Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 563–575 | Cite as

Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness

  • Eyal M. Reingold
  • Philip M. Merikle
Article

Abstract

Many studies directed at demonstrating perception without awareness have relied on the dissociation paradigm. Although the logic underlying this paradigm is relatively straightforward, definitive results have been elusive in the absence of any general consensus as to what constitutes an adequate measure of awareness. We propose an alternative approach that involves comparisons of the relative sensitivity of comparable direct and indirect indexes of perception. The only assumption required by the proposed approach is that the sensitivity of direct discriminations to relevant conscious information is greater than or equal to the sensitivity of comparable indirect discriminations. The proposed approach is illustrated through an evaluation of Avant and Thieman’s (1985) recent claim that an indirect measure of perception based on judgments of apparent visual duration provides a more sensitive indicator of perception than does a direct measure based on forced-choice recognition. Contrary to this claim, when direct and indirect indexes are measured under comparable conditions, an indirect measure based on judgments of perceived duration provides a less sensitive index of perceptual processing than do comparable direct measures. The proposed approach provides a general conceptual/methodological framework for using the dissociation paradigm in studies directed at establishing unconscious processes.

References

  1. Allan, L. G. (1979). The perception of time.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 340–354.Google Scholar
  2. Avant, L. L., &Lyman, P. J. (1975). Stimulus familiarity modifies perceived duration in prerecognition visual processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avant, L. L., Lyman, P. J., &Antes, J. R. (1975). Effects of stimulus familiarity upon judged visual duration.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 253–262.Google Scholar
  4. Avant, L. L., &Thieman, A. A. (1985). On visual access to letter case and lexical/semantic information.Memory & Cognition,13, 393–404.Google Scholar
  5. Balota, D. A. (1983). Automatic semantic activation and episodic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, I. H., Vyas, A., Bissonnette, V., &Barclay, P. (1987). Semantic processing: Subliminal perception or context?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,25, 335. (Abstract)Google Scholar
  7. Bonnano, G. A., &Stilling, N. A. (1986). Preference, familiarity, and recognition after repeated brief exposures to random geometric shapes.American Journal of Psychology,99, 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers, K. S. (1984). On being unconsciously influenced and informed. In K. S. Bowers & D. Meichenbaum (Eds.),The unconscious reconsidered (pp. 227–272). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Cheesman, J., &Merikle, P. M. (1984). Priming with and without awareness.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 387–395.Google Scholar
  10. Cheesman, J., &Merikle, P. M. (1985). Word recognition and consciousness. In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.),Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp. 311–352). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cheesman, J., &Merikle, P. M. (1986). Distinguishing conscious from unconscious perceptual processes.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 343–367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Craig, J. C. (1973). A constant error in the perception of brief temporal intervals.Perception & Psychophysics,13, 99–104.Google Scholar
  13. Devane, J. R. (1974). Word characteristics and judged duration for two response sequences.Perceptual & Motor Skills,38, 525–526.Google Scholar
  14. Dixon, N. F. (1971).Subliminal perception: The nature of a controversy. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Dixon, N. F. (1981).Preconscious processing. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Dulany, D. E., Jr., &Eriksen, C. W. (1959). Accuracy of brightness discrimination as measured by concurrent verbal responses and GSRs.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,59, 418–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duncan, J. (1985). Two techniques for investigating perception without awareness.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 296–298.Google Scholar
  18. Erdelyi, M. H. (1985).Psychoanalysis: Freud’s cognitive psychology. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  19. Erdelyi, M. H. (1986). Experimental indeterminacies in the dissociation paradigm.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,9, 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksen, C. W. (1956). Subception: Fact or artifact?Psychological Review,63, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eriksen, C. W. (1960). Discrimination and learning without awareness: A methodological survey and evaluation.Psychological Review,67, 279–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fowler, C. A. (1986). An operational definition of conscious awareness must be responsible to subjective experience.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,9, 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fowler, C. A., Wolford, G., Slade, R., &Tassinary, L. (1981). Lexical access with and without awareness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldfarb, J. L., &Goldstone, S. (1963). Time judgement: A comparison of filled and unfIlled durations.Perceptual & Motor Skills,16, 376.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwald, A. G., &Liu, T. J. (1985). Limited unconscious processing of meaning.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,23, 292. (Abstract)Google Scholar
  26. Henley, S. H. A. (1984). Unconscious perception re-revisited: A comment on Merikle’s (1982) paper.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,22, 121–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eyal M. Reingold
    • 1
  • Philip M. Merikle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations