EXPRESS: Why do location-based preference effects occur within decision making? Evidence from the magician’s force

Preference research has shown that humans have a bias towards items located in the middle of the visual field and a number of theories have been suggested to explain the phenomenon. The conjuring trick known as the placement force not only exploits this central bias but also shows that the preference is subtly biased to the right of centre. We used the force, together with eye tracking, to test the different theories. In a single experiment, four face-down playing cards were presented on a table in a horizontal row. Participants (n = 137) were asked to select one by pushing it forward. Results replicated the basic force effect showing that 52% of participants chose the middle right card. Eye tracking measures revealed that when participants fixated the cards, more time was spent looking at the two centrally located cards. However, this attentional bias did not predict the card they chose. Furthermore, individuals who were more reflective decision makers (as measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test) were no less susceptible to the force, nor were individuals who spent more time deliberating about their decision or those who examined more alternatives. The results do not support the view that central bias effects result from cognitive decision heuristics nor attentional biases. Instead, participants chose options that required the least physical effort. This supports the reachability hypothesis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Published
2026-07-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218261472690
Primary Topic
Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

EXPRESS: Why do location-based preference effects occur within decision making? Evidence from the magician’s force

Gustav Kuhn, Geoff G. Cole, Liliana Schirru, Rachael Bulford-Forbes et al.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
article

EXPRESS: Why do location-based preference effects occur within decision making? Evidence from the magician’s force

Gustav Kuhn, Geoff G. Cole, Liliana Schirru, Rachael Bulford-Forbes, Meda Valecke
article en

Abstract

Preference research has shown that humans have a bias towards items located in the middle of the visual field and a number of theories have been suggested to explain the phenomenon. The conjuring trick known as the placement force not only exploits this central bias but also shows that the preference is subtly biased to the right of centre. We used the force, together with eye tracking, to test the different theories. In a single experiment, four face-down playing cards were presented on a table in a horizontal row. Participants (n = 137) were asked to select one by pushing it forward. Results replicated the basic force effect showing that 52% of participants chose the middle right card. Eye tracking measures revealed that when participants fixated the cards, more time was spent looking at the two centrally located cards. However, this attentional bias did not predict the card they chose. Furthermore, individuals who were more reflective decision makers (as measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test) were no less susceptible to the force, nor were individuals who spent more time deliberating about their decision or those who examined more alternatives. The results do not support the view that central bias effects result from cognitive decision heuristics nor attentional biases. Instead, participants chose options that required the least physical effort. This supports the reachability hypothesis.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
University of Essex (GB), University of Plymouth (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.