Control: conscious and otherwise
Abstract
Social psychologists have shown human decisions to be sensitive to numerous ordinary, possibly nonconscious, situational contingencies, motivating the view that control is largely illusory, and that our choices are largely governed by such external contingencies. Against this view is evidence that self-control and goal-maintenance are regularly displayed by humans and other animals, and evidence concerning neurobiological processes that support such control. Evolutionarily speaking, animals with a robust capacity to exercise control - both conscious and nonconscious - probably enjoyed a selective advantage. Counterbalancing data thus point to an account of control that sees an important role for nonconscious control in action and goal maintenance. We propose a conceptual model of control that encompasses such nonconscious control and links in-control behavior to neurobiological parameters.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Over time, worry as a mental behavior may become habitual and operate largely outside conscious control.
“Over time, worry as a mental behavior may be reinforced enough that it becomes habitual in nature, operating largely out of conscious control (Suhler & Churchland, 2009).”
From Can Mindfulness Mechanistically Target Worry to Improve Sleep Disturbances? Theory and Study Protocol for App-Based Anxiety Program. (2020) · cites this paper as Suhler & Churchland, 2009
Cites
Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 · Cited by 6,128 · see citing works
Delay of gratification in children.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2658056 · Cited by 3,397 · see citing works
Prefrontal executive and cognitive functions in rodents: neural and neurochemical substrates
Dalley, J. W., Cardinal, R. N., & Robbins, T. W. (2004) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.006 · Cited by 1,329 · see citing works
The Neural Correlates of Motor Skill Automaticity
Poldrack, R. A., Sabb, F. W., Foerde, K., Tom, S. M., Asarnow, R. F., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Knowlton, B. J. (2005) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3880-04.2005 · Cited by 594 · see citing works
Lifespan CognitionMechanisms of Change
Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2006) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169539.001.0001 · Cited by 525 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Border Between Seeing and Thinking
Block, N. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197622223.001.0001 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
Brewer, J. A., Elwafi, H. M., & Davis, J. H. (2013) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/a0028490 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Elwafi, H. M., Witkiewitz, K., Mallik, S., IV, T. A. T., & Brewer, J. A. (2013) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.11.015 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Richey, J. A., Brewer, J. A., Sullivan-Toole, H., Strege, M. V., Kim-Spoon, J., White, S. W., & Ollendick, T. H. (2019) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101756 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Do Theories of Implicit Race Bias Change Moral Judgments?
Cameron, C. D., Payne, B. K., & Knobe, J. (2010) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0118-z · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Pbert, L., Druker, S., Crawford, S., Frisard, C., Trivedi, M., Osganian, S. K., & Brewer, J. (2020) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-019-01273-w · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Toward an explanatory framework for mental ownership
Lane, T. (2012) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-012-9252-4 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Brewer, J. A., Roy, A., Deluty, A., Liu, T., & Hoge, E. A. (2020) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000874 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“A uthor M anuscript A uthor M anuscript A uthor M anuscript A uthor M anuscript nature, operating largely out of conscious control (Suhler & Churchland, 2009).”
Background
- Authors
- Suhler, C. L., & Churchland, P. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 341-347
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1998045389
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 0.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- self-control, conscious control, goal maintenance, situational contingencies, free will, evolutionary advantage, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain, Consciousness, Decision Making, Biological Evolution, Humans, Models, Psychological, Social Perception, Unconscious, Psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
