TY - JOUR
T1 - A meta-analysis on unconscious thought effects
AU - Strick, Madelijn
AU - Dijksterhuis, Ap
AU - Bos, Maarten W.
AU - Nordgren, Loran
PY - 2011/1/1
Y1 - 2011/1/1
N2 - A meta-analysis was performed on the unconscious thought effect (UTE). All available published and unpublished data on unconscious thought were included. Our aims were to provide a statistically robust estimate of the effect size of the UTE, to identify significant moderators, and to discuss possible underlying processes of the UTE. To assess the UTE, performance of participants thinking unconsciously was compared to participants thinking consciously, and to immediate decision makers. Across a total of 92 studies, the overall aggregated effect size was g = .224, with a 95% confidence interval from .145 to .303. This result provides strong support for the existence of the UTE. However, as estimated from a random-effects model, about 66% of the variance in effect sizes was attributable to systematic differences between studies. This result indicates that although the UTE is a real effect, it does not always occur. Several moderators were identified that help to explain the mixed results across various studies. The findings are discussed with regard to the boundary conditions and potential underlying processes of the UTE.
AB - A meta-analysis was performed on the unconscious thought effect (UTE). All available published and unpublished data on unconscious thought were included. Our aims were to provide a statistically robust estimate of the effect size of the UTE, to identify significant moderators, and to discuss possible underlying processes of the UTE. To assess the UTE, performance of participants thinking unconsciously was compared to participants thinking consciously, and to immediate decision makers. Across a total of 92 studies, the overall aggregated effect size was g = .224, with a 95% confidence interval from .145 to .303. This result provides strong support for the existence of the UTE. However, as estimated from a random-effects model, about 66% of the variance in effect sizes was attributable to systematic differences between studies. This result indicates that although the UTE is a real effect, it does not always occur. Several moderators were identified that help to explain the mixed results across various studies. The findings are discussed with regard to the boundary conditions and potential underlying processes of the UTE.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82955222210&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82955222210&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1521/soco.2011.29.6.738
DO - 10.1521/soco.2011.29.6.738
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:82955222210
SN - 0278-016X
VL - 29
SP - 738
EP - 762
JO - Social Cognition
JF - Social Cognition
IS - 6
ER -