Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:25:53.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Newell and Shanks' approach to psychology is a dead end

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Ap Dijksterhuis ,
Ad van Knippenberg ,
Rob W. Holland  and
Harm Veling
Ap Dijksterhuis
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ru.nl
Ad van Knippenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ru.nl
Rob W. Holland
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ru.nl
Harm Veling
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Newell & Shanks (N&S) criticize theories on decision making that include unconscious processes. To the extent that their own perspective becomes apparent, however, it is dated, implausible, and at odds with the major developments of the past decades. Their conclusions are, at least for research areas we feel entitled to evaluate, based on a biased sampling of the literature.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 25 - 26
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.Google Scholar
Bos, M. W., Dijksterhuis, A. & van Baaren, R. B. (2008) On the goal-dependency of unconscious thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology 44:1114–20.Google Scholar
Creswell, D., Bursley, J. & Satpute, A. (2013) Neural reactivation links unconscous thought to decision making performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 8:863–69.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Changeux, J., Naccache, L., Sackur, J. & Sergent, C. (2006) Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:204–11.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A. & Aarts, H. (2010) Goals, attention, and (un)consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology 61:467–90. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100445.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006a) Complex choices better made unconsciously? Science, 313, 760–61.Google Scholar
Ham, J. & van den Bos, K. (2010a) On unconscious morality: The effects of unconscious thinking on moral decision making. Social Cognition 28:74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, J. & van den Bos, K. (2010b) The merits of unconscious processing of directly and indirectly obtained information about social justice. Social Cognition 28:180–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, J. & van den Bos, K. (2011) On unconscious and conscious thought and accuracy of implicit and explicit judgments. Social Cognition 29:648–67.Google Scholar
Ham, J., van den Bos, K. & van Doorn, E. (2009) Lady Justice thinks unconsciously: Unconscious thought can lead to more accurate justice judgments. Social Cognition 27:509–21.Google Scholar
Handley, I. M. & Runnion, B. M. (2011) Evidence that unconscious thinking influences persuasion based on argument quality. Social Cognition 29:668–82.Google Scholar
Koch, C. & Tsuchiya, N. (2006) Attention and consciousness: Two distinct brain processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:16–22.Google Scholar
Lamme, V. A. F. (2003) Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:12–18.Google Scholar
Libet, B. (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8:529–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Messner, C. & Wänke, M. (2011) Unconscious information processing reduces information overload and increases product satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Psychology 21:9–13.CrossRefGoogle 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.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
van Gaal, S., Lamme, V. A. F., Fahrenfort, J. J., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2011) Dissociable brain mechanisms underlying the conscious and unconscious control of behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(1):91–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegner, D. M. & Bargh, J. A. (1998) Control and automaticity in social life. In: The handbook of social psychology, ed. Fiske, S. T. & Gilbert, D. T., pp. 446–96. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zedelius, C., Veling, H. & Aarts, H. (2012) When unconscious rewards boost cognitive task performance inefficiently: The role of consciousness in integrating value and attainability information. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Research 6:219.Google ScholarPubMed