Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.

TLDR

Automaticity has been conceptualized through features such as unintentionality, autonomy, stimulus‑drivenness, and efficiency, with recent theories proposing that these features should be examined independently. The study investigates whether these automaticity features can be conceptually disentangled to justify separate empirical scrutiny. The authors find that conceptual separation is largely feasible, though disagreement remains and overlap assumptions hinge on researchers’ theoretical models.

Abstract

Several theoretical views of automaticity are discussed. Most of these suggest that automaticity should be diagnosed by looking at the presence of features such as unintentional, uncontrolled/uncontrollable, goal independent, autonomous, purely stimulus driven, unconscious, efficient, and fast. Contemporary views further suggest that these features should be investigated separately. The authors examine whether features of automaticity can be disentangled on a conceptual level, because only then is the separate investigation of them worth the effort. They conclude that the conceptual analysis of features is to a large extent feasible. Not all researchers agree with this position, however. The authors show that assumptions of overlap among features are determined by the other researchers' views of automaticity and by the models they endorse for information processing in general.