Reflections on Eriksen’s seminal essay on discrimination, performance and learning without awareness

Blake, Randolph

doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02098-9

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 124 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, as Shanks (2017) and Schmidt (2015) have pointed out, treating invisibility reports as true indices of unconscious processing will often lead to incorrect inferences. Eriksen's (1960) famous critical appraisal of unconscious discrimination published over 60 years ago has been described as a“constant reminder […] that one must maintain a healthy skepticism about subjective reports of what can be seen and what cannot, meaning that one must redouble the effort to validate “invisibility” when claiming that people do not see things that nonetheless influence their performance on behavioral tasks involving putatively ‘invisible' stimuli” (Blake, 2021, p. 546).…”

Section: Post Hoc Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…“constant reminder […] that one must maintain a healthy skepticism about subjective reports of what can be seen and what cannot, meaning that one must redouble the effort to validate “invisibility” when claiming that people do not see things that nonetheless influence their performance on behavioral tasks involving putatively ‘invisible' stimuli” (Blake, 2021, p. 546).…”

Section: Post Hoc Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research on the nature and scope of unconscious or implicit mental processes has long been a core concern of cognitive psychologists, and interest in the topic shows no signs of abating (e.g., Blake, 2021; LeDoux et al, 2020). Reasons for this interest are not hard to find.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has of course been extensive debate about what constitutes an acceptable method for measuring awareness, evaluating the relative merits of verbal reports, visibility ratings, discrimination at the subjective and objective thresholds, confidence reports, and so on (Blake, 2021; Cheesman & Merikle, 1984; Dienes & Scott, 2005; Ericsson & Simon, 1984; Merikle & Reingold, 1992; Peirce & Jastrow, 1884; Sandberg et al, 2010; Shanks & St. John, 1994). Here, we ignore these deep issues and take it as read that data have been collected employing a suitable awareness measure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Challenge of Inferring Unconscious Mental Processes

Shanks

Malejka

Vadillo

2021

Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Studies of unconscious mental processes often compare a performance measure (e.g., some assessment of perception or memory) with a measure of awareness (e.g., a verbal report or forced-choice response) of the critical cue or contingency taken either concurrently or separately. The resulting patterns of bivariate data across participants lend themselves to several analytic approaches for inferring the existence of unconscious mental processes, but it is rare for researchers to consider the underlying generative processes that might cause these patterns. We show that bivariate data are generally insufficient to discriminate single-process models, with a unitary latent process determining both performance and awareness, from dual-process models, comprising distinct latent processes for performance and awareness. Future research attempting to isolate and investigate unconscious processes will need to employ richer types of data and analyses.

show abstract