Automatic and controlled processes (ACP)

Automatic and controlled processes (ACP) are the two categories of cognitive processing. All cognitive processes fall into one or both of those two categories. The amounts of "processing power", attention, and effort a process requires is the primary factor used to determine whether it's a controlled or an automatic process. An automatic process is capable of occurring without the need for attention, and the awareness of the initiation or operation of the process, and without drawing upon general processing resources or interfering with other concurrent thought processes.[1] Put simply, an automatic process is unintentional, involuntary, effortless (not consumptive of limited processing capacity), and occurring outside awareness. Controlled processes are defined as a process that is under the flexible, intentional control of the individual, that he or she is consciously aware of, and that are effortful and constrained by the amount of attentional resources available at the moment.[1]

Characteristics

Automatic processes

When examining the label "automatic" in social psychology, we find that some processes are intended, and others require recent conscious and intentional processing of related information. That being said automatic effects fall into three classes: Those that occur prior to conscious awareness (preconscious); those that require some form of conscious processing but that produce an unintended outcome (postconscious); and those that require a specific type of intentional, goal directed processing (goal-dependent).

Preconscious automaticity requires only the triggering proximal stimulus event, and occur prior to or in the absence of any conscious awareness of that event.[1] Because they occur without our conscious awareness they are unnoticeable, uncontrollable, and nearly effortless. Many previous studies suggest that the mere perception of the physical behaviors of others, as well as abstract categories (race, gender, role-related) that occurs passively in person perception results in increased tendencies to behave in the same way oneself.[2] So basically a stimulus may that be person, object, or an action will unconsciously affect one's response and or behavior without one's knowledge. In a study they subliminally exposed one of the participants with an African American face or a Caucasian face before the participants engaged in a verbal game.[3] The study concluded that when participants were subliminally exposed to the African American faces they were significantly more aggressive in the verbal game than those exposed to the Caucasian face.[3] In a study related to this the participants were required to play a video game that depicted a real-life situation that involved deciding to shoot a man with a gun. Participants were shown pictures of both Caucasian and African American men with or without a gun or another object in hand. The participants had to respond "Shoot" or "Not Shoot" within milliseconds. The results were that participants significantly decided to shoot faster when African Americans had a gun versus Caucasians.[4]

Postconscious automaticity depends on recent conscious experience for its occurrence.[1] This postconscious influence on processing can be defined as the non-conscious consequences of conscious thought.[1] The conscious experience may be intentional, or it may be unintentional, what is important is that the material be in awareness.[1] Most things we are aware of are driven by the environment, and one does not intend or control the flood of these perceptual experiences, yet they still result in postconscious effects. In other words, we need to consciously engage in something and depending on the experience we will unconsciously think, and or behave a certain way. In the classic Bobo doll experiment a child watches a video of an adult acting aggressive towards a Bobo doll. Later when the child is put in the room with that same doll, the child was more likely to also engage in that act, versus children who didn't watch the video. In a study participants were primed with the stereotype of professors by being told to imagine a typical professor for 5 min and to list (a conscious act) the behaviors, lifestyle, and appearance attributes of this typical professor.[5] After they were primed they had to perform a general knowledge task. The results were that the participants in the professor condition outperformed those in the control conditions (those not primed at all).[5]

Goal-dependent automaticity concerns skill and thought processes that require a goal to engage in them. This process is much similar to postconscious in that it requires conscious awareness to be initiated, but after that it can be guided outside of awareness by the unconscious mind. A good example would be driving a car: in order to drive a car, one needs to consciously have a goal to drive somewhere. When engaged in driving (only with enough practice) one can almost operate the car almost entirely without conscious awareness.[2] However, more attentional control and decision making are needed when introduced to novel (reference) situations like driving through an unfamiliar town. The process needs to be learned enough that it can be automatic, requiring little conscious thought as to how to do it.

Controlled processes

One definition of a controlled process is an intentionally-initiated sequence of cognitive activities.[6] In other words, when attention is required for a task, we are consciously aware and in control. Controlled processes require us to think about situations, evaluate and make decisions. An example would be reading this article. We are required to read and understand the concepts of these processes and it takes effort to think conceptually. Controlled processes are thought to be slower, since by definition they require effortful control; therefore, they generally cannot be conducted simultaneously with other controlled processes without task-switching or impaired performance. So the drawback of controlled processes is that humans are thought to have a limited capacity for overtly controlling behavior. Being tightly capacity-limited, controlled processing imposes considerable limitations on speed and the ability to multitask. In a study, participants were randomly assigned into two conditions, one requiring one task (small cognitive load) and one requiring two tasks (heavy cognitive load). In the one-task condition, participants were told that they would hear an anti- or pro-abortion speech and would have to diagnose the speaker's attitude toward abortion. The two-task condition had the same first assignment, but they were required to switch spots with the speaker and take their place after that. Even after being specifically told that they would be given further instructions at the next step, their cognitive load was affected in this study. Participants in the two-task condition performed more poorly than the one-task condition simply because they had the next task on their mind (they had extra cognitive load). Basically, the more tasks someone tries to manage at the same time, the more their performance will suffer.

Processes with ambiguous categorization

Some cognitive processes are difficult to categorize as distinctly automatic or controlled, either because they contain components of both types of process or because the phenomena are difficult to define or observe. An example of the former is driving a car. An example of the latter is flow.

Flow

Main article: Flow (psychology)

Flow has been described as involving highly focused attention on the task at hand, loss of self-consciousness, and distorted time perception, among other cognitive characteristics. Some people report that during flow states they are less aware of autonomic responses such as hunger, fatigue, and discomfort. Some researchers hypothesize that because of this, some challenging tasks can counterintuitively require less effort to perform.[7]

Flow has been difficult to study, however, because it is difficult to produce in a controlled laboratory setting. Most experiments have relied heavily on correlating the presence of flow with various attributes of the task and the subjects' reported experiences. Of those correlations, subjects experiencing flow generally report that they perceive a good match between the task requirements and their skills (e.g. a professional basketball player in a professional basketball game.) Task structure and the clarity of the goal of the task are also thought to be related to when flow occurs.[7] All of these aspects of flow imply that there must be an opportunity to suppress other controlled processes, as well as inhibit certain types of automatic processes.

A study involving video game performance showed that flow in participants (determined based on a self-report survey of flow characteristics) strongly correlated with performance in the game. A related study attempted to inhibit and induce flow by biasing the moods of participants. The experimenters found that flow could be inhibited by a negative mood, but could not be induced by a positive mood.[7]

"A person does not need to be told to pay attention to a stimulus that captures attention quickly and effortlessly.[6] In many cases, explicitly directing one's own or another's attention is necessary due to the presence of another stimulus that more easily captures attention. In the case of flow, however, an action that would normally grab one's attention is ignored, and many automatic processes are either suppressed (such as stimulus-driven attention changes) or ignored (such as discomfort.)

On the other hand, situations in which autonomy is encroached upon (for example, if the individual must always control his/her actions to abide by rules imposed by the task) are thought to inhibit flow.[7] This implies that another requirement of flow is to be free from constraints that force controlled processes to be used. Additionally, several areas of research indicate that during a state of flow an otherwise-controlled process becomes automatic allowing it to behave dominant over all other automatic processes.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bargh, John; James S. Uleman (1989). Unintended Thought. Guilford Publications.
  2. 1 2 Bargh, John; Kay L. Schwader; Sarah E. Hailey; Rebecca L. Dyer; Erica J. Boothby (2012). "Automaticity in social-cognitive processes". Yale University, Department of Psychology.
  3. 1 2 Chen, Mark; John Bargh (2 January 1997). "Nonconscious Behavioral Confirmation Processes: The Self-Fulfilling Consequences of Automatic Stereotype Activation". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 33: 541–560. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1329.
  4. ↑ Correll, Joshua; Charles M. Judd; Bernd Wittenbrink (2002). "The Police Officer's Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 83: 1314–1329. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1314.
  5. 1 2 Dijksterhuis, AP; Ad van Knippenberg (1998). "The Relation Between Perception and Behavior, or How to Win a Game of Trivial Pursuit". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. University of Nijmegen. 74: 865–877. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865. PMID 9569649.
  6. 1 2 Schneider, Shiffrin (1977). "Controlled Automatic Human Information Processing" (I. Detection, Search, and Attention.).
  7. 1 2 3 4 Moller, A. C., Meier, B. P., & Wall, R. D. 2010. Developing an experimental induction of flow: Effortless action in the lab. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 191–204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/23/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.