Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:59:56.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How necessary is the unconscious as a predictive, explanatory, or prescriptive construct?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Claudia González-Vallejo ,
Thomas R. Stewart ,
G. Daniel Lassiter  and
Justin M. Weindhardt
Claudia González-Vallejo
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.ohioupsychology.com/
Thomas R. Stewart
Affiliation:
Center for Policy Research and Department of Public Administration and Policy, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222. [email protected]://www.albany.edu/cpr/
G. Daniel Lassiter
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.ohioupsychology.com/
Justin M. Weindhardt
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.ohioupsychology.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We elucidate the epistemological futility of using concepts such as unconscious thinking in research. Focusing on Newell & Shanks' (N&S's) use of the lens model as a framework, we clarify issues with regard to unconscious-thought theory (UTT) and self-insight studies. We examine these key points: Brunswikian psychology is absent in UTT; research on self-insight did not emerge to explore the unconscious; the accuracy of judgments does not necessitate the unconscious; and the prescriptive claim of UTT is unfounded.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 28
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

Bem, J. D. (1972) Self-perception theory. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 6, ed. Berkowitz, L., pp. 1–62. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, M. A. & Trout, J. D. (2005) Epistemology and the psychology of human judgment. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1952) The conceptual framework of psychology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1979) The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist 34(7):571–82.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A. & Nordgren, L. F. (2006) A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives in Psychological Science 1:95–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, S. (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American psychologist 49(8):709–24.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (2003) Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In: Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Vol. 5: Personality and social psychology, ed. Millon, T. & Lerner, M. J., pp. 159–84. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Vallejo, C., Lassiter, G. D., Bellezza, F. S. & Lindberg, M. J. (2008) “Save angels perhaps”: A critical examination of unconscious thought theory and the deliberation-without-attention effect. Review of General Psychology 12(3):282–96.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (1992) New look 3: Unconscious cognition reclaimed. American Psychologist 47:766–79.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R. (1955) Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological Review 62(4):255–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, K. R. (1986) A theoretically based review of theory and research in judgment and decision making. University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R. (1996) Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R. & Adelman, L. (1976) Science, values, and human judgment. Science 194:389–96.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J. & Pearson, T. (1997) Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. In: Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies, ed. Goldstein, W. M. & Hogarth, R. M., pp. 144–80. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R. & Stewart, T. R., eds. (2001) The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane and Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Karelaia, N. & Hogarth, R. M. (2008) Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin 134(3):404–26.Google Scholar
Phaf, R. H. & Wolters, G. (1997) A constructivist and connectionist view on conscious and nonconscious processes. Philosophical Psychology 10(3):287–307.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. & The PDP Research Group (1986) Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1: Foundations. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, T. R., Roebber, P. J. & Bosart, L. F. (1997) The importance of the task in analyzing expert judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69(3):205–19.Google Scholar