Cited by 40Memory Processes and InfluencesPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The Challenge of Inferring Unconscious Mental Processes

Open access
Shanks, David R., Malejka, Simone, Vadillo, Miguel A.·2021·Experimental Psychology

Abstract

Studies of unconscious mental processes often compare a performance measure (e.g., some assessment of perception or memory) with a measure of awareness (e.g., a verbal report or forced-choice response) of the critical cue or contingency taken either concurrently or separately. The resulting patterns of bivariate data across participants lend themselves to several analytic approaches for inferring the existence of unconscious mental processes, but it is rare for researchers to consider the underlying generative processes that might cause these patterns. We show that bivariate data are generally insufficient to discriminate single-process models, with a unitary latent process determining both performance and awareness, from dual-process models, comprising distinct latent processes for performance and awareness. Future research attempting to isolate and investigate unconscious processes will need to employ richer types of data and analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1618-3169/a000517

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

No citation lists for this paper

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

References 103 · Cited by 40

Authors
Shanks, D. R., Malejka, S., & Vadillo, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
Venue
Experimental Psychology
Published
2021-05
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
113-129
ISSN
  • 0949-3964 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-3169
  • 2190-5142
OpenAlex
W3196256748
Cited by
40
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10
FWCI
3.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/P009522/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
unconscious mental processes, dual-process models, single-process models, bivariate data, latent processes, model discrimination, verbal protocols, perception, memory
MeSH terms
Awareness, Humans, Mental Processes, 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