Automaticity: Componential, Causal, and Mechanistic Explanations
Abstract
The review first discusses componential explanations of automaticity, which specify non/automaticity features (e.g., un/controlled, un/conscious, non/efficient, fast/slow) and their interrelations. Reframing these features as factors that influence processes (e.g., goals, attention, and time) broadens the range of factors that can be considered (e.g., adding stimulus intensity and representational quality). The evidence reviewed challenges the view of a perfect coherence among goals, attention, and consciousness, and supports the alternative view that (a) these and other factors influence the quality of representations in an additive way (e.g., little time can be compensated by extra attention or extra stimulus intensity) and that (b) a first threshold of this quality is required for unconscious processing and a second threshold for conscious processing. The review closes with a discussion of causal explanations of automaticity, which specify factors involved in automatization such as repetition and complexity, and a discussion of mechanistic explanations, which specify the low-level processes underlying automatization.
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?
Many physiological measures capture responses much faster than traditional self-report measures, so discrepancies between physiological and self-report measures may be driven by differences in the time window of measured responses rather than lack of awareness.
“many physiological measures capture responses to stimuli that are much faster than responses on traditional self-report measures (e.g., event-related potentials). In these cases, discrepancies be- tween physiological and self-report measures may be driven by differences in the time window of the measured responses rather than lack of awareness (Cunningham et al. 2007,Moors 2016).”
From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Moors 2016
Cites
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881 · see citing works
A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness
O'Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01000115 · Cited by 3,126 · see citing works
Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework
Dehaene, S. (2001) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2 · Cited by 2,498 · see citing works
The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing
Lamme, V. A. F., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01657-x · Cited by 2,338 · see citing works
Mechanisms of visual attention in the human cortex
Ungerleider, S. K. A. L. G. (2000) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.315 · Cited by 2,159 · see citing works
What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it?
Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1411 · Cited by 1,766 · see citing works
Neural processing of emotional faces requires attention
Pessoa, L., McKenna, M., Gutierrez, E., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.172403899 · Cited by 1,155 · see citing works
The Human Amygdala: An Evolved System for Relevance Detection
Sander, D., Grafman, J., & Zalla, T. (2003) · Reviews in the Neurosciences · doi:10.1515/revneuro.2003.14.4.303 · Cited by 944 · cited 1× · see citing works
“2013), but this often can be unpacked as goal relevance, threat value, negativity, valence, or arousal (Sander et al. 2003).”
BackgroundInteractions between attention and working memory
Awh, E., Vogel, E. K., & Oh, S.-H. (2006) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.08.023 · Cited by 883 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Attention search can be understood as the directing of attention across the perceptual field while keeping the representation of a stimulus/feature active (Awh et al. 2006).”
BackgroundA neoHebbian framework for episodic memory; role of dopamine-dependent late LTP
Lisman, J., Grace, A. A., & Duzel, E. (2011) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2011.07.006 · Cited by 465 · see citing works
Engelmann, J. B. (2009) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/neuro.09.004.2009 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Frontal cortex mediates unconsciously triggered inhibitory control.
van Gaal, S., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Fahrenfort, J. J., Scholte, H. S., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2008) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1278-08.2008 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Information integration without awareness
Mudrik, L., Faivre, N., & Koch, C. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.009 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Distinct brain mechanisms for conscious versus subliminal error detection
Charles, L., Van Opstal, F., Marti, S., & Dehaene, S. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.054 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
What is top-down about contingent capture?
Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/app.72.2.326 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Pohl, C., Berner, M. P., & Hoffmann, J. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0014499 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Young, A. W., & Burton, A. M. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.007 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
On the automaticity of language processing.
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Moors, A. (2017) · Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge. · doi:10.1037/15969-010 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationUnawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects
Gawronski, B., & Corneille, O. (2025) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-051324-031037 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Moors, A.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Moors, Agnes
- ORCID
- Moors, Agnes
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2016-01-04
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 263-287
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W1937151088
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Universiteit Gent (BOF09/01 M00209, 01M00209)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- automaticity, causal explanation, mechanistic explanation, unconscious processes, conscious processing, stimulus intensity, attention, goals, time, automation, repetition, task complexity
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Consciousness, Goals, Humans
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
