World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Unconscious thought theory

Article Id: WHEBN0028848456
Reproduction Date:

Title: Unconscious thought theory  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Thought, Dual process theory, Social psychology, Psychology
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Unconscious thought theory

Unconscious thought theory (UTT) was first presented by Ap Dijksterhuis[1] and Loran Nordgren[2] in 2006. UTT posits that the unconscious mind is capable of performing tasks outside of one’s awareness, and that unconscious thought (UT) is better at solving complex tasks, where many variables are considered, than conscious thought (CT), but is outperformed by conscious thought in tasks with fewer variables. This is a countercurrent position, as most research on UT since the early 1980s has led to its being characterized as simple and incapable of complex operations.[3] Dijksterhuis' and Nordgren's theory is based primarily on recent findings from a new experimental paradigm in which three groups of subjects are presented with a complex decision, like which of several apartments is the best, and allowed to devote varying amounts of time and attention to the problem. Subjects given ample time to solve the problem, but who are distracted and thereby prevented from devoting conscious attentional resources to it, perform better than both non-distracted subjects and subjects who have to respond immediately.[4] Dijksterhuis and Nordgren interpreted these findings as strong support for the idea of UT being superior to CT, and used them in part to justify six principles distinguishing UT from CT.

What is unconscious thought theory?

Unconscious thought theory runs counter to about the past 30 years of mainstream research on unconscious cognition (see[3] for a review). Many of the attributes of unconscious thought according to UTT are drawn from research by cognitive and social psychology, as well as from folk psychology; together these portray a formidable unconscious, possessing some abilities far beyond those of conscious thought. UTT is in this respect reminiscent of some classical views of the unconscious that emerged as far back as the early 20th century. Both UTT and Freudian psychoanalytic theory hold that complex operations are performed by the unconscious, but where Freud’s theory suggests that the unconscious represses harmful memories to protect one’s ego, UTT’s version of UT performs rational operations to complete unsolved cognitive or affective tasks. Helmholtz’s theory of unconscious inference also shares UTT’s view that the unconscious’ reasoning mediates our interpretation of the world, but UTT differs from unconscious inference by its clear assertion that unconscious thought is a time-consuming process; Helmholtz’s famous use of perception as an example of unconscious inference suggests that unconscious thought, for him, operates much more quickly. Probably the most striking contrast UTT has with today’s understanding of the unconscious is that between its main claim and studies on implicit perception.[5] Researchers like Anthony Greenwald have used subliminal semantic activation tasks to evaluate unconscious thought by presenting words very quickly to prevent them from entering conscious thought. The unconscious’ inability to process more than one word at a time has led these researchers to conclude that unconscious thought is unsophisticated.[3] But UTT holds that unconscious thought is very sophisticated, enjoying benefits like freedom from bias and the ability to integrate disparate pieces of information more efficiently than conscious thought.

Conscious and unconscious thought

Definition of CT
Dijksterhuis defines conscious thought as the thought processes one is aware of and can introspect on. For example, when someone asks you, “Why did you do that,” and you can report on the thoughts you used to give your answer, then those thoughts are conscious.[4]
Attributes of CT
Performed on tasks or objects within one’s attention; low-capacity; relies on schemas to process information efficiently; bad at weighting the importance of decision factors; processes information using strict rules.
Definition of UT
Unconscious thought, for Dijksterhuis, is simply the opposite of conscious thought in that it involves any thought that you cannot introspect on. This might happen when you are writing and frustrated at not having the right word, but then it simply pops into your head, and you do not know what steps you took to retrieve it; this is called incubation.[4] Dijksterhuis’ definition is slightly unusual in that it does not mention the alternative notion of unconscious thought, thought outside of attention, although his use of a Distraction condition[4] in his studies that prevents subjects from engaging in conscious thought suggests that he is aware of it.
Attributes of UT
Performed on tasks or objects outside of one’s attention; high capacity; does not rely on schemas or heuristics (thanks to its high capacity) and therefore not susceptible to bias; good at weighting attributes of decision objects; processes information via association; goal-dependent.[6]

The deliberation-without-attention effect

Conscious thought is considered to lead to good choices. However, because of its low capacity to process multiple factors, it actually leads to worse choices on issues that are more complex. On the other hand, unconscious thought, deliberation without attention, is often considered to lead to poor choices. However, with unconscious thought, the quality of choice does not deteriorate with increased complexity, but will in fact remain the same. Therefore, unconscious thought actually leads to better choices when encountering complex issues. For example, when buying a car based an few characteristics, individuals using conscious thought will most likely choose the most desirable car. But when trying to choose a car based on multiple aspects, those who use unconscious decisions are more likely to pick the best car, as well as have more post-choice satisfaction. This is the basis for the deliberation-without-attention hypothesis: that quality of choice depends on the relation between mode of thought (conscious or unconscious) and the complexity of the choice.[7]

Researchers Ap Dijksterhis, Maarten W. Bos, Loran F. Nordgren, and Rick B. van Baaren tested this hypothesis in a series of studies measuring choice quality and post-choice satisfaction after participants used conscious and unconscious deliberation. The studies supported the deliberation-without-attention effect: conscious thinkers were better able to make normatively more desirable choices between simple products, but unconscious thinkers were better able to choose between complex products. Furthermore, after making a complex decision, conscious thinkers were less likely to be satisfied with their choice than unconscious thinkers.[7]

The origins of UTT

In light of the difference in capacity between CT and UT, Dijksterhuis used a series of five experiments to test two hypotheses about the decision-making prowess of unconscious thought.[4] The first hypothesis was that in complex decision making, being able to use UT will lead to better decisions than when one makes decisions immediately and is unable to use UT; the second was that when making complex decisions, users of only UT will outperform users of a combination of UT and CT.

The standard UTT experimental paradigm is as follows:

  1. Subjects are instructed to perform the complex task of “forming an impression” of four decision objects (e.g., apartments, potential roommates, or cars – things for which one must consider many variables).
  2. Subjects are presented with a set of normatively positive or negative descriptive attributes for each object (For example, two positive attributes are: Apartment 2 is in the city center and, Apartment 3 is fairly large). One object is rationally the “best” choice based on its possession of a majority of positive attributes (75%), while two of the other three are “mediocre” choices and the last one a “bad” choice (possessing only 50% or 25% positive attributes, respectively).
  3. Subjects are placed into one of three conditions and then told that they will have to evaluate or decide between the decision objects. A Distraction condition requires subjects to focus on a complex task like solving anagrams, preventing any conscious thought but allowing for unconscious thought. A Deliberation condition requires subjects to think about their evaluation of the objects, allowing both conscious and unconscious thought. A third Control condition requires subjects to report their answer immediately, allowing only for minimal conscious and unconscious thought.
  4. Which object is chosen most by each group (i.e., the normatively good, okay, or poor object) reveals differences in decision-making effectiveness between unconscious thought (Distraction), unconscious and conscious thought together (Deliberation), and minimal thought (Control).

Using this method, Dijksterhuis found that subjects in the Distraction condition made better choices than either the Deliberation or Control conditions, and concluded that unconscious thought alone is superior to conscious thought for making complex decisions. He then published unconscious thought theory[8] with Loran Nordgren.[2]

From UTT: six principles distinguishing UT from CT

The unconscious thought principle

The Unconscious Thought Principle asserts the existence and nature of two kinds of thought: conscious and unconscious. Conscious thought is defined as “object-relevant or task-relevant cognitive or affective thought processes that occur while the object or task is the focus of one’s unconscious attention,” while unconscious thought simply occurs when the object or task is outside of attention.[8]

The capacity principle

According to cognitive psychologist George Miller, one cannot hold more than seven items, plus or minus two, in conscious working memory; unconscious thought does not have this restriction.[9] UTT’s Capacity Principle assumes this seven plus-or-minus-two rule to be true.[8]

The bottom-up versus top-down principle

Given its low capacity, conscious thought must use a “top-down” style of processing that uses shortcuts or schemas to work efficiently. Because its capacity is unbounded, unconscious thought instead uses a “bottom-up” style of processing that avoids schemas, integrating information efficiently and avoiding the bias that schemas might bring to conscious thought.[8]

The weighting principle

Research by Timothy Wilson and Jonathan Schooler[10] demonstrated how deliberation between choice objects and introspecting on one’s reasoning process results in poorer choice satisfaction than when one does not introspect. Combining this finding with Dijksterhuis’[4] that people also apparently make better decisions when distracted than when deliberating, Dijksterhuis and Nordgren[8] posited The Weighting Principle: that unconscious thought is better than conscious thought at appropriately weighting the relative importance of choice objects’ attributes.

The rule principle

According to Guy Claxton, conscious thought employs rule-based thinking, following formal rules much like those of traditional logic, whereas unconscious thought instead uses associations that are either inherent or learned through experience, as in classical conditioning. In agreement with Claxton, The Rule Principle[8] holds that conscious thought follows stringent rules and is accordingly precise, whereas unconscious thought engages in associative processing. It is important to note that unconscious thought may conform to rules even though it does not follow them. That is, although the process used to generate an output unconsciously is different than the process used in conscious thought, unconscious thought’s output may well be identical or similar to that of conscious thought.

The convergence principle

When asked about the secret behind their brilliant work, Nobel Prize winners and famous artists have often cited incubation, saying that simply understanding the problem they wanted to solve and not paying mind to it somehow procured a solution. In addition to these introspective accounts, The Convergence Principle[8] cites experiments demonstrating the merits of unconscious thought in creativity[11] to suggest that conscious thought is focused and “convergent,” using only information directly relevant to a goal or task, while unconscious thought is more “divergent,” bringing to bear information that has less obvious relation to the goal or task at hand. In this way, long periods of unconscious thought precipitate ingenuity where conscious thought would stagnate.

Challenges to UTT

Recent challenges to UTT have argued that UTT has failed to incorporate relevant cognitive and social psychological knowledge,[12] that the suggestion given by Dijksterhuis to use UT for complex decisions is inappropriate in certain choice environments,[13] and offer alternative interpretations of Dijksterhuis’ and his colleagues’ findings.[14][15] The earliest meta-analysis of UTT, done by Acker,[16] found no clear advantage of UT over CT in complex decision making; a distribution of the 17 effect sizes presented by Acker is shown in Figure 4 of his article. If the effects were not so widely distributed, the overall effect size would more convincingly suggest a weak advantage of UT over CT. It has also been argued that attentional processes during unconscious thought affect processes critical for decision making.[17]


It is known that unconscious thought can interpret single words or images, and that deliberating over a simple problem for too long can be disadvantageous. It remains unclear under what circumstances, if any, it is best to delegate decision problems to one’s unconscious by diverting attention from them (see Payne,[13] Waroquier[14] and Srinivasan & Mukherjee[18]), and to what extent logical, rule-based thought processes can occur outside of awareness. More fundamentally, it is still unknown what exactly happens neurologically when unconscious thought occurs, a more thorough understanding of which may inform those trying to prescribe unconscious or conscious thought. (Antonio Damasio’s recent book on the neurology of reason, Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, while not a discussion of consciousness, argues for the existence of an evolved interaction that takes place in normal brains between emotion – an unconscious process, distinct from the conscious experience of feeling – and conscious reasoning.)

See also


  1. ^ Dijksterhuis, A. Unconscious Lab: Ap Dijksterhuis [cited June 6, 2010]; Available from:
  2. ^ a b Nordgren, L. Loran Nordgren [cited June 6, 2010]; Available from:
  3. ^ a b c Greenwald, A., New Look 3: Unconscious Cognition Reclaimed. American Psychologist, 1992. 47.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). "Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (5): 586–598.  
  5. ^ Kihlstrom, J.F., Barnhardt, T. M., Tataryn, D. J. Implicit Perception [cited June 7, 2010]; Available from:
  6. ^ Bos, M.W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B., On the goal-dependency of unconscious thought. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008. 44: p. 1114-1120
  7. ^ a b Bos, M.W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B., On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect.. Science, 2006. 311(5763). p. 1005-7
  8. ^ a b c d e f g Dijksterhuis, A., Nordgren, L. F., A Theory of Unconscious Thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2006. 1(2)
  9. ^ Miller, G.A., The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 1994. 101(2)
  10. ^ Wilson, T.D., Schooler, J. W., Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991. 60(2)
  11. ^ Dijksterhuis, A., Meurs, T., Where creativity resides: The generative power of unconscious thought. Consciousness and Cognition, 2006. 15: p. 135-146
  12. ^ González-Vallejo, C., et al., "Save angels perhaps": A critical examination of unconscious thought theory and the deliberation-without-attention effect. Review of General Psychology, 2008. 12(3): p. 282-296
  13. ^ a b Payne, J.W., Samper, A., Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., Boundary Conditions on Unconscious Thought in Complex Decision Making. Psychological Science, 2008. 19(11)
  14. ^ a b Waroquier, L.; Marchiori, D.; Klein, O.; Cleeremans, A. (2010). "Is It Better to Think Unconsciously or to Trust Your First Impression? A Reassessment of Unconscious Thought Theory". Social Psychological and Personality Science 1 (2): 111–118.  
  15. ^ Lassiter, G.D., Lindberg, M. J., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., Bellezza, F. S., & Phillips, N. D., The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect: Evidence for an Artifactual Interpretation. Psychological Science, 2009. 20(6): p. 671
  16. ^ Acker, F., New findings on unconscious versus conscious thought in decision making: additional empirical data and meta-analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 2008. 3(4)
  17. ^ Srinivasan, N., Mukherjee, S., Mishra, M. V., & Kesarwani, S. (2013). Evaluating the role of attention in the context of unconscious thought theory: Differential impact of attentional scope and load on preference and memory. Frontiers in Psychology 4:37. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00037
  18. ^ Srinivasan, N.; Mukherjee, S. (2010). "Attribute preference and selection in multi-attribute decision making: Implications for unconscious and conscious thought". Consciousness and Cognition 19 (2): 644–652 PDF. 

External links

  • Ap Dijksterhuis' Lab website
Dijksterhuis’ collaborators’ research
  • Loran Nordgren
  • Pamela Smith
  • Chenbo Zhong
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.