↓ Skip to main content

Conscious and Unconscious Thought in Risky Choice: Testing the Capacity Principle and the Appropriate Weighting Principle of Unconscious Thought Theory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Conscious and Unconscious Thought in Risky Choice: Testing the Capacity Principle and the Appropriate Weighting Principle of Unconscious Thought Theory
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00261
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathaniel J. S. Ashby, Andreas Glöckner, Stephan Dickert

Abstract

Daily we make decisions ranging from the mundane to the seemingly pivotal that shape our lives. Assuming rationality, all relevant information about one's options should be thoroughly examined in order to make the best choice. However, some findings suggest that under specific circumstances thinking too much has disadvantageous effects on decision quality and that it might be best to let the unconscious do the busy work. In three studies we test the capacity assumption and the appropriate weighting principle of Unconscious Thought Theory using a classic risky choice paradigm and including a "deliberation with information" condition. Although we replicate an advantage for unconscious thought (UT) over "deliberation without information," we find that "deliberation with information" equals or outperforms UT in risky choices. These results speak against the generality of the assumption that UT has a higher capacity for information integration and show that this capacity assumption does not hold in all domains. Furthermore, we show that "deliberate thought with information" leads to more differentiated knowledge compared to UT which speaks against the generality of the appropriate weighting assumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
France 2 3%
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 55 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 52%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 14 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2011.
All research outputs
#13,356,164
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,221
of 29,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,007
of 180,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#151
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.