Typing and driving a car (for the experienced typist and driver, respectively) are classic examples of the latter-both are efficient procedures that can run off outside of consciousness, but nonetheless both are intentional processes. Note how the qualities of the two not-conscious processes differ: in the New Look research, the person did not intend to engage in the process and was unaware of it in the skill-acquisition research, the person did intend to engage in the process, which, once started, was capable of running off without need of conscious guidance. Because of the monolithic nature of the definition of a conscious process-if a process does not possess all of the qualities of a conscious process, it is therefore not conscious-at least two different “not conscious” processes were studied over the course of the 20th century within largely independent research traditions that seemed barely to notice the other’s existence: the New Look research in perception involving the preconscious analysis of stimuli prior to the products of the analysis being furnished to conscious awareness, and skill-acquisition research involving the gain in efficiency of processes with practice over time until they become subconscious (see the review in Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). No such consensus exists yet for the unconscious, however.
Moreover, there has been high consensus regarding the qualities of conscious thought processes: they are intentional, controllable, serial in nature (consumptive of limited processing resources), and accessible to awareness (i.e., verbally reportable). The primacy of conscious thought for how people historically have thought about the mind is illustrated today in the words we use to describe other kinds of processes-all are modifications or qualifications of the word conscious (i.e., unconscious, preconscious, subconscious, nonconscious). Until quite recently in the history of science and philosophy, mental life was considered entirely or mainly conscious in nature (e.g., Descartes’ cogito and John Locke’s “mind first” cosmology). How one views the power and influence of the unconscious relative to conscious modes of information processing largely depends on how one defines the unconscious. Regardless of the fate of his specific model, Freud’s historic importance in championing the powers of the unconscious mind is beyond any doubt. Over the years, empirical tests have not been kind to the specifics of the Freudian model, though in broad-brush terms the cognitive and social psychological evidence does support Freud as to the existence of unconscious mentation and its potential to impact judgments and behavior (see Westen, 1999). 31), not the rigorous scientific experimentation on generally applicable principles of human behavior that inform the psychological models. However, the data from which Freud developed the model were individual case studies involving abnormal thought and behavior ( Freud, 1925/1961, p. Freud’s model of the unconscious as the primary guiding influence over daily life, even today, is more specific and detailed than any to be found in contemporary cognitive or social psychology. This research, in contrast with the cognitive psychology tradition, has led to the view that the unconscious mind is a pervasive, powerful influence over such higher mental processes (see review in Bargh, 2006).Īnd, of course, the Freudian model of the unconscious is still with us and continues to exert an influence over how many people think of “the unconscious,” especially outside of psychological science. Over the past 30 years, there has been much research on the extent to which people are aware of the important influences on their judgments and decisions and of the reasons for their behavior.
There, the traditional focus has been on mental processes of which the individual is unaware, not on stimuli of which one is unaware (e.g., Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Social psychology has approached the unconscious from a different angle. Because subliminal-strength stimuli are relatively weak and of low intensity by definition, the mental processes they drive are necessarily minimal and unsophisticated, and so these studies have led to the conclusion that the powers of the unconscious mind are limited and that the unconscious is rather “dumb” ( Loftus & Klinger, 1992). In cognitive psychology, unconscious information processing has been equated with subliminal information processing, which raises the question, “How good is the mind at extracting meaning from stimuli of which one is not consciously aware?” (e.g., Greenwald, Klinger, & Schuh, 1995).
Contemporary perspectives on the unconscious mind are remarkably varied.