Conscious attention disrupts the influence of weak automatic cues on perception and memory.

Evidence

In perception research, Wyatt and Campbell (1951; see also Bruner & Potter, 1964) demonstrated that asking subjects to generate hypotheses about the identity of a blurred picture reduced their ability to identify the picture as it was gradually brought into focus. … In research on memory, Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) found that, after attempting to verbally describe the memory image of a previously seen face, subjects showed impaired ability to choose that face from an array that included several foils. … For all of these results, it is plausible that subjects’ attentional efforts disrupted the influence of weak cues—either perceptual cues or memory traces—that might otherwise have guided judgment. — Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition, 229

Categorization

  • QUESTION: Core tension for the reading purpose: if attention attenuates weak automatic influences that produce both desired AND undesired effects, does distraction conversely strengthen implicit/bias-congruent measures? Worth chasing the mechanism.
  • XREF: connects to: Mere exposure effects depend on fluency misattributed to liking, not memory. — Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes,…, 103; Mere exposure to subliminal affects can transfer value to neutral stimuli via misattribution — Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes,…, 105; Redirecting attention to a biasing cue reduces or reverses the implicit effect it produces. — Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes,…, 241 (+1 more)

Broader Connections