What is the role of recognition in consumer choice? The recognition heuristic (RH) proposes that in situations where recognition is correlated with a decision criterion, recognized objects will be chosen more often than unrecognized ones, regardless of any other relevant information available about the recognized object. Past research has investigated this non-compensatory decision heuristic in inference. Here we report two experiments on preference using a naturalistic consumer choice task. Results revealed that, although recognition was a powerful driver of preferences, it was used in a compensatory rather than a non-compensatory way. Specifically, additional information learned about recognized brand objects significantly affected choices. It appears that recognition is processed in a compensatory manner and combined with other attributes in preferential choice.

To what extent do we know our own minds when making decisions? Variants of this question have preoccupied researchers in a wide range of domains, from mainstream experimental psychology (cognition, perception, social behavior) to cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics. A pervasive view places a heavy explanatory burden on an intelligent cognitive unconscious, with many theories assigning causally effective roles to unconscious influences. This article presents a novel framework for evaluating these claims and reviews evidence from three major bodies of research in which unconscious factors have been studied: multiple-cue judgment, deliberation without attention, and decisions under uncertainty. Studies of priming (subliminal and primes-to-behavior) and the role of awareness in movement and perception (e.g., timing of willed actions, blindsight) are also given brief consideration. The review highlights that inadequate procedures for assessing awareness, failures to consider artifactual explanations of “landmark” results, and a tendency to uncritically accept conclusions that fit with our intuitions have all contributed to unconscious influences being ascribed inflated and erroneous explanatory power in theories of decision making. The review concludes by recommending that future research should focus on tasks in which participants' attention is diverted away from the experimenter's hypothesis, rather than the highly reflective tasks that are currently often employed.

The target article sought to question the common belief that our decisions are often biased by unconscious influences. While many commentators offer additional support for this perspective, others question our theoretical assumptions, empirical evaluations, and methodological criteria. We rebut in particular the starting assumption that all decision making is unconscious, and that the onus should be on researchers to prove conscious influences. Further evidence is evaluated in relation to the core topics we reviewed (multiple-cue judgment, deliberation without attention, and decisions under uncertainty), as well as priming effects. We reiterate a key conclusion from the target article, namely, that it now seems to be generally accepted that awareness should be operationally defined as reportable knowledge, and that such knowledge can only be evaluated by careful and thorough probing. We call for future research to pay heed to the different ways in which awareness can intervene in decision making (as identified in our lens model analysis) and to employ suitable methodology in the assessment of awareness, including the requirements that awareness assessment must be reliable, relevant, immediate, and sensitive.

A central claim of Jones & Love's (J&L's) article is that Bayesian Fundamentalism is empirically unconstrained. Unless constraints are placed on prior beliefs, likelihood, and utility functions, all behaviour – it is proposed – is consistent with Bayesian rationality. Although such claims are commonplace, their basis is rarely justified. We fill this gap by sketching a proof, and we discuss possible solutions that would make Bayesian approaches empirically interesting.

In the original target article (Shanks & St. John 1994), one of our principal conclusions was that there is almost no evidence that learning can occur outside awareness. The continuing commentaries raise some interesting questions, especially about the definition of learning, but do not lead us to abandon our conclusion.

A number of ways of taxonomizing human learning have been proposed. We examine the evidence for one such proposal, namely, that there exist independent explicit and implicit learning systems. This combines two further distinctions, (1) between learning that takes place with versus without concurrent awareness, and (2) between learning that involves the encoding of instances (or fragments) versus the induction of abstract rules or hypotheses. Implicit learning is assumed to involve unconscious rule learning. We examine the evidence for implicit learning derived from subliminal learning, conditioning, artificial grammar learning, instrumental learning, and reaction times in sequence learning. We conclude that unconscious learning has not been satisfactorily established in any of these areas. The assumption that learning in some of these tasks (e.g., artificial grammar learning) is predominantly based on rule abstraction is questionable. When subjects cannot report the “implicitly learned” rules that govern stimulus selection, this is often because their knowledge consists of instances or fragments of the training stimuli rather than rules. In contrast to the distinction between conscious and unconscious learning, the distinction between instance and rule learning is a sound and meaningful way of taxonomizing human learning. We discuss various computational models of these two forms of learning.

The extent to which human learning should be thought of in terms of elementary, automatic versus controlled, cognitive processes is unresolved after nearly a century of often fierce debate. Mitchell et al. provide a persuasive review of evidence against automatic, unconscious links. Indeed, unconscious processes seem to play a negligible role in any form of learning, not just in Pavlovian conditioning. But a modern connectionist framework, in which “cognitive” phenomena are emergent properties, is likely to offer a fuller account of human learning than the propositional framework Mitchell et al. propose.

Barbey & Sloman (B&S) attribute all instances of normative base-rate usage to a rule-based system, and all instances of neglect to an associative system. As it stands, this argument is too simplistic, and indeed fails to explain either good or bad performance on the classic Medical Diagnosis problem.

Let $W$ be a finite-dimensional ${\bb Z}/p$ -module over a field, ${\bf k}$ , of characteristic $p$ . The maximum degree of an indecomposable element of the algebra of invariants, ${\bf k}[W]^{{\bb Z}/p}$ , is called the Noether number of the representation, and is denoted by $\beta(W)$ . A lower bound for $\beta(W)$ is derived, and it is shown that if $U$ is a ${\bb Z}/p$ submodule of $W$ , then $\beta(U)\le \beta(W)$ . A set of generators, in fact a SAGBI basis, is constructed for ${\bf k}[V_2\oplus V_3]^{{\bb Z}/p}$ , where $V_n$ is the indecomposable ${\bb Z}/p$ -module of dimension $n$ .

Although we welcome Gigerenzer, Todd, and the ABC Research Group's shift of emphasis from “coherence” to “correspondence” criteria, their rejection of optimality in human decision making is premature: In many situations, experts can achieve near-optimal performance. Moreover, this competence does not require implausible computing power. The models Gigerenzer et al. evaluate fail to account for many of the most robust properties of human decision making, including examples of optimality.