We examined the impact of choice blindness in applied military contexts.
Background
Choice Blindness occurs in intention-directed decision making when an individual fails to detect when a previously chosen option is covertly changed and confabulates, providing a false justification for why they selected the non-chosen option. Approximately 67–75% of people show Choice Blindness when tested.
Method
We investigated Choice Blindness in simulated military tasks using two experiments. Novices (Experiment 1) and experts (Experiment 2) went through an all-source intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) scenario with a primary goal of determining why missiles were moved. Participants chose which intelligence (information) source was most critical between pairs on each trial, then were presented with their chosen intelligence and asked to explain their choice. The selected intelligence was covertly switched on trials 3, 6, and 9 of a 9-trial sequence.
Results
76% of participants failed to detect the switch in Experiment 1. After accounting for individuals who ignored the switch, the remaining participants who exhibited Choice Blindness constituted about 20–25% of the sample. In both experiments, approximately 50% of participants failed to detect any of the switched intelligence sources without confabulating, including the ISR Subject Matter Experts who participated in Experiment 2.
Conclusion
Both experts and novices showed a similar propensity to choice blindness in an applied military task.
Application
In a military context, an operator succumbing to choice blindness could be potentially dangerous, leading to improper communication, or reduced decision-making efficacy.
AflaloT.ZhangC.RevechkisB.RosarioE.PouratianN.AndersenR. A. (2022). Implicit mechanisms of intention. Current Biology, 32(9), 2051–2060.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.03.047
2.
BortolottiL.Sullivan‐BissettE. (2018). The epistemic innocence of clinical memory distortions. Mind & Language, 33(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12175
FrameM. E.Acker-MillsB.MarescaA.PattersonR. E.CurtisE.Buccello-StoutR.NelsonJ. (2024). Evaluation of a decision support system using Bayesian network modeling in an applied Multi-INT surveillance environment. Military Psychology, 36(6), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2023.2250243
HallL.JohanssonP.StrandbergT. (2012). Lifting the veil of morality: Choice blindness and attitude reversals on a self-transforming survey. PLoS One, 7(9), Article e45457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045457
9.
HallL.JohanssonP.TärningB.SikströmS.DeutgenT. (2010). Magic at the marketplace: Choice blindness for the taste of jam and the smell of tea. Cognition, 117(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.010
10.
HallL.StrandbergT.PärnametsP.LindA.TärningB.JohanssonP. (2013). How the polls can be both spot on and dead wrong: Using choice blindness to shift political attitudes and voter intentions. PLoS One, 8(4), Article e60554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060554
11.
JohanssonP.HallL. (2008). Using choice blindness to study decision making and introspection. In GärdenforsP.WallinA. (Eds.), Cognition—A smorgasbord (pp. 267–283). Bokförlaget Nya Doxa.
12.
JohanssonP.HallL.SikströmS.OlssonA. (2005). Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple decision task. Science (New York, N.Y.), 310(5745), 116–119. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111709
KleinG. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT.
15.
KopeckyS. (2024). Challenges of deepfakes. In Science and information conference (pp. 158–166). Springer Nature Switzerland.
16.
LindA.HallL.BreidegardB.BalkeniusC.JohanssonP. (2014). Speakers’ acceptance of real-time speech exchange indicates that we use auditory feedback to specify the meaning of what we say. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1198–1205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614529797
17.
MarchantN.NavarreteG.de GardelleV.SilvaJ. R.SackurJ.ReyesG. (2025). Social cues for experimenter incompetence influence choice blindness. Consciousness and Cognition, 132, Article 103887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2025.103887
18.
McLaughlinO.SomervilleJ. (2013). Choice blindness in financial decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(5), 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003673
19.
MetcalfeJ.ShimamuraA. P. (Eds.). (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. MIT Press.
20.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN.EmersonM.WitzkiA.HowerterA. (2000). The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex ‘‘Frontal Lobe’’ Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.
21.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
22.
NormanD. A. (1980). Errors in human performance. (Technical Report No. 8004). DTIC.
PailhèsA.KumariS.KuhnG. (2021). The magician’s choice: Providing illusory choice and sense of agency with the equivoque forcing technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(7), 1358–1372. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000929
25.
PärnametsP.HallL.JohanssonP. (2015). Memory distortions resulting from a choice blindness task. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (37). Cognitive Science Society, UC Merced.
26.
PowellG. M. (2004). Army intelligence analysis and interpretation: Assessing the utility and limitations of computational diagnostic reasoning. U.S. Army Technical Report.
27.
RebouillatB.LeonettiJ. M.KouiderS. (2021). People confabulate with high confidence when their decisions are supported by weak internal variables. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2021(1), niab004. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niab004
28.
RidderinkhofK. R.UllspergerM.CroneE. A.NieuwenhuisS. (2004). The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control. Science (New York, N.Y.), 306(5695), 443–447. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100301
29.
SaganaA.SauerlandM.MerckelbachH. (2014). Memory impairment is not sufficient for choice blindness to occur. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 449. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00449
30.
ShashankK.PatilH. Y. (2025). Deepfake technology: Emerging threats and countermeasures for military security using AI. In Innovations in computing (p. 258). CRC Press.
Steenfeldt-KristensenC.ThorntonI. M. (2013). Haptic choice blindness. I-perception, 4(3), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0581sas
33.
StrandbergT.SivénD.HallL.JohanssonP.PärnametsP. (2018). False beliefs and confabulation can lead to lasting changes in political attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(9), 1382–1399. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000489
34.
TimmermansB.SchilbachL.PasqualiA.CleeremansA. (2012). Higher order thoughts in action: Consciousness as an unconscious re-description process. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1412–1423. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0421
35.
VogelG.MårtenssonJ.MannfolkP.HallL.Van WestenD.JohanssonP. (2024). Catching the brain in the act of confabulation: A fMRI study. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e9vg7
36.
WaltonM. E.DevlinJ. T.RushworthM. F. S. (2004). Interactions between decision making and performance monitoring within prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 7(11), 1259–1265. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1339
37.
WastellC. A. (2010). Cognitive predispositions and intelligence analyst reasoning. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 23(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850601003772802
38.
Weber-WulffD.Anohina-NaumecaA.BjelobabaS.FoltýnekT.Guerrero-DibJ.PopoolaO.WaddingtonL. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z
39.
YeungN.SummerfieldC. (2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: Confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1310–1321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0416
