·think or blink? powerful claims for unconscious thought in complex decision-making are overblown.
in 2005 malcolm gladwell published a book called blink: the power of thinking without thinking. it had an extremely seductive message: that complex decisions are often more accurate when made quickly, unconsciously, in the blink of an eye.
gladwell described a man who could spot fake antiquities that had fooled all the experts in an instant and another who took only minutes to accurately assess the longevity of a couple's relationship. it seemed that the received wisdom about complex decision-making was changing.
the claims gladwell made for rapid cognition had their roots in a surprising line of evidence emerging in the psychological literature. some experiments had begun to show the power of unconscious over conscious thought in complex decision-making.
in one experiment dijksterhuis (2004) asked participants to choose between a series of apartments with different characteristics, but distracted one group to stop them thinking consciously about their decision. compared with a group allowed to consciously deliberate, participants who had been forced to think unconsciously by the distraction made better decisions.
the backlash
this finding appeared highly counter-intuitive and psychologists were soon hard at work trying to replicate it. the answers are now starting to come in. three recent studies have re-examined dijksterhuis' findings to try and confirm whether or not the effect is real.
in the first a team at the university of new south wales and the university of essex, writing in the quarterly journal of experimental psychology, describe four separate experiments searching for the fabled power of unconscious thought (newell et al., 2009). one of these was a straight replication of dijksterhuis' study and the other three were variations on the theme. all four experiments pointed towards the same conclusion:
"in stark contrast to the claims in the literature and the media we found very little evidence of the superiority of unconscious though for complex decisions." (newell et al., 2009; p.19).
indeed in more naturalistic conditions conscious thought was sometimes superior to unconscious thought.
two other recent papers published in the journal judgement and decision making also failed to find the purported benefit for unconscious thought. acker (2008) analysed the results of 17 attempted replications of the unconscious thought effect. these studies showed that it was conscious thought that was most effective in complex decision-making and indeed unconscious thought tended to muddy the waters.
in a second paper recently published in the same journal thorsteinson and rakow (2009) again found no evidence for the power of unconscious thought. indeed their results suggested that the very best way to make decisions was consciously and by resorting to a very old-fashioned but highly effective piece of technology: pencil and paper. participants who made notes to compensate for the vagaries of memory were likely to make the best decisions.
power of the unconscious
despite these null findings, dijksterhuis's studies and the points made by gladwell in his book blink can't be discounted. although unconscious thought may not be superior to conscious thought, it is frequently not that inferior. we still seem to make remarkably good decisions without consciously thinking, which is heartening in itself.
conscious thought also has its disadvantages -- most famously in the literature, thinking too much. participants in one study when asked to think about the reasons for their decisions went on to make worse choices (wilson & schooler, 1991). a further study found that consciously introspecting about a tricky decision tended to interfere with cognitive processing and blur the differences between choices (tordesillas & chaiken, 1999).
for all its faults, though, the rather less glamorous approach of conscious deliberation in complex decision-making currently wins the day. these recent experiments suggest the power of unconscious thought is less dazzling than some would have us believe.
consequently there's still a lot to be said for ruling a piece of paper down the middle and putting the pros on one side and cons on the other. you're unlikely to do any worse than making a snap decision and will probably do better. better to think rather than blink.
深思熟虑抑或不假思索？过份地宣称无意识的思考在复杂决策中的作用，言过其实。
在2005,malcolm gladwell出版了一本书《眨眼》：潜意识思考的力量。它提供了条极其诱人的信息：当快速地，无意识地，一眨眼功夫的时间，做复杂决策时，常常更为准确。
gladwell讲到有个人能快速地辨认出欺骗所有专家的赝品，还有另一个只花几分钟就能准确地估算出一对夫妇相处的时间。
gladwell所宣称的快速认知的来源与出现在心理学文献的记载出奇一致。一些实验已经开始表明潜意识在复杂决策中略胜意识一筹。
有个试验dijksterhuis(2004)请求参与者选择一系列不同的房间，但是让其中的一组人员心烦意乱，使他们停止有意识的思考他们的决策。与允许有意识地进行深思熟虑的一组相比，分心后被迫无意识的的一组做出了更好的决策。
反弹
这个发现与直觉极其相悖，而且不久之后，心理学家在研究中几乎不可能去复制它。这个问题现在开始渐渐地出现。最近的三个实验再次检验dijksterhuis的发现，试着去证实这个效应是真是假。
来自新南威尔士州大学和埃塞克斯大学的第一小组，在《季刊实验心理学》描述了为寻找潜意识思考传说中的力量的四个不同实验。（newell et al..2009)。其中的一个直接复制了dijksterhuis' 研究，其他3个在主题上做了更改。所有这个四个实验指向了一个同样的结论：
“与文献和媒体上所宣称的完全相反，我们几乎没有发现无意识思考对复杂决策显现出优越性的证据。”（newll er al.,2009;p.190).
确实在更多的自然条件下，有意识的思考时常比无意识的思考更胜一筹。
其它两个最近刊登在《判断和决策》的杂志也没有发现传说中无意识思考的益处。acker（2008）分析了17个试图复制无意识思考效应实验的结果。这些研究表明，有意识的思考在复杂的决策中是高效的，而且无意识的思考确实更易做出不明智的决策。
最近刊登在相同杂志的第二篇论文又一次发现了无意识思考的力量。这些结果确实表明做决策的最好方法是有意识的采用一种非常古老但非常有效地的技术：铅笔和纸。做笔记以应付变幻莫测的记忆的参与者有可能做出一个最好的决策。
潜意识的力量
这些发现尽管不如人意，但dijksterhuis的研究和gladwell所提出的观点并不会大打折扣。尽管无意识的思考可能比有意识的思考略逊一筹，但也不总是那样。我们仍然有可能在无意识的思考中做出非常棒的决策，这在潜意识思考的研究上是振奋人心的。
有意识的思考同样有它的缺点：在记录中最出名的是想太多。试验者在一个研究中被要求去考虑他们决策的种种理由时，他们做了更糟的决策（wison&scholler,1881)。一个更为深入的实验表明有意思的反思一个棘手的决策时，更易于被认知处理所干扰，而且使得不同决策间的分界线更为模糊。
尽管对复杂决策的深思熟虑这种稍许诱人的方法是可行的，但它本身还是存在不足。这些最近的研究表明了潜意识思考的力量没有我们想象的神奇。
因此还有很多话要说，就是要权衡利弊。比起你快速做个决策时，深思熟虑未必更糟，而且可能更好。最好深思熟虑而不是不假思索。