Abstract
Hudesman, et al.'s (1992) contention that their finding shows that subliminal psychodynamic activation (SPA) improved academic performance is questioned. That experiment lacked controls outlined by Fudin in 1986 which are needed to support the assumption that a positive SPA outcome is effected because the meaning of an entire experimental message is encoded. In 1993 Hudesman and Page argued that Gustafson and Källmén's 1991 results, obtained with such controls, indicated that the controls do not have to be used in subsequent SPA experiments. The 1990 results of Greenberg and of Kothera, Fudin, and Nicastro, however, do not support those of Gustafson and Källmén. From a different perspective, it is argued that good experimental controls are needed in all SPA experiments because they increase internal validity. Given that Hudesman, et al.'s subjects scored in a limited range on the mathematics portion of the 1978 CUNY Skills Assessment Test, the implication that their result can be generalized to all subjects is questioned.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
