↓ Skip to main content

Does unconscious thought improve complex decision making?

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, July 2008
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Title
Does unconscious thought improve complex decision making?
Published in
Psychological Research, July 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00426-008-0156-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnaud Rey, Ryan M. Goldstein, Pierre Perruchet

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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 3%
United States 4 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
France 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 161 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 25%
Student > Master 33 18%
Researcher 31 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Professor 10 5%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 16 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 84 46%
Business, Management and Accounting 21 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 8%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 20 11%