↓ Skip to main content

A critical review and meta-analysis of the unconscious thought effect in medical decision making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A critical review and meta-analysis of the unconscious thought effect in medical decision making
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00636
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miguel A. Vadillo, Olga Kostopoulou, David R. Shanks

Abstract

Based on research on the increasingly popular unconscious thought effect (UTE), it has been suggested that physicians might make better diagnostic decisions after a period of distraction than after an equivalent amount of time of conscious deliberation. However, published attempts to demonstrate the UTE in medical decision making have yielded inconsistent results. In the present study, we report the results of a meta-analysis of all the available evidence on the UTE in medical decisions made by expert and novice clinicians. The meta-analysis failed to find a significant contribution of unconscious thought (UT) to the accuracy of medical decisions. This result cannot be easily attributed to any of the potential moderators of the UTE that have been discussed in the literature. Furthermore, a Bayes factor analysis shows that most experimental conditions provide positive support for the null hypothesis, suggesting that these null results do not reflect a simple lack of statistical power. We suggest ways in which new studies could usefully provide further evidence on the UTE. Unless future research shows otherwise, the recommendation of using UT to improve medical decisions lacks empirical support.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 48%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2021.
All research outputs
#687,042
of 26,453,397 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,429
of 35,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,547
of 280,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#29
of 520 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,453,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 520 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.