IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Four empirical tests of Unconscious Thought Theory

  • Huizenga, Hilde M.
  • Wetzels, Ruud
  • van Ravenzwaaij, Don
  • Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
Registered author(s):

    According to Unconscious Thought Theory, people make better decisions after unconscious than after conscious thought (Dijksterhuis, Bos, Nordgren, & van Baaren, 2006a). Unconscious Thought Theory yields four specific predictions. First, an exact replication of Dijksterhuis et al. (2006a) study should indicate that unconscious decisions are superior to conscious decisions. Second, decisions should improve with duration of conscious thought. Third, unconscious decisions should be superior to conscious decisions, even if unconscious decisions are deliberated while having access to information. Fourth, unconscious decisions should be based on a weighting strategy. We report results of four studies, featuring 480 participants, that yield no evidence in favor of these predictions. Therefore our findings cast doubt on Unconscious Thought Theory and its advice to base decisions on unconscious thought. The results of our studies suggest that it is better to base decisions on conscious thought while having access to information.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811001385
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

    Volume (Year): 117 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 332-340

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:117:y:2012:i:2:p:332-340
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Park, C Whan & Lessig, V Parker, 1981. " Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(2), pages 223-30, September.
    2. Dustin P. Calvillo & Alan Penaloza, 2009. "Are complex decisions better left to the unconscious? Further failed replications of the deliberation-without-attention effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 509-517, October.
    3. Laurent Waroquier & David Marchiori & Olivier Klein & Axel Cleeremans, 2009. "Methodological pitfalls of the Unconscious Thought paradigm," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 601-610, December.
    4. Felix Acker, 2008. "New findings on unconscious versus conscious thought in decision making: additional empirical data and meta-analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 292-303, April.
    5. Todd J. Thorsteinson & Scott Withrow, 2009. "Does unconscious thought outperform conscious thought on complex decisions? A further examination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(3), pages 235-247, April.
    6. Billings, Robert S. & Scherer, Lisa L., 1988. "The effects of response mode and importance on decision-making strategies: Judgment versus choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Slegers, David W. & Brake, Gregory L. & Doherty, Michael E., 2000. "Probabilistic Mental Models with Continuous Predictors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 98-114, January.
    8. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:117:y:2012:i:2:p:332-340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.