A New Look at Unconscious Thought Theory: Elicitation of Dynamically Varying Strategies

Abstract

Unconscious thought theory (UTT) suggests that people apply compensatory strategy (weighting) in unconscious thought (UT) in complex decisions (e.g., multiple alternatives and attributes) (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006; Dijksterhuis & Strick, 2016). However, some researchers have reported different findings of the strategies elicit during UT. Payne et al. (2008) indicated that people relied on compensatory strategy (Dawes) in UT, but others argued that people use a noncompensatory (lexicographic) strategy instead (Huizenga, Wetzel, Ravenzwaaij, & Wagenmakers, 2012). Thus, these empirical studies have shown mixed results. In this article, our study aims to replicate the unconscious thought effect (UTE) and reconcile the controversy by introducing the prominence effect. To clarify the ostensible controversy, three studies involving 800 participants were conducted. The results replicated the UTE and suggested that weighting was more widely elicited than Dawes in UT when the importance of alternatives’ attributes that were not identical and combinations that were extreme. In addition, the controversy between weighting and lexicographic strategies stemmed from the varying strategies elicited by the degree of difference (e.g., decisive versus nondecisive) between primary and other dimensions of the alternatives. In a nondecisive situation, UT tends to elicit a weighting strategy; conversely, it tends to elicit a lexicographic strategy.