Evaluating the Role of Attention in the Context of Unconscious Thought Theory: Differential Impact of Attentional Scope and Load on Preference and Memory

Abstract

Attention is a key process used to conceptualize and define modes of thought, but we lack information about the role of specific attentional processes on preferential choice and memory in multi-attribute decision making. In this study, we examine the role of attention based on two dimensions, attentional scope and load on choice preference strength and memory using a paradigm that arguably elicits unconscious thought. Scope of attention was manipulated by using global or local processing during distraction (Experiment 1) and before the information-encoding stage (Experiment 2). Load was manipulated by using the n-back task in Experiment 1. Results from Experiment 1 show that global processing or distributed attention during distraction results in stronger preference irrespective of load but better memory only at low cognitive load. Task difficulty or load did not have any effect on preference or memory. In Experiment 2, distributed attention before attribute encoding facilitated only memory but did not influence preference. Results show that attentional processes at different stages of processing like distraction and information-encoding influence decision making processes. Scope of attention not only influences preference and memory but the manner in which attentional scope influences them depends on both load and stage of information processing. The results indicate the important role of attention in processes critical for decision making and calls for a re-evaluation of the unconscious thought theory (UTT) and the need for reconceptualizing the role of attention.

Degraded conditions: Confounds in the study of decision making

“…Sometimes not attending to part of the information or relying on small samples can prove useful (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier 2011). The differences in selection (changes in scope of attention) could also affect utilization of the cues and would be consistent with results showing that changes in scope of attention can affect preference strengths and memory (Srinivasan et al 2013).…”

“…The changes in (perceptual or conceptual) scope of attention under different situations enable us to sample and process information differently leading to differences in processes involved in memory and decision making. Using the UTT paradigm, we manipulated the distraction task using global or local processing (associated with changes in scope) at low and high levels of cognitive or working memory load (Srinivasan et al 2013). We found that global processing during distraction resulted in stronger preference for the chosen item irrespective of cognitive load.…”

“…For example, attention is used to operationalize "unconscious thought," which we believe conflates attention and consciousness and treats attention as a dichotomous variable Srinivasan & Mukherjee 2010), thereby limiting the construct of attention. Attention can vary as a resource (more versus less) and perceptual scope (focused versus distributed) that involves differences in selection resulting in differences in perception, memory, and awareness (Baijal & Srinivasan 2009;Srinivasan et al 2013).…”

“…Therefore we propose that the putative "unconscious thought" is constrained by differences in the attentional processes employed during distraction Srinivasan et al 2013) and to differences in selection (e.g., information sampling; Srinivasan & Mukherjee 2010). Theorizing about the causal effects of conscious versus unconscious processes is critically dependent on a proper treatment of attention (like the global workspace theory discussed in the target article).…”

Even “unconscious thought” is influenced by attentional mechanisms

“…Thus, we propose that the putative 'unconscious thought' is constrained by differences in the attentional processes employed during distraction Srinivasan et al, 2013) depending on the weights of the cues and past experience of their validity. Sometimes not attending to part of the information or relying on small samples can prove useful (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011).…”