{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029288702928870293, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.561643835616438, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Automatic processes, emotions, and the causal field

Abstract Newell & Shanks (N&S) provide a welcome examination of many claims about unconscious influences on decision making. I emphasize two issues that they do not consider fully: the roles of automatic processes and emotions. I further raise an important conceptual problem in assigning causes to potential unconscious influences. Which “causal field” is relevant: that of the investigator or the experimental participants?