Not Merely Experiential: Unconscious Thought Can Be Rational

Abstract

Individuals often form more reasonable judgments from complex information after a period of distraction vs. deliberation. This phenomenon has been attributed to sophisticated unconscious thought during the distraction period that integrates and organizes the information (Unconscious Thought Theory; Dijksterhuis and Nordgren, 2006). Yet, other research suggests that experiential processes are strengthened during the distraction (relative to deliberation) period, accounting for the judgment and decision benefit. We tested between these possibilities, hypothesizing that unconscious thought is distinct from experiential processes, and independently contributes to judgments and decisions during a distraction period. Using an established paradigm, Experiment 1 (N = 319) randomly induced participants into an experiential or rational mindset, after which participants received complex information describing three roommates to then consider consciously (i.e., deliberation) or unconsciously (i.e., distraction). Results revealed superior roommate judgments (but not choices) following distraction vs. deliberation, consistent with Unconscious Thought Theory. Mindset did not have an influence on roommate judgments. However, planned tests revealed a significant advantage of distraction only within the rational-mindset condition, which is contrary to the idea that experiential processing alone facilitates complex decision-making during periods of distraction. In a second experiment (N = 136), we tested whether effects of unconscious thought manifest for a complex analytical reasoning task for which experiential processing would offer no advantage. As predicted, participants in an unconscious thought condition outperformed participants in a control condition, suggesting that unconscious thought can be analytical. In sum, the current results support the existence of unconscious thinking processes that are distinct from experiential processes, and can be rational. Thus, the experiential vs. rational nature of a process might not cleanly delineate conscious and unconscious thought.

You Eat How You Think: A Review on the Impact of Cognitive Styles on Food Perception and Behavior

“…One major difference resides in HLC focusing on geometric cerebral guidelines that mediate the cognitive styles and CEST focusing on the behavioral outputs. Another differentiating factor of CEST is that it classifies individuals on type of thought (automatic versus deliberate) rather than on actual cognitive styles [70,71]. Within the analytic-holistic theory, the behavioral tendencies of CEST and HLC are both seen, without the limiting factors of different thought types or the debate on the theoretical accuracy and validity of hemispheric lateralization [64,72].…”

Toward a theory of conscious–nonconscious processing and getting hard (and easy) things done in everyday life.

“…A nonconsciously observed stimulus triggers a response if the stimulus–response association has previously been formed through frequent repetition (e.g., Atas et al, 2013; Kunde et al, 2012). The nonconscious mind is good at detecting recurring patterns (Lewicki et al, 1992) and following rules to solve problems in various contexts (Garrison & Handley, 2017).…”

Performance and Material-Dependent Holistic Representation of Unconscious Thought: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

“…In psychological research, the existence of UT is denied unless a significant difference is obtained. Furthermore, in this research field, it is debated whether the UT task indeed guarantees that the individual’s thinking process is unconscious (Newell and Shanks, 2014; Garrison and Handley, 2017). However, on examining the relationship with brain activity, as shown in the present study, the correlation between the UT effect and the brain activity of the individual reveals the neural basis of UT as well as possibly proving that UT exists for some individuals.…”