IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i5p578-581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Unconscious Thought Effect in Clinical Decision Making: An Example in Diagnosis

Author

Listed:
  • Marieke de Vries

    (Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands, M.deVries@lumc.nl)

  • Cilia L. M. Witteman

    (Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Rob W. Holland

    (Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Ap Dijksterhuis

    (Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The unconscious thought effect refers to improved judgments and decisions after a period of distraction. The authors studied the unconscious thought effect in a complex and error-prone part of clinical decision making: diagnosis. Their aim was to test whether conscious versus unconscious processing influenced diagnosis of psychiatric cases. They used case descriptions from the DSM-IV casebook. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to the conscious-processing-condition (i.e., consciously thinking about the information they read in the case description), the other half to the unconscious-processing condition (i.e., performing an unrelated distracter task). The main dependent measure was the total number of correct classifications. Compared to conscious processing, unconscious processing significantly increased the number of correct classifications. The results show the potential merits of unconscious processing in diagnostic decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Marieke de Vries & Cilia L. M. Witteman & Rob W. Holland & Ap Dijksterhuis, 2010. "The Unconscious Thought Effect in Clinical Decision Making: An Example in Diagnosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 578-581, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5:p:578-581
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09360820
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09360820
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09360820?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davy Lerouge, 2009. "Evaluating the Benefits of Distraction on Product Evaluations: The Mind-Set Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 367-379.
    2. Olga Kostopoulou & Jurriaan Oudhoff & Radhika Nath & Brendan C. Delaney & Craig W. Munro & Clare Harries & Roger Holder, 2008. "Predictors of Diagnostic Accuracy and Safe Management in Difficult Diagnostic Problems in Family Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 668-680, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Nieuwenstein & Hedderik van Rijn, 2012. "The unconscious thought advantage: Further replication failures from a search for confirmatory evidence," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 779-798, November.
    2. Hasford, Jonathan & Hardesty, David M. & Kidwell, Blair, 2019. "Deliberation or distraction: How the presentation format of choice information impacts complex decision making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 195-205.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:779-798 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Olga Kostopoulou & Christos Mousoulis & Brendan Delaney, 2009. "Information search and information distortion in the diagnosis of an ambiguous presentation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 408-418, August.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:351-358 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Barney Tan & Cheng Yi & Hock C. Chan, 2015. "Research Note—Deliberation Without Attention: The Latent Benefits of Distracting Website Features for Online Purchase Decisions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 437-455, June.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:572-585 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:408-418 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:601-610 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2014. "Manipulating decision making of typical agents," Papers 1409.0636, arXiv.org.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:779-798 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Balazs Aczel & Bence Lukacs & Judit Komlos & Michael R. F. Aitken, 2011. "Unconscious intuition or conscious analysis? Critical questions for the Deliberation-Without-Attention paradigm," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(4), pages 351-358, June.
    11. Selin Atalay, A. & Onur Bodur, H. & Bressoud, Etienne, 2017. "When and How Multitasking Impacts Consumer Shopping Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 187-200.
    12. Nicholas Riches & Maria Panagioti & Rahul Alam & Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi & Stephen Campbell & Aneez Esmail & Peter Bower, 2016. "The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, March.
    13. Carolina Werle & Brian Wansink & Collin Payne, 2015. "Is it fun or exercise? The framing of physical activity biases subsequent snacking," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 691-702, December.
    14. Martine Nurek & Olga Kostopoulou & York Hagmayer, 2014. "Predecisional information distortion in physicians' diagnostic judgments: Strengthening a leading hypothesis or weakening its competitor?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 572-585, November.
    15. Mark Nieuwenstein & Hedderik van Rijn, 2012. "The unconscious thought advantage: Further replication failures from a search for confirmatory evidence," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 779-798, November.

    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:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5:p:578-581. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.