CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 652Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychology of Social Influence

Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review

Open access
Newell, Ben R., Shanks, David R.·2014·Behavioral and Brain Sciences
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x12003214
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To what extent do we know our own minds when making decisions? Variants of this question have preoccupied researchers in a wide range of domains, from mainstream experimental psychology (cognition, perception, social behavior) to cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics. A pervasive view places a heavy explanatory burden on an intelligent cognitive unconscious, with many theories assigning causally effective roles to unconscious influences. This article presents a novel framework for evaluating these claims and reviews evidence from three major bodies of research in which unconscious factors have been studied: multiple-cue judgment, deliberation without attention, and decisions under uncertainty. Studies of priming (subliminal and primes-to-behavior) and the role of awareness in movement and perception (e.g., timing of willed actions, blindsight) are also given brief consideration. The review highlights that inadequate procedures for assessing awareness, failures to consider artifactual explanations of "landmark" results, and a tendency to uncritically accept conclusions that fit with our intuitions have all contributed to unconscious influences being ascribed inflated and erroneous explanatory power in theories of decision making. The review concludes by recommending that future research should focus on tasks in which participants' attention is diverted away from the experimenter's hypothesis, rather than the highly reflective tasks that are currently often employed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x12003214

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Answering questions about the environmental causes of attitudes requires tight control over the stimulus event responsible for the attitude, reliable measures of evaluation, adequate measures of awareness, and sensitive analytic procedures, all of which raise significant methodological challenges.

    “Answering these questions requires tight control over the stimulus event that is responsible for the attitude, reliable measures of evaluation, adequate measures of awareness, and sensitive analytic procedures, all of which raise significant methodological challenges (see Newell & Shanks 2014, Shanks et al. 2021).”

    From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Newell & Shanks 2014

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 276 · Cited by 652

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Adair, J. G. & Spinner, B. (1981) Subjects' access to cognitive processes: Demand characteristics and verbal report. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 11:31-52.
  2. Ariely, D. & Norton, M. I. (2011) From thinking too little to thinking too much: A continuum of decision making. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2:39-46.
  3. Arkes, H. R. (1981) Impediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 49:323-30.
  4. Azzopardi, P. & Cowey, A. (1997) Is blindsight like normal, near-threshold vision? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:14190-94.
  5. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M. & Burrows, L. (1996) Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:230-44.
  6. Baron, J. (2008) Thinking & deciding (4th Edition). Cambridge University Press.
  7. Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J. & Vohs, K. D. (2011) Do conscious thoughts cause behavior? Annual Review of Psychology 62:331-61.
  8. Benson, B. L., Anguera, J. A. & Seidler, R. D. (2011) A spatial explicit strategy reduces error but interferes with sensorimotor adaptation. Journal of Neurophysiology 105:2843-51.
  9. Bhalla, M. & Proffitt, D. R. (1999) Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25:1076-96.
  10. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M. & Fallman, J. L. (2004b) The automaticity of race and Afrocentric facial features in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:763-78.
  11. Bos, M. W., Dijksterhuis, A. & van Baaren, R. (2011) The benefits of "sleeping on things": Unconscious thought leads to automatic weighting. Journal of Consumer Psychology 21:4-8.
  12. Brooks, L. R., Norman, G. R. & Allen, S. W. (1991) The role of specific similarity in a medical diagnostic task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120:278-87.
  13. Brooks, L. R. & Vokey, J. R. (1991) Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989) Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120:316-23.
  14. Brunswik, E. (1952) The conceptual framework of psychology. University of Chicago Press.
  15. Dawson, M. E. & Reardon, P. (1973) Construct validity of recall and recognition postconditioning measures of awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology 98:308-15.
  16. Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R. & Hoffrage, U. (2004) The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin 130:959-88.
  17. Dijksterhuis, A. (2004) Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:586-98.
  18. Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., van Knippenberg, A. & Scheepers, D. (1998) Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75:862-71.
  19. Dixon, N. F. (1971) Subliminal perception: The nature of a controversy. McGraw- Hill.
  20. Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K. & Waymouth, S. (2009) Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16:964-968.
  21. Edwards, W. & Fasolo, B. (2001) Decision technology. Annual Review of Psychology 52:581-606.
  22. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87:215-51.
  23. Evans, C. E. Y., Bowman, C. H. & Turnbull, O. H. (2005) Subjective awareness on the Iowa Gambling Task: The key role of emotional experience in schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 27:656-64.
  24. Gámez, E., Díaz, J. M. & Marrero, H. (2011) The uncertain universality of the Macbeth effect with a Spanish sample. Spanish Journal of Psychology 14:156-62.
  25. Gavanski, I. & Hoffman, C. (1987) Awareness of influences on one's own judgments: The roles of covariation detection and attention to the judgment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:453-63.
  26. Gigerenzer, G. (2007) Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. Viking Press.
  27. Gladwell, M. (2005) Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Penguin.
  28. Glöckner, A. & Betsch, T. (2008) Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition 34:1055-75.
  29. González-Vallejo, C., Lassiter, G. D., Bellezza, F. S. & Lindberg, M. J. (2008) "Save angels perhaps": A critical examination of unconscious thought theory and the deliberation-without-attention effect. Review of General Psychology 12:282- 96.
  30. Guerin, B. & Innes, J. M. (1981) Awareness of cognitive processes: Replications and revisions. Journal of General Psychology 104:173-89.
  31. Hammond, K. R. (1996) Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavailable injustice. Oxford University Press.
  32. Hammond, K. R. & Stewart, T. R., eds. (2001) The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications. Oxford University Press.
  33. Hassin, R. R., Ferguson, M. J., Shidlovski, D. & Gross, T. (2007) Subliminal exposure to national flags affects political thought and behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:19757-61.
  34. Hastie, R. & Park, B. (1986) The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review 93:258-68.
  35. Hogarth, R. M. (2001) Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press.
  36. Ikomi, P. A. & Guion, R. M. (2000) The prediction of judgment in realistic tasks: An investigation of self-insight. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 10:135-53.
  37. Karelaia, N. & Hogarth, R. M. (2008) Determinants of linear judgment: A meta- analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin 134:404-26.
  38. Klein, G. (1993) A recognition primed decision (RDP) model of rapid decision making. In: Decision making in action: Models and methods, ed. G. Klein, J. Oransu, R. Calderwood & C. Zsambok, pp. 138-47. Ablex.
  39. Lagnado, D. A., Newell, B. R., Kahan, S. & Shanks, D. R. (2006) Insight and strategy in multiple cue learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135:162-83.
  40. Lerouge, D. (2009) Evaluating the benefits of distraction on product evaluations: The mind-set effect. Journal of Consumer Research 36:367-79.
  41. Li, Y. & Epley, N. (2009) When the best appears to be saved for last: Serial position effects on choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22:378-89.
  42. Lovibond, P. F. & Shanks, D. R. (2002) The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 28:3-26.
  43. Maia, T. V. & McClelland, J. L. (2004) A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa Gambling Task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:16075- 80.
  44. Meehl, P. E. (1954) Clinical vs. statistical prediction. University of Minnesota Press.
  45. Miller, J. (2000) Measurement error in subliminal perception experiments: Simulation analyses of two regression methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1461-77.
  46. Newell, B. R. & Bright, J. E. H. (2002) Well past midnight: Calling time on implicit invariant learning? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 14:185-205.
  47. Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A. & Shanks, D. R. (2007) Straight choices: The psychology of decision making. Psychology Press.
  48. Newell, B. R., Wong, K. Y., Cheung, J. C. & Rakow, T. (2009) Think, blink or sleep on it? The impact of modes of thought on complex decision making. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62:707-32.
  49. Nordgren, L. F., Bos M. W. & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011) The best of both worlds: Integrating conscious and unconscious thought best solves complex decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47:509-11.
  50. Overgaard, M. (2011) Visual experience and blindsight: A methodological review. Experimental Brain Research 209:473-79.
  51. Pothos, E. M. (2007) Theories of artificial grammar learning. Psychological Bulletin 133:227-44.
  52. Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J. & Hoover, M. A. (2009) How to influence choice by monitoring gaze. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed.
  53. Rolison, J. J., Evans, J. St. B. T., Walsh, C. R. & Dennis, I. (2011) The role of working memory capacity in multiple-cue probability learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64:1494-514.
  54. Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L. & Pratte, M. S. (2007) Detecting chance: A solution to the null sensitivity problem in subliminal priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14:597-605.
  55. Slovic, P., Fleissner, D. & Bauman, W. S. (1972) Analyzing the use of information in investment decision making: A methodological proposal. Journal of Business 45:283-301.
  56. Smith, E. R. & Miller, F. D. (1978) Limits on perception of cognitive processes: A reply to Nisbett and Wilson. Psychological Review 85:355-62.
  57. Speekenbrink, M. & Shanks, D. R. (2010) Learning in a changing environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 139:266-98.
  58. Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A. & Bloom, P. (2008) Varieties of social cognition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 38:293-322.
  59. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D. & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011) Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:432-36.
  60. Wegner, D. M., Sparrow, B. & Winerman, L. (2004) Vicarious agency: Experiencing control over the movements of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:838-48.
  61. Weisberg, R. W. (2006) Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Wiley.
  62. Weiskrantz, L. (1986) Blindsight: A case study and implications. Oxford University Press.
  63. White, P. (1980) Limitations on verbal reports of internal events: A refutation of Nisbett and Wilson and of Bem. Psychological Review 87:105-12.
  64. White, P. A. (1988) Knowing more about what we can tell: "Introspective access" and causal report accuracy 10 years later. British Journal of Psychology 79:13-45.
  65. White, P. A. (1989) Evidence for the use of information about internal events to improve the accuracy of causal reports. British Journal of Psychology 80:375- 82.
  66. Wilson, T. D. (2002) Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Belknap Press.
  67. Winkielman, P., Berridge, K. C. & Wilbarger, J. L. (2005) Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31:121- 35.
  68. Wright, P. & Rip, P. D. (1981) Retrospective reports on the causes of decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40:601-14.

Authors
Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2014-01-24
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
DOI
10.1017/s0140525x12003214
OpenAlex
W2116035131
Cited by
652
References
276
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 11
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP0877510)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
unconscious influence, decision-making, awareness, priming, subliminal perception, blindsight, action timing, cognitive unconscious
MeSH terms
Awareness, Decision Making, Emotions, Humans, Judgment, Models, Psychological, Unconscious, Psychology, Uncertainty

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