Effect of tachistoscopic stimulation of subconscious oedipal wishes on competitive performance: A failure to replicate.

Abstract

This study explored the effect of tachistoscopic stimulation of subconscious oedipal wishes on the dart-throwing performance of 72 college males. The study was designed with three purposes: (a) to replicate Silverman etal. (1978), who found subjects' dart-throwing performance to improve after they viewed the subliminal stimulus BEATING DAD is OK and to worsen after they viewed BEATING • DAD is WRONG; (b) to see if dart-throwing behavior is also affected by supraliminal oedipal stimulation; and (c) to investigate the influence of priming (i.e., preexperimental arousal of oedipal wishes) on the effect of tachistoscopic stimulation. Previous results were not replicated despite close adherence to Silverman et al.'s methodology, nor were other significant effects found. Questions are thereby raised about the ability to impact upon subconscious oedipal wishes in a behaviorally observable way using this paradigm.

Critical importance of stimulus unawareness for the production of subliminal psychodynamic activation effects: A meta-analytic review

“…The fail-safe N associated with this subliminal-supraliminal difference indicates that there would have to be more than 200 SPA experiments that found no difference whatsoever in subjects' responding to subliminal vs. supraliminal drive-related stimuli in order for this difference to be rendered nonsignificant (Rosenthal, 1984). In light of the fact that even methodologically flawed nonreplications of SPA findings are published (e.g., Haspel & Harris, 1982), it does not seem likely that more than 200 SPA nonreplications have gone unreported.…”

“…These studies produced mixed results. Some experiments (e.g., Rutstein & Goldberger, 1973;Silverman & Candell, 1970) found that subliminal presentation of a drive-related stimulus produced significantly stronger effects on behavior than supraliminal presentation of the same stimulus, while other experiments (e.g., Haspel & Harris, 1982;Heilbrun, 1980) found no difference in the effects of subliminal vs. supraliminal stimuli.…”

Subliminal Psychodynamic Activation: Mommy and I are Not Yet One

“…This suggests that in several of Silverman and his associates' experiments stimuli may have been exposed with these visual angles. Greenberg (1977) stated that Silverman provided the stimulus cards, Greenberg (1977) Haspel & Harris (1982 3"27' X 5"30'Pn Yes 14" 2' x 17"34'P0 3"55' X 1°18'V 3"55' x 4"ZO'P 3" 2 ' X 3"28' P Hayden & Silverstein (1983) Z039' x 4"38' Pa Heilbrun (1980) Yes Yes 'Average of five stimuli. Smallest verbal stimulus is 5"13' x l016'; smallest pictorial stimulus is 2"29' X 3"15'.…”

Does Repression Exist? Memory, Pathogenic, Unconscious and Clinical Evidence

“…As noted by Wachtel (1984), any effort to assess the validity of the unconscious "is incomplete without coming to terms with this remarkable body of work" (p. xi). SPA studies, however, were shown to suffer from methodological difficulties (e.g., see Balay & Shevrin, 1988;Fudin, 2001Fudin, , 2002, and numerous attempts to replicate these findings have been unsuccessful (e.g., Condon & Allen, 1980;Hapsel & Harris, 1982;Porterfield & Golding, 1985). Although meta-analyses show "that some SPA effects are genuine and that the SPA method is a valid means for testing psychoanalytic dynamic propositions" (Weinberger & Hardaway, 1990, p. 751; see also Hardaway, 1990), according to Fudin and Benjamin (1992), many SPA studies with negative findings were not considered, and the ratio between supportive and nonsupportive studies is 1:1, and not 4:1 as had been reported (see Hardaway, 1990).…”