Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:15:50.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The primacy of conscious decision making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

David R. Shanks  and
Ben R. Newell
David R. Shanks
Affiliation:
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London WC1H 0AP, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychlangsci/research/CPB/people/cpb-staff/d_shanks
Ben R. Newell
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. [email protected]://www2.psy.unsw.edu.au/Users/BNewell/Index.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article sought to question the common belief that our decisions are often biased by unconscious influences. While many commentators offer additional support for this perspective, others question our theoretical assumptions, empirical evaluations, and methodological criteria. We rebut in particular the starting assumption that all decision making is unconscious, and that the onus should be on researchers to prove conscious influences. Further evidence is evaluated in relation to the core topics we reviewed (multiple-cue judgment, deliberation without attention, and decisions under uncertainty), as well as priming effects. We reiterate a key conclusion from the target article, namely, that it now seems to be generally accepted that awareness should be operationally defined as reportable knowledge, and that such knowledge can only be evaluated by careful and thorough probing. We call for future research to pay heed to the different ways in which awareness can intervene in decision making (as identified in our lens model analysis) and to employ suitable methodology in the assessment of awareness, including the requirements that awareness assessment must be reliable, relevant, immediate, and sensitive.

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 45 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abadie, M. Waroquier, L. & Terrier, P. (2013) Gist memory in the unconscious thought effect. Psychological Science 25:1253–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, C. J., Shanks, D. R., Speekenbrink, M. & Henson, R. N. A. (2012) Models of recognition, repetition priming, and fluency: Exploring a new framework. Psychological Review 119:40–79.Google Scholar
Bowman, C. H., Evans, C. E. Y. & Turnbull, O. H. (2005) Artificial time constraints on the Iowa Gambling Task: The effects on behavioural performance and subjective experience. Brain and Cognition 57:21–25.Google Scholar
Cella, M., Dymond, S., Cooper, A. & Turnbull, O. (2007) Effects of decision-phase time constraints on emotion-based learning in the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition 64:164–69.Google Scholar
Coppin, G., Delplanque, S., Cayeux, I., Porcherot, C. & Sander, D. (2010) I'm no longer torn after choice: How explicit choices can implicitly shape preferences for odors. Psychological Science 21:489–93. doi: 10.1177/0956797610364115.Google Scholar
Dickinson, A. (1985) Actions and habits: The development of behavioural autonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B308:67–78.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004) Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:586–98.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F. & van Baaren, R. B. (2006b) On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science 311(5763):1005–1007. doi: 10.1126/science.1121629.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A. & Nordgren, L. F. (2006) A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives in Psychological Science 1:95–109.Google Scholar
Dunn, B. D., Galton, H. C., Morgan, R., Evans, D., Oliver, C., Meyer, M. Cusack, R., Lawrence, A. D. & Dalgleish, T. (2011) Listening to your heart: How interoception shapes emotion experience and intuitive decision making. Psychological Science 21:1835–44.Google Scholar
Evans, C. E. Y., Bowman, C. H. & Turnbull, O. H. (2005) Subjective awareness on the Iowa Gambling Task: The key role of emotional experience in schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 27:656–64.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M. (2011) Subliminal priming with nearly perfect performance in the prime-classification task. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 73(4):1255–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisk, G. D. & Haase, S. J. (2006) Exclusion failure does not demonstrate unconscious perception II: Evidence from a forced-choice exclusion task. Vision Research 46:4244–51.Google Scholar
Fisk, G. D. & Haase, S. J. (2007) Exclusion failure does not demonstrate unconscious perception. American Journal of Psychology 120:173–204.Google Scholar
Guillaume, S., Jollant, F., Jaussent, I., Lawrence, N., Malafosse, A. & Courtet, P. (2009) Somatic markers and explicit knowledge are both involved in decision-making. Neuropsychologia 47:2120–24.Google Scholar
Gutbrod, K., Kroužel, C., Hofer, H., Müri, R., Perrig, W. & Ptak, R. (2006) Decision-making in amnesia: Do advantageous decisions require conscious knowledge of previous behavioural choices? Neuropsychologia 44:1315–24.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2007) The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316:998–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higham, P. A. & Vokey, J. R. (2000) Judgment heuristics and recognition memory: Prime identification and target-processing fluency. Memory & Cognition 28:574–84.Google Scholar
Keren, G. & Schul, Y. (2009) Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4:533–50.Google Scholar
Konstantinidis, E. & Shanks, D. R. (2013) Don't bet on it! Wagering as a measure of awareness in decision making under uncertainty. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Yang, L.-X., Newell, B. R. & Kalish, M. (2012) Working memory does not dissociate between different perceptual categorization tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 38:881–904.Google Scholar
Lovibond, P. F. & Shanks, D. R. (2002) The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 28:3–26.Google Scholar
Maia, T. V. & McClelland, J. L. (2004) A re-examination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa Gambling Task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:16075–80.Google Scholar
Mamede, S., Schmidt, H. G., Rikers, R. M. J. P., Custers, E. J. F. M., Splinter, T. A. W. & van Saase, J. L. C. M. (2010) Conscious thought beats deliberation without attention in diagnostic decision-making: At least when you are an expert. Psychological Research 74:586–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, K., Sparrow, B., Chatman, L. & Riddle, T. (2011) Driven to distraction: The impact of distracter type on unconscious decision making. Social Cognition 29:683–98.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R. & Dunn, J. C. (2008) Dimensions in data: Testing psychological models using state-trace analysis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:285–90.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R., Dunn, J. C. & Kalish, M. (2010) The dimensionality of perceptual category learning: A state-trace analysis. Memory & Cognition: 38:563–81.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A. & Shanks, D. R. (2007a) Challenging the role of implicit processes in probabilistic category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14:505–11.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R. & Lee, M. D. (2011) The right tool for the job? Comparing an evidence accumulation and a naïve strategy selection model of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 24:456–81.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R., Wong, K. Y., Cheung, J. C. & Rakow, T. (2009) Think, blink or sleep on it? The impact of modes of thought on complex decision making. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62:707–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieuwenstein, M. & van Rijn, H. (2012) The unconscious thought advantage: Further replication failures from a search for confirmatory evidence. Judgment and Decision Making 7:779–98.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84(3):231–59.Google Scholar
Overgaard, M. (2011) Visual experience and blindsight: A methodological review. Experimental Brain Research 209:473–79.Google Scholar
Overgaard, M., Fehl, K., Mouridsen, K., Bergholt, B. & Cleeremans, A. (2008) Seeing without seeing? Degraded conscious vision in a blindsight patient. PLoS One 3:e3028.Google Scholar
Pachur, T. & Forer, E. A. (2013) Selection of decision strategies after conscious and unconscious thought. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 26:477–88.Google Scholar
Payne, J. W., Samper, A., Bettman, J. R. & Luce, M. F. (2008) Boundary conditions on unconscious thought in complex decision making. Psychological Science 19(11):1118–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02212.x.Google Scholar
Persaud, N. & McLeod, P. (2007) Wagering demonstrates subconscious processing in a binary exclusion task. Consciousness and Cognition 17: 565–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, N., McLeod, P. & Dienes, Z. (2010) Implicit knowledge and motor skill: What people who know how to catch don't know. Consciousness and Cognition 19:63–76.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J. & Hoover, M. A. (2009) How to influence choice by monitoring gaze. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Taatgen, N., van Rijn, H., Nerbonne, J. & Schomaker, L., pp. 2244. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949) The concept of mind. Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (2006) Complex choices better made unconsciously? Science 313:760.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R. & Berry, C. J. (2012) Are there multiple memory systems? Tests of models of implicit and explicit memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65:1449–74.Google Scholar
Sharot, T., Velasquez, C. M. & Dolan, R. J. (2010) Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science 2:1231–35. doi: 10.1177/0956797610379235.Google Scholar
Sher, S. & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006) Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition 101:467–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sher, S. & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2011) Levels of information: A framing hierarchy. In: Perspectives on framing, ed. Keren, G., pp. 35–64. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sklar, A., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A. & Hassin, R. R. (2012) Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109(48):19614–19. Retrieved from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211645109. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211645109.Google Scholar
Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H. J. & Haynes, J. D. (2008) Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 11: 543–45.Google Scholar
Strick, M., Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Sjoerdma, A., van Baaren, R. B. & Nordgren, L. F. (2011) A meta-analysis on unconscious thought effects. Social Cognition 29:738–62.Google Scholar
Usher, M., Russo, Z., Weyers, M., Brauner, R. & Zakay, D. (2011) The impact of the mode of thought in complex decisions: Intuitive decisions are better. Frontiers in Psychology 2(March):37. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00037.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D. & Schooler, J. W. (1991) Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:181–92.Google Scholar