IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v4y2009i6p509-517_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are complex decisions better left to the unconscious? Further failed replications of the deliberation-without-attention effect

Author

Listed:
  • Calvillo, Dustin P.
  • Penaloza, Alan

Abstract

The deliberation-without-attention effect occurs when better decisions are made when people experience a period of distraction before a decision than when they make decisions immediately or when they spend time reflecting on the alternatives. This effect has been explained (e.g., Dijksterhuis, 2004) by the claim that people engage in unconscious deliberation when distracted and that unconscious thought is better suited for complex decisions than conscious thought. Experiments 1, 2A, and 2B in this study included a dominant alternative and failed to find evidence for this effect. Experiment 3 removed the dominant alternative and manipulated mode of thought within-subjects to eliminate alternative explanations for the failed replication. In all experiments participants did not make better decisions after unconscious thought; decisions were consistently better than chance when made immediately after the encoding of information. Encouraging people not to think about complex decisions appears to be unwarranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Calvillo, Dustin P. & Penaloza, Alan, 2009. "Are complex decisions better left to the unconscious? Further failed replications of the deliberation-without-attention effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(6), pages 509-517, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:509-517_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004046/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:509-517_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.