Cited by 70Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Unconscious information changes decision accuracy but not confidence

Open access
Vlassova, Alexandra, Donkin, Chris, Pearson, Joel·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: One of the more intriguing but controversial ideas in psychology is that unconscious information can influence our decisions without us even knowing it. Here, we explicitly tested these controversial ideas with a novel behavioral task and computational models of decision-making. We report that unconscious information can be accumulated in a similar manner but less effectively than conscious information. However, unlike conscious information, unconscious information does not seem to boost decision confidence. Our findings cannot be accounted for using existing models of priming or adaptation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1403619111

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vlassova, A., Donkin, C., & Pearson, J.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2014-10-27
Volume
111
Issue
45
Pages
16214-16218
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2025791597
Cited by
70
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
decision accuracy, metacognition, confidence, evidence accumulation, conscious awareness, diffusion models, decision-making
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Models, Psychological

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