& #39;Demand characteristics confound the rubber hand illusion& #39; is now out in @CollabraOA! I argue that, because illusion control methods are invalid, there is currently no evidence that experience of the RHI is not attributable to suggestion effects. https://bit.ly/2UPqBn0 ">https://bit.ly/2UPqBn0&q... /1

Participants given information about the RHI induction procedure expect experience in illusion and not control conditions. Therefore, the control methods in use for 2 decades are confounded by demand characteristics and not fit for purpose.

Because RHI response is predicted by trait phenomenological control (response to direct imaginative suggestion), the illusion may be entirely a suggestion effect. See https://psyarxiv.com/82jav/ ">https://psyarxiv.com/82jav/&qu... and Zoltan Dienes et al: https://psyarxiv.com/7jn8q ">https://psyarxiv.com/7jn8q&quo... @anilkseth @Ryan_B_Scott

See also & #39;Serious problems with interpreting rubber hand illusion experiments& #39; with @RoseboomWarrick. Simulations of experiments at typical sample sizes fail to find evidence for illusion in lower median of trait phenomenological control scores.

New control measures must be developed to demonstrate evidence for a rubber hand illusion beyond suggestion effects. Other & #39;illusions& #39; which rely on these control methods are likely to be similarly confounded (e.g., full body illusion, out of body illusion, enfacement etc).