Kihlstrom's Cognitive Unconscious: Strengths and Weaknesses
This paper critically reviews John F. Kihlstrom's 1987 article "The Cognitive Unconscious," which argues that many mental processes shaping conscious behavior occur below the level of awareness. The review summarizes Kihlstrom's central claim that the unconscious, subconscious, and preconscious mind each play distinct roles in processing information that influences decisions and emotions. It then considers how such discoveries reshape psychological practice and theory, before assessing the study's key strengths—particularly its implications for treating phobias—and its methodological weaknesses, including the absence of original empirical data and the reliance on previously published literature rather than a replicable study design.
- Introduction to the Cognitive Unconscious: Summary of Kihlstrom's core argument and findings
- New Discoveries and Psychological Practice: How new psychological findings reshape theory and practice
- Strengths of the Discoveries: Theoretical and clinical strengths of Kihlstrom's work
- Weaknesses of the Discoveries: Methodological limitations and absence of empirical data
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a clear evaluative structure, moving logically from summary to impact to strengths to weaknesses, making the argument easy to follow.
- It grounds its critique in methodological terms, correctly identifying that Kihlstrom's article is a literature review rather than an empirical study—demonstrating appropriate critical thinking for a psychology course.
- The paper connects abstract theory to clinical application, using the treatment of phobias as a concrete example of how the cognitive unconscious concept has practical relevance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates balanced critical analysis: it acknowledges the genuine contribution of Kihlstrom's work while clearly identifying its limitations. Rather than simply praising or dismissing the article, the writer distinguishes between conceptual significance (the idea that the brain processes more than it consciously recalls) and empirical validity (the absence of a replicable methodology), which is a hallmark of mature academic evaluation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a summary of Kihlstrom's core argument and findings. The second section places the article in the broader context of how new psychological discoveries influence the field. The third section outlines the study's theoretical and clinical strengths. The final section delivers a methodological critique, noting the lack of original data collection, no test subjects, and no replicable study design—closing on a measured judgment rather than a dismissive one.
Introduction to the Cognitive Unconscious
"The Cognitive Unconscious" by John F. Kihlstrom (1987) addresses the idea that many processes and mental structures that affect what happens in a person's conscious mind are actually processed in the unconscious mind. That would mean that many of the things people do, they are doing based on information they may be processing without realizing it (Kihlstrom, 1987). In other words, people take in information about the world around them all the time, but much of it is unconscious information they do not realize they are collecting. Even though they have not realized they are collecting this information, they use it to help make decisions and to determine how they feel about things (Kihlstrom, 1987). A great deal of past research does indicate that mental functions can be altered by information provided subliminally or even under hypnosis, as opposed to information the person clearly remembered acquiring (Kihlstrom, 1987).
The findings of the article suggest that there is a clear division within a person's cognitive unconscious (Kihlstrom, 1987). There are truly unconscious mental processes, and there are also those that may be either subconscious or preconscious (Kihlstrom, 1987). Because each of these mental processes differs from the others and is handled in a different way, it is logical that something could happen to a person that they did not consciously remember, yet that event would still shape what they thought about something specific or how they acted in a particular situation. Recognizing that a great deal of psychology and perception may be automated means approaching psychology differently from the way it was examined in the past, and addressing human nature in a new way.
New Discoveries and Psychological Practice
Any time there is a new discovery in the psychological field, it must be studied in order to examine its validity (Sun, 2008). That is true for discoveries based on past information and equally true for those that have been completely unexpected. With the article in question, the discovery opened up something entirely different from the concepts that had been seen before. That meant a refocusing and readjusting of what people believed was accurate about psychology. No matter what is determined to be true from a psychological perspective, there will always be dissenters who do not agree (Fernald, 2008; Gazzaniga, 2010). Often, this happens because there is disagreement over what "proof" actually means. Since psychology deals with the mind and much of it cannot generally be scientifically quantified, that argument over proof is likely to persist well into the future.
New discoveries do alter psychological practice, however, because they provide new avenues of inquiry (Gazzaniga, 2010; Sun, 2008). They give other researchers, writers, and psychologists information that can be studied so they can draw their own conclusions. Not everyone will arrive at the same conclusions, which is how different schools of thought in psychology have become popular and significant (Sun, 2008). The different ideas held by psychologists around the world are what keep the field interesting and allow it to continue moving forward, so that more people can receive the kind of treatment they need to lead better lives. The practice of psychology is not static, and new ideas and discoveries are offered frequently (Gazzaniga, 2010). While not all of them are taken seriously, some have the power to change the field and alter the way many psychologists understand the mind and the way patients collect, store, and process information. The Kihlstrom (1987) article provides information that has remained important to the present day.
Strengths of the Discoveries
All discoveries have strengths and weaknesses. This particular article demonstrated that the mind may be much stronger than psychologists had previously assumed when it comes to processing information. In the past, it was generally believed that the information the brain processed and remembered was the information it used to make decisions and form ideas about events, people, and life choices. However, the Kihlstrom (1987) study indicated that this was not the case, and that people actually use information they do not consciously remember in order to make many of these decisions. This implies that the brain takes in far more sensory input than was previously assumed, and that it knows how to process and use that information to make decisions. This is an important strength of the study, as it contributes something that was not previously known and substantially changes the way psychologists view how the mind works (Kihlstrom, 1987).
A mind that is able to process and use information even when it is not consciously remembered opens up significant opportunities for psychologists to find new ways to treat patients. For example, someone who struggles with a fear or phobia might be doing so because of something that happened to them which was processed only by the subconscious or preconscious mind, rather than by the conscious part of the brain. In order to address the fear or phobia, a psychologist would have to find a technique that allows the patient to access and recall the event that caused the problem to develop. Some studies have indicated that hypnosis is a useful approach for bringing subconscious thought to the forefront (Fernald, 2008). Other methods can be used as well, but determining what resides in a person's subconscious mind is not always straightforward, even for a trained professional.
References
Fernald, L. D. (2008). Psychology: Six perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gazzaniga, M. (2010). Psychological science. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445–1452.
Sun, R. (2008). The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.