Ouija Boards and the Ideomotor Effect: How Involuntary Movement Works
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Extraordinary Experiences & Anomalistic Psychology · Written by Artificial Sapiens
A Ouija board can produce a striking experience: several people rest their fingertips on a movable pointer, ask a question, and watch it travel toward letters as though nobody is directing it. Psychology offers a research-based account of how movements can occur without a clear conscious intention to make them. The central mechanism is the ideomotor effect: ideas, expectations, and anticipated outcomes can influence motor activity, while the people producing the movement may experience little sense of authorship. Research also examines implicit knowledge, visual prediction, social coordination, and the ways people interpret what happens. Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010); Andersen et al. (2019).
For a related perspective, see Extraordinary Experiences: Types, Meanings, and Psychological Research.
The movement itself is a real physical event, and the feeling of being surprised by it can be genuine. Establishing how a particular movement occurred is a separate question from understanding what it felt like. Experimental evidence supports ordinary mechanisms of ideomotor action; an extraordinary source of information or an external supernatural mover has not been established by the Ouija experiments discussed here.
What Is a Ouija Board?
A Ouija board, sometimes called a talking board or spirit board, typically displays letters, numbers, and short response options such as yes and no. Participants place their fingers lightly on a small pointer, usually called a planchette, which can slide across the surface. They ask questions and interpret the locations it reaches as answers. Modern researchers treat this setup as an unusual but informative case of shared action and perceived agency: people cooperate in moving one object, yet may experience its trajectory as originating outside themselves. Andersen et al. (2019).
The everyday question “Who moved the planchette?” contains several distinct scientific questions. Which physical forces made it move? Which participant's motor activity contributed to those forces? Which thoughts or expectations influenced the movements? How were letters assembled into words? And why did participants feel that they had not caused the outcome? A complete explanation addresses all of these questions rather than substituting a single label for the whole event.
What Is the Ideomotor Effect?
The ideomotor effect refers to action-related motor activity that can be influenced by an idea, image, expectation, or anticipated outcome without a person deliberately deciding to execute the specific movement that follows. In classic demonstrations, subtle muscle actions can move a pendulum, pointer, or shared object even while the participant sincerely experiences the action as unwilled. Contemporary ideomotor theory extends beyond involuntary-seeming demonstrations to the general relationship between action goals, learned action–effect associations, and motor control. Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010); Pfister, Janczyk, and Kunde (2013).
Movement does not need to be large to matter. Fingertips exert forces through contact with the planchette. A succession of small changes in pressure can produce a noticeable displacement, particularly when a pointer can move with relatively little resistance. Where several hands touch the same object, each person's contribution can be difficult to identify by introspection alone. The external pointer makes the combined result visible, while the underlying motor commands remain comparatively inaccessible.
“Unconscious movement” is convenient shorthand, but consciousness is multidimensional. Someone might know that a pointer has moved, know which letter it reached, and anticipate an answer, while lacking the feeling that they personally intended and caused that specific movement. Motor generation, awareness of an intention, prediction of an effect, and judgment of authorship are related but separable processes. Wegner and Wheatley (1999); Andersen et al. (2019).
Ideas and anticipated outcomes can influence action
A major contemporary account holds that people learn associations between actions and the sensory effects those actions produce. Once such relations are learned, anticipating an effect can help activate the corresponding action. The process is a normal feature of action planning: thinking about an attainable outcome is closely linked to the motor system that can accomplish it. Ideomotor theory therefore provides a broader foundation for understanding Ouija-like movement than the vague assertion that “the subconscious takes over.” Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010).
The exact formulation of ideomotor theory remains an active scientific topic. Some approaches emphasize anticipated sensory consequences, others shared codes for perception and action, and others conceptual influences on motor output. These models overlap in recognizing that action may be affected by representations that are not experienced as an explicit decision to execute a particular motor command. They do not imply that every thought automatically becomes a movement or that a single theory predicts each detail of a Ouija session. Hommel (2013); Shin, Choe, and Kwon (2023).
The sense of agency: why “I moved it” may be absent
Sense of agency is the experience of being the author of an action and its consequences. It is shaped partly by predictions about what one is about to do and partly by judgments made after the event. When an outcome is ambiguous, surprising, socially shared, or difficult to anticipate, a person may experience reduced ownership of a movement that their body helped produce. Wegner and Wheatley (1999); Andersen et al. (2019).
This distinction explains an important feature of the phenomenon. A person saying “I did not move it” may be describing the absence of deliberate intention or the absence of a feeling of control. That report deserves to be understood on its own terms. It does not, by itself, establish that their muscles made no contribution to the motion. Likewise, observing that hands contributed force does not tell us what the participant consciously experienced.
How Can the Planchette Move When Nobody Intends to Move It?
A plausible sequence begins when a question activates candidate answers, familiar words, or expectations about where the pointer might go. Subtle hand movements follow, and the pointer moves a little. That movement becomes a new sensory cue. Each participant sees the pointer's current position, responds to its direction, and may adjust pressure without forming a clear conscious intention. In a group, these changes can interact and become coordinated, producing a trajectory that feels externally guided. This is a mechanistic reconstruction consistent with ideomotor and joint-action research, not a measurement of every motion in every session. Gauchou, Rensink, and Fels (2012); Andersen et al. (2019).
Three levels should be kept distinct. At the physical level, forces transmitted through the fingertips move the shared object. At the cognitive level, expectations, available knowledge, and unfolding visual information can influence what movements are made. At the experiential level, people interpret whether the action felt deliberate, involuntary, shared, or externally produced. Evidence at one level does not automatically settle questions at the others.
Why small movements become visible
Holding a pen still, balancing a pendulum, or resting fingers on a mobile surface all require fine motor control. In ordinary action, many muscle adjustments occur without explicit attention to each adjustment. A low-friction pointer makes the cumulative effect of tiny motions easier to observe. The specific weight and friction of a particular planchette, table slope, participant posture, and patterns of contact may change the observed motion; these are measurable variables rather than evidence of any particular extraordinary cause.
An investigator seeking a precise causal account could measure forces at each participant's fingertips and record the position, velocity, and direction of the pointer over time. The fact that small forces are sufficient to move an object does not identify which person's hand supplied them during a particular event. That requires actual observation or instrumentation.
Why a group can produce an answer nobody planned in full
People coordinating an object continuously react to one another. A participant may favor one direction, another may correct the path, and both may increasingly anticipate where the pointer is heading. Letters can constrain which words seem possible as they accumulate. This makes an answer a jointly generated sequence; it need not be a complete sentence privately scripted by one participant from the beginning. In a field study of Ouija users, prediction became better as meaningful strings unfolded, and the paired participants' behavior gave information that single-person analysis missed. Andersen et al. (2019).
This group-level account helps explain why the experience can feel surprising to everyone involved. If the trajectory is assembled through feedback and interaction, no participant needs to experience full advance knowledge of the ultimate word. “Nobody consciously planned the entire answer” and “the answer arose through human actions” are compatible descriptions.
What Experiments Have Actually Found?
The 2012 Ouija-response study: implicit knowledge
Gauchou, Rensink, and Fels compared ordinary yes/no answers with responses generated through a Ouija-type apparatus. Participants answered general-knowledge questions and indicated whether they knew the answer or were guessing. When they reported knowing the answer, the modalities performed similarly. On questions where participants believed they were guessing, ordinary voluntary reports were about 50% correct, whereas Ouija responses were about 65% correct in the reported experiment. The authors interpreted this pattern as evidence that some information unavailable to confident conscious report could influence ideomotor responding. Gauchou, Rensink, and Fels (2012).
The result is scientifically interesting because it tests a defined hypothesis using a measurable outcome. Its interpretation remains bounded by its particular questions, sample, apparatus, comparison conditions, and statistical analysis. The percentage is an observed result from one research program; it is neither a general accuracy rate for Ouija boards nor a demonstration that Ouija answers disclose unknown external facts. It concerns information potentially held by a participant but not confidently accessible in the usual response mode.
Implicit knowledge is not the same as paranormal knowledge. A person can retain fragments of previously encountered information, use partial familiarity, or respond to subtle cognitive cues without being able to explain the answer's origin. Experimental claims about such processes need independent replication and careful alternative-hypothesis testing before broad conclusions about how consistently Ouija methods expose implicit memory can be made.
The 2019 Ouija field study: eyes, prediction, and joint action
Andersen and colleagues studied 40 adults recruited in pairs at a Ouija board conference. Participants wore mobile eye trackers during a naturalistic Ouija condition and a comparison condition in which they deliberately guided the pointer to specified letters or words. Relative to deliberate spelling, participants in the Ouija condition were less likely to look in advance at the letters the pointer would reach. Those who endorsed supernatural explanations also tended to report a weaker sense of having moved the pointer themselves. Andersen et al. (2019).
The researchers also analyzed the pair as a unit. Prediction of upcoming letters was more evident when information across two participants was considered, and it improved as meaningful answers progressed. These findings support a proposal that meaningful strings can emerge through interaction and progressive constraints on what letters or words come next, while participants individually experience reduced agency. Importantly, the study measured gaze prediction, questionnaire reports, and pointer behavior; it did not directly record each person's fingertip forces or fully establish the muscular origin of each individual motion. Andersen et al. (2019).
The field setting is both a strength and a limitation. It captures more natural behavior than a completely artificial laboratory task, but participants were conference attendees rather than a representative sample of American adults. The study was exploratory, had modest participant numbers, and involved correlated observations within pairs. Belief–agency associations were correlational; the findings do not demonstrate that adopting a belief causes a specific sensation of reduced control.
The 2023 experimental test of idea-guided movement
Shin, Choe, and Kwon designed laboratory categorization tasks to test whether the conceptual content of a decision could influence an apparently irrelevant property of a movement. In their experiments, classifying stimuli as long or short affected how long participants held down a response key, even though keypress duration was not what the task asked them to report. Follow-up conditions explored when a conceptual attribute could map onto a movement property. These findings support an ideomotor connection between representations and motor execution under the tested conditions. Shin, Choe, and Kwon (2023).
The researchers did not study a planchette or paranormal claims. This distinction matters: controlled work on keypresses strengthens the broader plausibility of idea-guided movement, while the Ouija studies test aspects of the specific social and experiential context. The connection between laboratory theory and a particular Ouija episode is an explanatory inference, not a direct recording of all its causes.
What an evidence map should—and should not—say
Established: human actions can be shaped by action–effect associations and conceptual representations, and experienced authorship can diverge from actual action production. Documented: Ouija participants report diminished agency and, in a field study, show distinctive patterns of visual prediction. Context-specific evidence: a Ouija-response experiment found an advantage on certain guessed questions. Preliminary or limited: how well each pattern generalizes across cultures, ages, apparatuses, participant motivations, and independently replicated samples. Not established: that Ouija movement or answers require an external paranormal agent or independently demonstrate extrasensory perception. Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010); Gauchou, Rensink, and Fels (2012); Andersen et al. (2019).
Why Can Ouija Answers Seem Coherent, Specific, or Personal?
A developing sequence of letters is not interpreted in a vacuum. Participants have expectations, memories, language knowledge, familiarity with one another, and access to the topic of a question. Once the pointer reaches a few letters, a shrinking set of plausible completions may become salient. Responses can therefore grow more predictable as they unfold. The Andersen study observed increasing letter prediction across meaningful responses, which is consistent with a feedback-based, group-level explanation. Andersen et al. (2019).
The content of a response can also appear especially striking because a relevant or memorable statement draws more attention than an ambiguous or uninformative one. In the Andersen dataset, researchers recorded both meaningful and nonmeaningful responses, an important reminder that a scientific account should examine the entire response set rather than only the most compelling examples. A defensible assessment specifies in advance how accuracy and meaningfulness will be scored and includes unsuccessful responses in the analysis.
Personal significance remains real even where authorship is shared. An answer can evoke grief, surprise, curiosity, or concern. Psychology can investigate these emotions and the cognitive processes shaping them without pronouncing judgment on the person's broader worldview.
Can an Ouija board reveal information you did not know you knew?
The Gauchou experiment gives a specific reason to investigate this question: a response made through an ideomotor channel sometimes outperformed a conventional answer when the participant thought they were guessing. Yet access to partial or implicit memory differs fundamentally from discovering information that no participant could have encountered. Demonstrating the latter would require independently verified facts, sealed targets, strict controls on information leakage, and reliable replication. The 2012 findings should not be presented as a universal method for extracting memories or as proof of external information transfer. Gauchou, Rensink, and Fels (2012).
Even for ordinary knowledge, the Ouija-response advantage may depend on task details and the participant's expectations. An accurate answer does not itself identify the pathway that produced it. Memory, chance, question selection, inadvertent cues, and recording practices have to be examined alongside a proposed ideomotor explanation.
What Is the Difference Between Ideomotor Movement, Deliberate Movement, and Deception?
Deliberate movement involves intentionally guiding the planchette toward a location. Ideomotor movement concerns action influenced by thought or anticipation when the specific motor contribution is not consciously experienced as deliberate. Deception involves deliberately misleading another person about an action or its source. These categories address different features of behavior and should not be collapsed.
A particular session could involve one person moving deliberately, several people contributing without conscious awareness of their precise movements, a mixture of both, or even mechanical disturbances unrelated to either explanation. Neither belief nor disbelief identifies which possibility occurred. Fair investigation requires independently observable evidence, ideally including instrumented movement records or suitably controlled comparisons.
Accusing participants of fraud solely because an ordinary motor mechanism is available misrepresents what the experiments show. Conversely, treating sincerity as proof of an external cause confuses testimony about experience with a mechanism test.
Do Expectations and Beliefs Influence the Experience?
Expectations can affect what outcomes are anticipated, which signals are noticed, and how ambiguous movements are attributed. In the 2019 field study, people with stronger supernatural interpretations reported lower personal agency. This was a correlation within a selected sample. It establishes neither a universal difference between believers and skeptics nor a causal effect of belief on movement. Andersen et al. (2019).
The cultural setting may influence whether the experience is understood as a game, a puzzling effect of attention, an uncanny encounter, or a personally meaningful event. These frames shape interpretation and emotion. They do not, on their own, reveal the objective cause. Religious and devotional meaning is properly addressed in its own cultural and psychological context; this article concerns the nonconfessional experimental study of shared pointer movement.
Group attention matters as well. People respond to silence, facial expression, question wording, the movement that has already occurred, and anticipation of the next letter. The strength of each influence is an empirical question. A compelling story is often a useful starting point for hypothesis formation, while causal inference requires measurement and controls.
Other Ideomotor Demonstrations: Pendulums, Dowsing Rods, and Automatic Writing
Movements of hand-held pendulums, dowsing rods, and writing instruments have long been discussed alongside Ouija responses. A common feature is that relatively small motor contributions can be translated into visible motion or written marks while participants experience the movement as arising without direct conscious choice. Contemporary experimental ideomotor theories are concerned with how anticipated effects and representations influence action, offering a framework for studying such reports. Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010); Shin, Choe, and Kwon (2023).
The devices differ, so results cannot be transferred automatically. A pendulum depends on suspended motion; a rod depends on its physical support and mechanical amplification; automatic writing involves a different motor task and may involve different forms of attention. Each requires its own controls. Demonstrating an ideomotor component in one apparatus does not measure the size of that component in another.
What Would Count as a Good Scientific Test of a Ouija Claim?
A rigorous study begins by defining the claim. If the question is whether hands supply the physical force, researchers can measure contact and movement. If the question is whether people consciously predict the next target, they can collect appropriately timed gaze or intention reports. If the question is whether information unknown to participants can be obtained, the study requires a separate target-verification design.
For a claim about previously unknown information, investigators would preregister the success criterion, prevent participants and experimenters from accessing the target during responding, define what counts as a hit before seeing the outcome, preserve all trials, test chance-level expectations appropriately, and invite independent replication. Controls must also distinguish inadvertent sensory cues, prior knowledge, selective reporting, ordinary inference, and deliberate manipulation. Reproducibility depends on reporting unsuccessful trials as carefully as successful ones.
Blinding is useful only for the question it actually addresses. Concealing the board's letters may change the task by eliminating visual feedback that participants ordinarily use. Such an intervention may help assess visual guidance but is not a universal test of every proposed mechanism. A failure to spell words under one blindfolding arrangement cannot, by itself, identify all components responsible for the original experience; nor would a correct answer establish an extraordinary origin without eliminating ordinary information pathways.
Researchers should also consider the ecological validity of experimental tasks. Laboratory control can identify causal components, whereas field observation can show how people behave when using a board naturally. Combining these approaches provides a more complete picture than relying only on dramatic demonstrations or uncontrolled stories.
Are There Limits to the Psychological Explanation?
Yes. Ideomotor research supports a plausible and experimentally grounded family of mechanisms; its breadth does not make it an event-specific measurement. Investigators need to distinguish evidence that a mechanism is possible from evidence that it actually occurred at a particular moment. An unexplained detail is a reason to refine the observations and the hypothesis, rather than fill an evidentiary gap with certainty.
The Ouija literature is also comparatively small. The direct empirical studies described above examined particular response tasks and selected participants. Results involving eye tracking and semantic answers offer converging insights but do not establish population-wide frequencies, long-term effects, or the proportion of all Ouija sessions attributable to each contribution. Ideomotor action is a robust scientific topic; fine-grained causal reconstruction of individual Ouija events remains more difficult. Gauchou, Rensink, and Fels (2012); Andersen et al. (2019).
This assessment also leaves room for direct observation of unusually interesting claims under well-designed conditions. Open scientific investigation asks what was observed, how it was measured, what alternatives were controlled, and whether independent teams obtained comparable results.
Scientific and Ethical Implications Beyond the Ouija Board
Research on shared, involuntary-seeming movement matters for understanding human agency and attribution. A person can perform or contribute to an action without accurately judging how much influence they exercised. Such dissociations are relevant to basic cognitive science, human–computer interaction, experimental methods, and the ethics of assigning authorship to messages. Wegner and Wheatley (1999); Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010).
An especially important distinction concerns facilitated communication, in which another person physically supports someone's pointing or typing. It is a different and much higher-stakes context because statements can be attributed to a person who may not have authored them. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association states that facilitated communication is discredited, that controlled evidence identifies facilitator authorship, and that the method should not be used. This clinical and ethical position should not be confused with research on a recreational board game or with independently generated augmentative communication. ASHA (2018).
The wider lesson is methodological: a message appearing under someone's hand does not establish who selected its content. Authorship is a question that needs controls, particularly where a message affects another person's care, autonomy, consent, or legal interests.
Can Using a Ouija Board Affect Mental Health?
A surprising or frightening Ouija experience may cause strong emotions, especially when the answer seems personal or threatening. The mere act of using a board, believing in a paranormal explanation, or experiencing involuntary-seeming movement does not constitute a psychiatric disorder. The clinical question is whether there are persistent symptoms, significant distress, impaired functioning, or safety concerns that call for professional assessment.
Someone disturbed by an experience can pause the activity, discuss what happened with a trusted person, and distinguish direct observations from the conclusions drawn about them. Replaying frightening sessions or treating ambiguous words as binding instructions may intensify worry for some people. If fear persists, sleep is disrupted, everyday life is affected, or other concerning symptoms appear, a qualified health professional can assess the full context without reducing the person's report to a diagnosis.
The board should not be used as a substitute for medical, mental-health, legal, or safety decisions. Nor is it a validated technique for recovering allegedly hidden memories, confirming a disputed event, identifying a perpetrator, or obtaining information about another person's inner thoughts.
Frequently Asked Questions
What really moves the Ouija board planchette?
In a standard shared-contact setup, pressure transmitted through participants' hands is a physically plausible source of motion. Ideomotor processes can help explain why small motor contributions arise without a clear conscious intention. Establishing the precise cause of a particular session still requires observation. Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010).
Is the ideomotor effect scientifically real?
Yes. Experimental research on action–effect associations and concept-related motor modulation provides substantial support for ideomotor mechanisms. The specific combination of forces, expectations, and social feedback in a single Ouija event is an additional empirical question. Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010); Shin, Choe, and Kwon (2023).
Can the planchette move even when everyone feels completely still?
Participants may be unaware of subtle motor output and may not experience control of the shared trajectory. Feeling still cannot substitute for force measurement, and the intensity of movement may depend on the object's mechanical properties.
Does the ideomotor effect mean participants are lying?
No. A sincere report of surprise or absent conscious intention can coexist with an unrecognized contribution to movement. Intentional deception is a separate possibility requiring its own evidence.
Why does the board sometimes spell recognizable words?
Language expectations, visual feedback, shared movement, and the narrowing range of plausible next letters can contribute. In a field study, prediction improved as meaningful answers unfolded and pairs provided explanatory information beyond the individual. Andersen et al. (2019).
Can Ouija boards access the subconscious mind?
“Subconscious” is a popular shorthand for processes outside immediate awareness. One experiment found that Ouija-style responding performed better than conventional guessing on particular general-knowledge questions. It suggests a possible route for expressing implicit information; it does not establish a reliable general method of accessing hidden memories. Gauchou, Rensink, and Fels (2012).
Does a correct Ouija answer prove extrasensory perception?
No. Accurate responses can arise from ordinary knowledge, implicit familiarity, inference, cues, or chance. Claims of information beyond these possibilities require preregistered, blinded, independently replicated tests addressing the relevant alternative explanations.
What happens if the users are blindfolded?
Removing vision alters available feedback and may make letter-guided responses more difficult. The outcome depends on the question, task design, and what other information remains available. Blindfolding alone is not a comprehensive test of all explanations.
Can a single person experience the ideomotor effect?
Yes. The underlying action–effect processes do not require another participant. Shared Ouija sessions add joint-action and attribution questions that solitary tasks do not fully capture. Shin, Proctor, and Capaldi (2010).
Is Ouija movement the same as a hallucination or a dissociative disorder?
A physical pointer moving during an activity is an observable event, while hallucinations and clinical dissociative conditions involve distinct diagnostic questions. Experiencing a movement as involuntary does not establish a diagnosis. Clinical assessment considers the entire symptom pattern, duration, cultural context, distress, and functioning.
Are pendulum movements and dowsing effects identical to the Ouija effect?
They are related as examples discussed in connection with ideomotor movement. Different apparatuses, physical constraints, and tasks mean their precise mechanisms need separate testing; one demonstration does not quantify all the others.
How should I interpret a frightening message from a board?
Treat the message as an outcome of an activity whose authorship and causal pathways require independent verification. It is not reliable evidence that a threat, prediction, or accusation is true. If distress continues or affects daily functioning, consider discussing the experience with a qualified professional.
Related Articles
Sleep Paralysis: Symptoms, Hallucinations, and What Helps — a separate, sleep-related experience that also raises questions about conscious perception and the interpretation of unusual events. Its underlying mechanisms and clinical context differ from shared planchette movement.
Extraordinary Experiences: Types, Meanings, and Psychological Research — the parent EN-75 overview of extraordinary reports, interpretation, and psychological research.
Suggestion and Extraordinary Experiences: How Expectations Shape Reports — explains how expectancy and suggestion influence reports of unusual events, including perceived control.
The planned EN75-14 article on false memories will be linked after its English publication.
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Facilitated communication (FC): Position statement. ASHA policy.
Andersen, M., Nielbo, K. L., Schjoedt, U., Pfeiffer, T., Roepstorff, A., & Sørensen, J. (2019). Predictive minds in Ouija board sessions. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9585-8.
Gauchou, H. L., Rensink, R. A., & Fels, S. (2012). Expression of nonconscious knowledge via ideomotor actions. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 976–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.01.016.
Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In Action Science: Foundations of an Emerging Discipline. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018555.003.0005.
Pfister, R., Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2013). Editorial: Action effects in perception and action. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00223.
Shin, Y. K., Choe, S., & Kwon, O.-S. (2023). Strong evidence for ideomotor theory: Unwilled manifestation of the conceptual attribute in movement control. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1066839. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1066839.
Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541.
Wegner, D. M., & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54(7), 480–492. PubMed record.