Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:27:27.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restrictive and dynamic conceptions of the unconscious: Perspectives from moral and developmental psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Gordon P. D. Ingram  and
Karolina Prochownik
Gordon P. D. Ingram
Affiliation:
Bath Spa University, Newton Park, Newton St. Loe, Bath BA2 9BN, United Kingdom. g.ingram@bathspa.ac.ukhttps://sites.google.com/a/bathspa.ac.uk/gordon-ingram/
Karolina Prochownik
Affiliation:
Jagiellonian University, Kraków 31-005, Poland. karolina.prochownik@uj.edu.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Newell & Shanks' (N&S's) conceptualization of the unconscious is overly restrictive, compared to standard social psychological accounts. The dichotomy between distal and proximal cues is a weak point in their argument and does not circumvent the existence of unconscious influences on decision making. Evidence from moral and developmental psychology indicates that decision making results from a dynamic mixture of conscious and unconscious processes.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 34 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bargh, J. A. & Morsella, E. (2008) The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3:73–79.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108:814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J. (2007) The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316:998–1002.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992) Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Patry, M. W. (2008) Attractive but guilty: Deliberation and the physical attractiveness bias. Psychological Reports 102:727–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pizarro, D. A. & Bloom, P. (2003) The intelligence of the moral intuitions: Comment on Haidt (2001). Psychological Review 110:193–96.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F. & Toplak, M. E. (2011) The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models. Developmental Review 31:103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar