Distinguishing detection from identification in subliminal auditory perception: A review and critique of Merikle's study

Author(s): Salus, D., Rerecich, R., Larsen, D.

Journal/Book: J Gen Psychol. 1996; 123: 1319 Eighteenth St NW, Washington, DC 20036-1802. Heldref Publications. 41-50.

Abstract: Assertions made by Merikle (1988) regarding audio subliminal messages were tested. Seventeen participants were presented subliminal messages embedded in a white-noise cover, and three signal-to-noise (S/N) detection ratios were examined. Participants were asked to guess message presence and message content, to determine subjective/objective. thresholds. Results showed that participants were unable to identify target words presented in this audio subliminal stimulus format beyond chance levels.

Note: Article JL Harris, 850 E Ctr, Suite F, Pocatello, ID 83201 USA

Keyword(s): UNCONSCIOUS PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES; SUGGESTIONS; STIMULATION; ACTIVATION; AWARENESS; MEMORY

Zurück | Weiter