Study 009 / adaptation
Knowing the mechanism is a hypothesis about protection.
Proposed · not recruiting
Pre-register parallel groups receiving a specific debrief or a matched general explanation. Use a new task for transfer and a later follow-up. Define outcomes, exclusions, sample size, consent, withdrawal, retention, and analysis before recruiting.
Proposed protocol. No participants are being recruited and no research results exist here.
Download the protocols ↓Study 009 / Does the reveal give agency back?
01 / Observation
A person can understand an intervention and still encounter it again in a different setting.
02 / Hypothesis
A mechanism-specific explanation may change responses to a new example compared with a general explanation; the direction and durability are open questions.
03 / Mechanism
Awareness, strategy use, demand effects, and learning may all contribute. A change in choice alone is not a complete measure of agency.
04 / Experiment
Pre-register parallel groups receiving a specific debrief or a matched general explanation. Use a new task for transfer and a later follow-up. Define outcomes, exclusions, sample size, consent, withdrawal, retention, and analysis before recruiting.
05 / Result
Proposed protocol. No participants are being recruited and no research results exist here.
06 / Alternative explanations
Task practice, memory for the prior answer, social desirability, fatigue, attrition, and recognising the researcher’s expectations.
07 / Real-world use
Education about defaults, platform literacy, consumer decisions, and awareness of adaptive systems.
08 / Ethical dimension
Both groups should receive a complete debrief. Evaluate whether an intervention improves understood choice rather than merely reversing the preferred option.
09 / Countermeasure
Test transfer to unfamiliar material rather than treating an immediate replay as proof of resistance.
Short summaries in our own words: what the research found, why it belongs here, and where its conclusions stop. These papers provide background; they do not report results from your visit.
Study anatomy / Explanatory schematic
Default-disclosure experiment
In a contribution experiment, explaining a default’s influence or purpose did not reliably eliminate its effect. Disclosure and influence can coexist. That makes this protocol’s central question testable rather than settled: recognising a cue need not remove it, although a null difference does not prove disclosure never matters.
Longitudinal training experiments
Game and video interventions reduced several measured biases, with benefits still observed at a later follow-up. Practice and feedback mattered. This offers a constructive direction for the protocol: test transfer to new problems over time, rather than treating an improved immediate replay as evidence that awareness alone protects someone.
A protocol makes the proposed comparison inspectable before data exist. Related findings do not guarantee the planned field study will reproduce them.