Testability and empirical verification of psychoanalytic dynamic propositions through subliminal psychodynamic activation.

Abstract

This article argues that psychoanalysis is a scientifically testable model of human behavior and that at least one research program, "subliminal psychodynamic activation," has provided support for certain key psychoanalytic propositions. We begin with an attempt to demonstrate the logical feasibility, and even necessity, of testing psychoanalytic propositions in a controlled, extra-clinical setting, followed by a brief explication of the theoretical importance of three types of psychoanalytic propositions. A short history of experimental attempts to demonstrate unconscious influence is then sketched, but the bulk of the article is devoted to reviewing subliminal psychodynamic activation research. We argue that, although gaps remain, the fruits of this research provide support for key psychoanalytic propositions. THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF PSYCHOANALYSISIt has often been argued that psychoanalytic theory and its constituent propositions are not amenable to scientific inquiry, either because they are ". . . simply not testable, irrefutable" (Popper, 1962, p. 37) or because "the naturalscience framework is inappropriate to the data of psychoanalysis" (Gill, 1976, p. 91). The first charge-that psychoanalytic propositions are not posed in a Requests for reprints should be sent to

Linking personality and "scientific" psychology: The development of empirically derived Thematic Apperception Test measures.

“…McAdams (1982McAdams ( , 1992 used a variety of procedures to arouse the intimacy motive, a less defensive and more "sharing" variant of n Affiliation. Finally, Weinberger and McLeod (1989) developed a measure of yet another affiliation-related motivational concept, the "need to belong," by comparing TAT stories of people who had been subliminally exposed to the cue "mommy and I are one" (see Silverman, Lachmann, & Milich, 1982;and Weinberger & Silverman, 1990) and people exposed to the neutral cue "people are walking. "…”

Review of Core Concepts in Classical Psychoanalysis: Clinical, Research Evidence and Conceptual Critiques.

“…Now as for the research Eagle cites in his next chapter, I have little to say, mainly because there is far more of it than I can possibly summarize in this review, but I am of course in agreement with his conclusions that (a) there is far more evidence for a descriptive unconscious than for a dynamic unconscious and (b) that evidence for a dynamic unconscious pertains to the kind of shifting awareness of interpersonal events that might produce anxiety that are often the focus of modern psychoanalytic and psychodynamic treatments, with their emphasis on developments in the therapeutic relationship, rather than the deep, drive-related unconscious that was Freud’s predominant concern. My main area of disagreement with Eagle pertains to his dismissal of Silverman’s (Silverman et al, 1982; Silverman & Weinberger, 1985; Weinberger & Silverman, 1990) subliminal activation studies and his failure to mention Shevrin’s (Shevrin et al, 2013; University of Michigan Health System, 2012) debate with Grünberg regarding experimental proof of dynamic unconscious processes. Eagle is correct, I believe, in his argument that Silverman never worked out a good explanation, one rooted in contemporary cognitive science, for his findings that subliminal activation of psychodynamic material affects observable behavior, but nonetheless, this line of research is a major piece of evidence in favor of the operation of dynamic unconscious (Weinberger & Stoycheva, 2019), an idea that Eagle most certainly agrees is essential to psychoanalytic theory, even if significantly modified, in accordance with Eagle’s arguments, from Freud’s original proposals.…”