![]() ![]() Many of these studies have been reviewed by Adams (1957), and only one representative study will be discussed. Historically, in the earliest studies directed at establishing the possible efficacy of unconscious perceptual processes in determining behavior, a definition of awareness was adopted that was based solely on an observer's subjective confidence that the perceived stimulus information was useful for the required task. ![]() The controversies have concerned both the exact type of response that is the most accurate indicator of perceptual awareness and the most appropriate way the particular response that is considered to reflect awareness should be measured. Thus, definitions of awareness are typically tied to some type of verbal response mate following stimulation of the sense organs. On the other hand, when stimulation of sense organs toes not lead to phenomenal perceptual experiences, no descriptions are possible. Typically, stimulation of the sense organs leads to phenomenal perceptual experiences that can be described in some d tail. This approach simply reflects an attempt to operationalize the phenomenal experiences that we all have when our sense organs are stimulated. Awareness is typically measured in terms of an observer's reports concerning his/her perceptual experiences. Prior to considering the different experimental approaches, it is important to define exactly what psychologists mean by awareness or conscious perceptual processing. This fourth approach not only resolves many of the controversies that have plagued investigations of subliminal perception but it also provides a basis for establishing the critical differences that may distinguish conscious from unconscious perceptual processes. For this reason, a fourth approach, based on recent empirical work (e.g., Cheesman and Merikle 1985), is described. Each approach, considered by itself, has critical weaknesses. In this paper, three major experimental approaches that have been followed at various times to study subliminal perception are summarized. In fact, an answer to the question, "Does subliminal perception occur?", depends entirely on both a) how "subliminal" or the threshold for perceptual awareness is defined and b) the adequacy of the procedures used to measure this threshold. Much of this continuing controversy is centered on questions concerning how perceptual awareness is best defined and measured. However, despite numerous studies directed at establishing whether or not unconscious perceptual processes provide sufficient information to influence higher-level decision processes (see Dixon 1971, 1981 Holender 1986 for extensive reviews), there are still no generally-accepted answers. The concept of subliminal perception has generated considerable debate for-many years. It is concluded a) that ewidence favoring subliminal perception is only obtained when subliminal or unconscious perception is defined in terms of subjective criteria, and b) that an approach based on subjective criteria can provide a basis for establishing the critical differences that distinguish conscious from unconscious perceptual processes. Merikle, University of Waterlooįour experimental approaches to the study of subliminal perception are summarized and evaluated. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 298-302.Īdvances in Consumer Research VolPages 298-302ĬURRENT STATUS OF RESEARCH ON SUBLIMINAL PERCEPTION Merikle and Jim Cheesman (1987) ,"Current Status of Research on Subliminal Perception", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, eds. ABSTRACT - Four experimental approaches to the study of subliminal perception are summarized and evaluated.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |