Demo Version of Experiment

To start a demo version of the experiment, click here.

Data

Data set information

The data set contains the following columns:

  • subj_code: a subject code
  • condition: condition variable counting the different conditions (1 to 8)
  • desktop_conf: confirmation that desktop PC was used
  • attent_conf: confirmation that subj. is willing to pay attention
  • Ysim_side: counterbalancing factor coding on which side of the screen the Y-sym. object was shown
  • test_stimulus: the test pic subjects saw
  • dv_selection: the choice subjects made (see dv_selection_rec to see what the numbers mean)
  • age: subjects’ age
  • gender: subjects’ gender
  • tech_issues: subjects report of technical issues
  • dv_selection_rec: recoded choices that subjects made

Analysis Script

Description of the study

To generalize our findings and to further test our theory, four replication (supplementary) experiments were conducted in which the shape of the objects was triangular instead of L-shaped. Some of these studies also employed a different response format than that of our main studies. In Supplementary Experiments~4-6 (which were set in a 3D context without manipulation, a 3D context with manipulation, and 2D context respectively), participants could choose between three answers instead of two. As before, they could say that one or the other of the new objects was emitting a different intensity of alpha rays. Additionally, they had the option to say that they were absolutely uncertain about which object was emitting a different intensity of alpha rays. We also conducted a pilot study (with \(N~=210\) subjects). The only difference was that subjects in the pilot study were asked to write short explanations of their choices.

Method

Participants

Four hundred and twenty participants (\(n~60\) per theoretically relevant condition, \(M_{age}~= 38.09\), \(SD_{age}~= 13.04\), age range \(18-83\)) were recruited via the online platform Prolific (). Inclusion criteria were: age range between 18 and 99 years old, a subject’s approval rate concerning participation in previous studies of at least 90%. To ensure that subjects could read and understand the materials, we excluded subjects who received no formal education. Participants received a link that led them directly to the online experiment, which was created with the JSPsych framework (https://www.jspsych.org/7.3/). Subjects received a monetary reward for their participation. Subjects were not informed about the hypotheses that we tested. We decided to test about half as many subjects than in our main experiments and stopped data collection after \(n~=60\) subjects per (transformation) condition.

Design, materials, and procedure

The experiment had the same seven between-subjects conditions as our other studies. Conditions differed with respect to the target geometrical transformation. A demo of the experiment can be run here.

After some general information and confirmation questions, subjects read the following scenario description:

Scientists on an extraterrestrial mission have landed on a foreign planet not so different from planet Earth. They start exploring their surroundings and soon spot a grey wall with small rectangles on it. In each of the small rectangles, there seems to be a black shape. However, the scientists are too far away to identify the shapes.



If you have studied the information thoroughly, please click “Continue” to proceed.

On the next screen they were shown the initial object and read the following description:

The scientists approach the wall and inspect the black shape in one of these rectangles (below you can see the photograph they took). As they touch the shape with the tip of their radiation detector, the detector starts buzzing. It tells the scientists that the shape is emitting alpha rays.



If you have studied the information thoroughly, please click “Continue” to proceed.

Subjects then proceeded to the test screen, where two objects were shown (the example below comes from the “size” condition):

Later on, the scientists inspect the shapes of two other rectangles (below you can see the photograph they took). One of these shapes is emitting the same intensity of alpha rays as the shape you have seen on the previous screen. The other shape, by contrast, is emitting a different intensity of alpha rays than the initial shape you’ve seen on the previous screen.

Whether the Y-Reflection object was displayed on the right or the left was counterbalanced between subjects. On the same screen below the picture, subjects were asked the following test question:

According to your intuition: Which of the two new objects above do you think is emitting the different intensity of alpha rays compared to the initial object?

They could select between three options in this study: “Rather the left object” vs. “I’m absolutely uncertain” vs. “Rather the right object”.

Subjects then provided demographic data, had the chance to report any technical issues they might have experienced, and then finished the experiment on a short debriefing screen.

We had also conducted a pilot study with half as many subjects. The pilot study was identical until after the main test question. Unlike subjects in the main study, subjects of the pilot study were asked to write a short explanation of their choice.

Results and discussion

The knitted analysis file can be accessed here. Subjects’ selections in the different transformation conditions are shown in the following graph:


All in all, the proportions of Not-Y-Reflection choices decreased in comparison to the studies testing a 3D context (without external object manipulation). The results also tend to replicate those of our Main Experiment 3. A difference from Experiment 3 is that the proportion of Not-Y-Reflection choices in the Size condition stayed relatively high. Also, Not-Y-Reflection choices in the shape and 90-rotation conditions were relatively high, which we had already observed in Experiment 3.

A graph that averages over the different transformations is shown next:


The next graph shows subjects’ choices that we observed in the pilot study (\(N~= 210\)), which differed from the main study only after the main test screen:


The results aggregated over the main and pilot study are shown below:

The aggregated graph averaging over the transformation conditions is shown below:

Copyright © 2023 Simon Stephan & Sarah Placì. All rights reserved.