The Challenge of Inferring Unconscious Mental Processes
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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 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
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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