Advertisement

Psychological Research PRPF

, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 372–379 | Cite as

Does unconscious thought improve complex decision making?

  • Arnaud Rey
  • Ryan M. Goldstein
  • Pierre Perruchet
Original Article

Abstract

In a recent study, Dijksterhuis et al. (Science 311:1005, 2006) reported that participants were better at solving complex decisions after a period of unconscious thought relative to a period of conscious thought. They interpreted their results as an existence proof of powerful unconscious deliberation mechanisms. In the present report, we used a similar experimental design with an additional control, immediate condition, and we observed that participants produced as good (and even descriptively better) decisions in this condition than in the “unconscious” one, hence challenging the initial interpretation of the authors. However, we still obtained lower performances in the “conscious” relative to the “immediate” condition, suggesting that the initial result of Dijksterhuis et al. was not due to the action of powerful unconscious thought processes, but to the apparent disadvantage of further conscious processing. We provide an explanation for this observation on the basis of current models of decision making. It is finally concluded that the benefit of unconscious thought in complex decision making is still a controversial issue that should be considered cautiously.

Keywords

Evaluation Score Positive Attribute Conscious Condition Complex Decision Conscious Processing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bergert, F. B., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2007). A response-time approach to comparing generalized rational and take-the-best models of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 107–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 586–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dijksterhuis, A., & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: the generative power of unconscious thought. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 135–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dijksterhuis, A., & van Olden, Z. (2006). On the benefits of thinking unconsciously: unconscious thought can increase post-choice satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311, 1005–1007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dulany, D. E. (1997). Consciousness in the explicit (deliberative) and implicit (evocative). In J. D. Cohen & J. W. Schooler (Eds.), Scientific approaches to the study of consciousness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Fasolo, B., McClelland, G. H., & Todd, P. M. (2007). Escaping the tyranny of choice: when fewer attributes make choice easier. Marketing Theory, 7, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109, 75–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harte, J. M., Koele, P., & van Engelenburg (1996). Estimation of attribute weights in a multiattribute choice situation. Acta Psychologica, 93, 37–55.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, M. D., & Cummins, T. D. R. (2004). Evidence accumulation in decision making: unifying the “take the best” and the “rational” models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 343–352.Google Scholar
  13. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mandler, G. (1994). Hyperamnesia, incubation and mind popping: on remembering without really trying. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: conscious and unconscious information processing. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Newell, B. R. (2005). Re-visions of rationality? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 11–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 534–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (2002). The self-organizing consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 297–388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schooler, L. J., & Hertwig, R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112, 610–628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sweklej, J., Pochwatko, G., Balas, R., & Godlewska, M. (2007). Decision making under cognitive and informational load. In Proceedings of the XVth meeting of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (p. 25). France: Marseille.Google Scholar
  22. Tzelgov, J. (1997). Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: a theoretical note. Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Woodworth, R. S. (1938). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnaud Rey
    • 1
  • Ryan M. Goldstein
    • 2
  • Pierre Perruchet
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, CNRSUniversité de ProvenceMarseille Cedex 03France
  2. 2.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.LEAD-CNRSUniversité de BourgogneDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations