These variations included
differences in location of specific features, such as date, phrases, and direction of the silhouette's
profile; however, all forms were the same size and color. To prevent cheating, subjects were
given 20 seconds to view the picture before it disappeared.
The correct penny was chosen by 24% of Governor’s School students and 28% of the
control participants. Other answers by both groups were scattered. According to the two
proportion z-test, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) between the groups’
performances, as similar amounts of participants chose the correct answer in both situations. As a
result, the data does not support the hypothesis that Governor’s School students would excel
more at memory illusions than the control group.
G. Moses Illusion
The Moses Illusion or Semantic Illusions, first conducted by Erickson & Mattson in
1981, uses common knowledge and poses a question that distorts this knowledge such that the
reader may not notice the error (11). For example, a question may ask, “How many animals of
each kind did Moses take on the Ark?” While some may answer with a number, the correct
answer is zero because it was Noah, not Moses, who had the ark.
In the present study, easy error-free questions were first presented to lull the participants
into a false sense of confidence. Subsequently, one of two semantic illusions were included (See
appendix B.V). The semantic illusions in Qualtrics were effective because both examples
exhibited semantic similarity. For example, Christmas and birthdays are both times of
celebration. In addition, area and circumference are both math-related ideas, so Governor’s
school students were expected to be more aware of the discrepancy. The Semantic Illusion tests
if Governor’s School students are more likely to notice distortion and conquer the semantic
nature of these questions. From the Governor’s School participants, 76% fell for the Santa Claus
question (See Appendix B.V) and 63% fell for the circumference question (Appendix B.V).
From the control group participants, 76% fell for the Santa Claus question, while 68% fell for the
circumference question. Although the difference is not statistically significant, there are notably
fewer Governor's School students than control group participants who fell for the circumference
question. However, the same percentage of Governor’s School and control group participants fell
for the Santa Claus question.
H. False Memory
[2-6]
False memory has been a concept discussed by many scientists since the 19th century.
However the area of research gained popularity with the publication of Roediger & McDermott
(1995). They provided subjects with lists that strongly related to a word, yet purposefully
excluded the word from the list. The following tests found relatively high rates in false recall and
recognition of the missing word. The task became known as DRM false memory procedure (12).
During this experiment, the participants were meant to experience a common memory
error. It began with a list of words to remember. The majority of the words fit within the same
category or under a popular theme. Occasionally, there was a random word in the list that did not
pertain to the associated word; however, this was only meant to be a distraction. After being
asked a series of questions regarding the word list, the subject was asked to recall as many words
from the list as possible. The goal of the study was to determine whether the participants would
write down the “trap” word, or associated word. In the Governor’s School study (See appendix
B.VI), the word “doctor” was associated with most of the words on the list presented to the
scholars. However the word doctor did not actually appear, and those that wrote down the word
were fooled by the false memory cognitive illusion.
The results illustrated an interesting pattern between the control group and the
Governor’s School scholars. On average, Governor’s School students remembered a higher
percentage of words from the list than the control group participants. The scholars recalled
approximately 6.6 words out of the 15, or 44%, compared to the control group’s 4.95 words, or
33%. However, when it came to incorrectly typing “doctor” on the list of remembered words,
both the scholars and the control group demonstrated roughly the same percentage of
susceptibility (Scholars: 53%, control: 59%).
I. Conjunction Fallacy
The discovery of conjunction fallacy can be attributed to Kahneman and Tversky (e.g.
Tversky & Kahneman, 1985). Conjunction fallacy is the false notion that the intersection of two
categories is more probable than a single category. Although conjunction fallacy deals
exclusively with odds, even those who understand probability have struggled in previous studies
that targeted conjunction fallacy (13).
In this study, subjects read a description about an individual named Linda who is 31 years
old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy, is deeply concerned with
issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participates in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
Subjects were then asked to rank the likelihood of Linda being a bank teller, feminist, or both.
Those who ranked “both” above the “bank teller” and/or “feminist” provided the incorrect
answer because it is less likely in terms of probability for Linda to be both a feminist and a bank
teller than for her to be a feminist or a bank teller. 79% of Governor’s School and control group
subjects answered incorrectly, suggesting that academic strength provides no advantage in this
test even though this test was determined to be one which involved higher level logic processing.
J. Coin Toss Probability
In the Coin Toss Probability experiment, a subject imagined a person tossing a normal
coin 6 times in a row. Participants were then asked which outcome was more likely: “HTHHTT”
[2-7]
or “HHHHHH”. Probability delineates that in a coin toss, heads or tails both have a 50/50 chance
of showing up. The general population was expected to choose “HTHHTT,” because as Tversky
and Kahneman explained (1985), people utilize simple heuristics to simplify judgments. The
representative heuristic states that a certain event is more probable if it represents the parent
population or a “generating process” (14). Since a coin flip results in two possible options,
subjects are more inclined to pick “HTHHTT”. The idea of random tosses discourages subjects
from picking “HHHHHH”. However, both options have the same probability of being chosen.
Since this test involves mathematical reasoning, it was predicted that the Governor’s School
subjects would perform considerably better than the control group subjects.
Governor’s School subjects performed significantly better than the control group
subjects, 53% of Governor’s School subjects were correct, while only 4% of the control group
participants were correct. Expectedly, many subjects still chose “HTHHTT,” as 45% of
Governor’s School subjects and 92% of control group subjects chose the option. The results
proved not only that Governor’s School subjects would perform better than the control groups,
but also that the representative heuristic would cause many to choose the “HTHHTT” option.
K. Hospital Birth Estimate
The Hospital Illusion is designed to test people’s intuitive comprehension of chance, and
it reveals that people often employ heuristics, such as the representativeness heuristic, to make
decisions rather than statistical analysis. Tversky and Kahneman (1985) found that people tend to
gravitate toward the “easier” or less mentally intensive solution with disregard for accuracy,
making decisions based off relevant or familiar situations (15). Most people mistakenly suspect
that sample size is not a factor in decision making, so they resort to a more convenient, albeit less
optimal, solution (16). In the Qualtrics study, the Hospital Illusion tests the subject’s inherent
comprehension of statistics, in which smaller sample sizes have greater variability. Readers are
presented with a large hospital in which there are 45 newborns everyday and a small hospital in
which there are 15 newborns everyday. Readers are then asked which hospital is more likely to
vary from the expected result of 50% female and 50% male newborns (See appendix B.VII).
From the Governor's School participants, 3% selected the large hospital, 64% chose the correct
answer of the smaller hospital, and 33% chose both. From the control participants, 41% chose
the larger hospital, 23% chose the correct answer of the smaller hospital, and 36% chose both.
As a result, the Governor’s School subjects’ intelligence and mathematical ability seems to have
aided them in choosing the correct answer.
L. Anchoring and Adjustment
The anchoring effect is when a person uses an initial piece of given information to make
other decisions. It is observed most clearly with several numerical questions. Without data to
base their judgement, people may give a random number. However, with the initial data, the
person is anchored to a number. They unconsciously adjust their decision based on the initial
given data. In 1974, Tversky and Kahneman tested the anchoring effect by asking people to spin
a spinner and answer whether they believed the percentage of countries in Africa was higher or
lower than the spinner's number. Afterwards, they asked the participants to guess the numerical
percentage of nations in Africa. The people who spun a higher number on the spinner tended to
guess a higher percentage, and overestimate the answer to the question while the people who
[2-8]
spun a lower number tended to guess a lower percentage, and underestimate the percentage of
countries in Africa (17).
The present study conducted a similar experiment by asking some participants if Gandhi
was older than 9 when he died and others if he was younger than 140 when he died. When asked
if he was older than 9, the average response of Gandhi’s age was 68.5 years for the Governor’s
School students, and 72.2 years for the control group; however, when asked if he was older than
140, the average response increased to 79.3 years for governor’s school and 76.6 years for the
control group. Similarly, some participants were asked if the temperature of Tanzania was higher
than 51 degrees and others were asked if it was lower than 106 degrees. When anchored by 51
degrees, Governor’s School subjects provided an average response of 75.2 degrees and the
control group provided an average response of 74.7 degrees; however, when anchored by 106
degrees, Governor’s School subjects provided an average response of 87.2 degrees and the
control group provided an average response of 89.9 degrees. As shown by the data, when the
number used to anchor the participants increased, participants’ responses also increased,
substantiating the anchoring effect.
M. Subscription Choices
Although many people feel confident and in control about their decisions, there are many
critical factors of decision making that most are unaware of. Behavioral economist Ariely studied
the various nearly subliminal components of one’s experiences that affect both one’s behavior
and one’s decision making, particularly pertaining to monetary decisions (18). In one study, he
investigated the effect of an undesirable option on decision making. Ariely presented participants
with Option B in Appendix B.VIII, with the print only option being the worst choice. He found
that the presence of the unattractive option led the number of people choosing the combo to
increase significantly. In fact, 84% chose the combo as opposed to 32% in the absence of the
print only option (18). This effect relates to the anchoring bias, a heuristic in which one’s first
perceptions affect one’s interpretations. By “anchoring” the participant’s perception of the value
of a print subscription at $125, he or she is led to believe that the combo is a fantastic deal by
comparison and is more likely to take the “bargain” (18).
In this study, participants were presented with either Option A or Option B in Appendix
B.VII and asked to select a subscription. Among the Governor’s School scholars, the unattractive
option had a distinct effect, as the percentage of participants who chose the print and online
option increased from 19% to 34%. The online only option remained the most popular regardless
of other options despite a drop from 81% of participants to 61% after adding the unattractive
option. However, the control group did not exhibit a change in preference when print only was
added, as the combo dropped 6% and the percentage of those selecting online only remained in
the high 80s. The favorability of the online only option in all test conditions suggests a possible
generational preference for technology that may not have been a factor in Ariely’s first
investigation. In addition, the control group’s lack of harmony with expected results can be
attributed to confounding variables in the control group demographic, which is comprised
primarily of people who acquire income via the internet, leading to the idea that perhaps those
who operate through the web prefer their news source to be web based as well.
N. Intuitive Physics
[2-9]
Intuitive physics refers to the discrepancy between intuition and reality. McCloskey
(1983) asked college students to describe the path of a ball initially whirled on a string in
centripetal motion before being released when the string breaks (19). According to Newtonian
mechanics, the ball moves in a straight line tangent to the circular path when the string breaks
However, approximately a third of the surveyed students predicted that the trajectory of the ball
was curved. Despite the plethora of physics knowledge present in the world today, research
shows that people generally have an inherent, primitive theory of motion that is inconsistent with
Newtonian mechanics but similar to pre-Newton philosophers.
Each participant was shown figure IX in Appendix B and asked to predict the trajectory
of the dropped object, with the correct answer being D. The Governor’s School group was
predicted to have a greater number of correct responses than the control group because of the
scholars’ scientific aptitude.
Since 65% of the Governor’s School participants selected the correct answer D compared
to only 21% of the control group, the hypothesis was validated. As a result, it is probable that the
Governor’s School students’ strong background in physics helped them because they were more
than 3 times as likely to be correct. However, 53% of Governor’s School students without prior
physics knowledge answered correctly compared to only 21% of the control group without
previous physics knowledge. Interestingly, a large percentage of participants selected choice A in
both groups, as it was the second most popular choice in the Governor’s School group (19%) and
the most common response in the control group (44%), suggesting that choice A closely
corresponds to people’s intuitive perception of physical motion, even if it is not scientifically
accurate.
O. Lake Wobegon Effect
The Lake Wobegon Effect is the tendency to describe one’s own characteristics or abilities
in numerical values as above average when compared to a general group of people, otherwise
known as self-enhancement bias (20). This term originates from the fictional town in Minnesota
called Lake Wobegon, from Garrison Keillor’s radio series A Prairie Home Companion, where
“all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”
The Lake Wobegon Effect is prevalent and can be observed in many different, subjective
situations. For example, Ole Svenson (1981) found that 80% of drivers ranked themselves in the
top 30% of all drivers (21).
In the present study, each participant was shown a list of 14 skills (i.e. ability to work
with others, critical thinking, etc.) and asked to rate their level of skill on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 =
very unskilled, 5 = very skilled). The average response for each skill was expected to be above
average, which was denoted by the number 3. It was also hypothesized that the Governor’s
School group would respond with higher average ratings than the control group.
Between the subject groups, the average rating response was very similar, with 3.66 for
the Governor’s School group and 3.6 for the control group. However, 89% of the Governor’s
School students gave an average response greater than 3, compared to 79% of the control group.
Using a two-proportion z-test, the data was found to be statistically significant at the 0.05
[2-10]
significance level, with a p-value of 0.047. In other words, NJGSS students are statistically more
likely to view themselves as above average than the general population is.
P. Forer/Barnum Effect
Stage performer P.T. Barnum (1810-1891) emphasized the gullibility of human audiences
through his popular tricks and hoaxes. Developed by Bertram R. Forer, the “Barnum effect”
emerged from the idea that people are easily fooled by unspecific and baseless personality
assessments, general descriptions that are often applicable to multiple members of a group (22).
After a series of questions, Forer presented students with a seemingly personalized character
analysis that participants often rated as accurate descriptions of themselves. The subjective
“accuracy” of the personality descriptions demonstrates that a person's self-perception can easily
be manipulated by general and vague statements that lack tangible proof.
Recent tests done by Ph.D Adrian Furnham have discovered that in some cases, the
personality description rating among students was about 4.5 out of 5 on the accuracy scale (23).
The Governor’s School’s study involved the presentation of one seemingly unique personality
description comprised of a variety of general characteristics. To detect the degree to which each
student succumbed to the illusion, subjects rated the accuracy of the description on a scale from
1 to 5.
From the results, 77.3% of students marked their personality rating as a 4 or higher,
“falling” for the Barnum illusion. Conversely, only 52.7% of people in the control group rated
their personality description with a 4 or above on the accuracy scale, signifying that those of the
general population were less susceptible to the Barnum Effect than the Governor’s School
scholars. Furthermore, 8% of Governor’s School subjects were not tricked, as they rated the
personality description with a 2 or less. Once again, the control group results starkly contrasted
the results of the Governor’s School scholars, as 23% of the control group rated the personality
description with a 2 or less. Those who rated the description with a 3 were labeled as neutral
parties in both the Governor’s School and in the control group, recording 14.7% and 24.3%
respectively. The Governor’s School scholars rated their personality description with an average
of 4.09 out of 5, significantly higher than control group’s 3.6. The study hypothesized that as
upcoming seniors attempt to discover their identity, the Governor’s School scholars were more
likely to resonate with the general personality description than the control group adults who may
have more concrete personal identities. Ultimately, the present study concluded that the
variability of adolescence caused more juvenile subjects to be susceptible than older subjects.
CONCLUSION
This investigation into whether academic achievement and higher cognitive functioning
corresponds to one’s susceptibility to cognitive illusions concluded with mixed results. Evidence
of overcoming the illusion was found in both the control and Governor’s School groups, in
addition to several instances in which neither group performed better than the other. This
suggests that the skills required to succeed in an academic setting do not ensure success in
cognitive tasks. Of the sixteen cognitive illusion tasks presented in the study, Governor’s School
scholars were more susceptible to four, the control group was more susceptible to four, and the
groups were statistically equal in eight. These conclusions were made after careful statistical
[2-11]
analysis, thus the instances in which one group outperformed the other were statistically
significant. When considering these results, one must take into account several possible
confounding variables, such as homogeneity in age, community, and education among the
Governor’s School scholars, as well as the uncontrollable environments in which the control
group took the test.
It is evident that the types of illusions that each group fell for were different. The
Governor’s School scholars performed worse than the control group when it came to self
perception questions such as the Lake Wobegon experiment.The scholars often rated themselves
as above average among their peers, whereas the control group rated themselves as above
average significantly less. Predictably, the control group was more susceptible to the math and
science based questions, such as the physics problem and the coin toss problem, both of which
utilized the academic skills that Governor’s School Scholars are meant to be proficient in.
However, both groups were equally vulnerable to the questions that manipulated primitive
cognitive abilities. Kiki/Bouba and Table Top both tested basic perception rather than learned
abilities, and the Governor’s School and control group’s equal performances suggest that most
brains have similar wiring regardless of external factors.
As a whole, the data collected through the online test was a success. The results either
came out as expected, or they brought to light an interesting trend unforeseen during the creation
of the test. Occasionally, certain answers had to be discarded due to responses that did not
accurately answer the question. However, answers were only thrown out after multiple people
agreed that the response would incorrectly skew data. Data was not thrown out because it did not
match the predictions or because it was not similar to the others.
The test questions were split up into four main categories: self-perception, memory,
judgement/decision making, and perception/attention. Each category targeted a certain ability of
the brain and tested how the various groups would respond to them. Hypotheses were made
beforehand on whether or not the scholars would test better or equal to the control group. It was
believed that the scholars would be less susceptible to illusions in memory or decision making,
and equally susceptible for the other two categories; however, the data proved this to be
incorrect. For the majority of the tasks, scholars were just as susceptible as the control group.
This suggests that despite higher intellectual aptitude, the Governor’s School scholars are just as
liable to falling for cognitive tasks as the general population. The brain tends to perceive reality
in a certain manner, and intelligence cannot necessarily evade that.
APPENDIX A. Hypotheses
I. Predictions vs. Results
List of Tasks
Predictions: How will NJGSS
Scholars’ responses compare to
those of the control group?
(More/Less/Equally Susceptible)
[2-12]
Results: How did NJGSS Scholars’
responses compare to those of the
control group?
(More/Less/Equally Susceptible)
Sensation/Perception/
Attention
A: Table Top Illusion
Equal
Equal
B: Kiki and Bouba
Equal
Equal
C: Priming of an Ambiguous
Picture
Equal
More
D: Mcgurk Effect
Equal
Less
E: Change Blindness
Less
Equal
F: Penny Identification
Less
Equal
G: Moses Illusion
Less
Equal
H: False Memory
Less
Equal
I: Conjunction Fallacy
Less
Equal
J: Coin Toss Probability
Less
Less
K: Hospital Birth Estimate
Less
Less
L: Anchoring and Adjustment
Equal
Equal
M: Subscription Choices
Less
More
N: Intuitive Physics
Less
Less
O: Lake Wobegon Effect
More
More
P: Barnum Effect
Equal
More
Memory
Judgment/Decision Making
Self-Perception
Section Summaries:
-1, 0, and +1 were assigned to each task depending on the outcome. If Governor’s School
students were more susceptible to the task it was assigned -1, if they were less susceptible to the
task it was assigned +1, and if they were equally susceptible it was assigned 0. These values
were averaged to determine whether or not Governor’s School students showed any advantage or
disadvantage in a category.
[2-13]
Sensation/Perception/Attention: 0
Memory: 0
Judgement: 0.33
Self-Perception: -1
0 indicates no relationship, a positive number indicates that Governor’s School students were
less susceptible, and a negative number indicates that Governor’s School students were more
susceptible. The values can range from 1 to -1.
APPENDIX B. Stimuli for each task
I. Table Top Illusion
II. Kiki and Bouba
If you were to name the two newspaper clippings above, which seems most fitting to you?
III. Priming of Ambiguous Pictures
[2-14]
Would you like to have one of these animals as a pet?
Name the animal you just saw.
IV. Penny
Which of the following is the United States penny?
V. Moses/Semantic Illusion
Question A What shape has a circumference of 𝛱r2?
Question B What is the name of the man in the red suit and long white bear who rides a sleigh
and gives out birthday presents?
VI. False Memory
Presented words: Nurse
, Sick, Lawyer, Medicine, Health, Hospital, Dentist, Physician, Ill, Patient, Office, Stethoscope,
Surgeon, Clinic, Cure
Choose your favorite word.
Type all words that you remember from the list.
VII. Hospital Birth Estimate
A certain town is served by two hospitals. In the larger hospital, about 45 babies are born each
day, and in the smaller hospital 15 babies are born each day. As you know, about 50% of all
babies are boys. However, the exact percentage varies from day to day. Sometimes, it may be
higher than 50%, sometimes lower. For a period of one year, each hospital recorded the days on
which more than 60% of the babies born were boys. Which hospital do you think recorded such
days.
Large Hospital
Smaller Hospital
About the same (that is, within 5% of each other)
VIII. Subscription
If you were interested in subscribing to the economist, which of the above choices would you
select?
Option A
Option B
[2-15]
IX. Intuitive Physics
In the diagram above, the plane is flying horizontally to the right at a constant altitude and speed.
If a ball is dropped from an indicted point of origin, which path do you think the ball will follow
once from the plane?
X. Barnum Effect
[2-16]
REFERENCES
1.) Pohl, R. Introduction: Cognitive illusions. In: Pohl, RF. Cognitive Illusions. New
York: Psychology Press. 2004. p 1-20.
2.)Roediger III HL. Memory illusions. Journal of Memory and Language. 1996; 35(2):
76-100.
3.)Plous, Scott. The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book
Company. 1993.
4.)Shepard RN. Perceptual organization. Psychological complementarity. 1981; 279–342.
5.)Robson, David. Kiki or Bouba? In Search of Language’s Missing Link. Journal of New
Scientist. [updated 2011 July 16]; [Internet]. [cited 2015 July 22]. Available from:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128211.600-kiki-or-bouba-in-search-oflanguages-missing-link/
6.) Levin DT, Simons DJ. Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1997; 4(4): 501-506.
7.) Fisher, GH. Ambiguity of form: Old and new. Percept Psychophys. 1968; 4(3): 189192
8.) McGurk H, MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature. 1976; 264(5588),
746-748
9.) Simons DJ, Levin DT. Change Blindness. Trends in Cognitive Science. 1997; 1(7):
261-267
10.) Nickerson RA, Adams MJ. Long-term memory for a common object. Cognitive
Psychology. 1979; 11: 287-307
11.) Park H, Reder LM. Moses illusion: Implication for human cognition. Cognitive Illusions.
2004; 275-291
12.) Roediger H. L., & McDermott K. B. Creating false memories: Remembering words
not presented in lists. J Exp Psychol. 1995; 21(4): 803-815
13.) Tversky A & Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science,
1974; 185(4157): 1124-1131.
[2-17]
14.) Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, "Judgments of and by Representativeness", in
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and
Tversky, editors (1985), pp. 84-98.
15.) Kahneman D, Tversky A. Subjective probability: a judgement of representativeness. Cogn
Psychol. 1972; 3:430-454.
16.) Nicholls N. Cognitive illusions, heuristics, and climate prediction. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society. 1999; 80(7): 1385-1397.
17.) Keil F. Development of the ability to perceive ambiguities: evidence for the task specificity
of a linguistic skill. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1980; 9(3): 219-230.
18.) Ariely D. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. Harper
Collins; 2008.
19.) McCloskey M. Intuitive Physics. Sci Am. 1983; 248(4): 122-130
20.) Kruger J. Lake Wobegon be gone! The ‘below-average effect’ and the egocentric nature of
comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999
August; [Internet]. [cited 2015 July 29] 77 (2): 221–232.
21.) Svenson O. Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta
Psychologica. 1981; 47: 143-48.
22.) The Barnum Demonstration. Article from Fullerton Psychology. [Internet]. [cited 2015 July
15]. Available from:
http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/barnum_demo.htm
23.) The Importance of Irrelevant Alternatives.
The Economist Magazine. 2009 May; [Internet]. [cited 2015 July 15]. Available from:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201411/weve-got-somethingeveryone-the-barnum-effect
[2-18]