Subliminal or not?: Comparing null-hypothesis and Bayesian methods for testing subliminal priming
2016 (English)In: Consciousness and Cognition, ISSN 1053-8100, E-ISSN 1090-2376, Vol. 44, 29-40 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
A difficulty for reports of subliminal priming is demonstrating that participants who actually perceived the prime are not driving the priming effects. There are two conventional methods for testing this. One is to test whether a direct measure of stimulus perception is not significantly above chance on a group level. The other is to use regression to test if an indirect measure of stimulus processing is significantly above zero when the direct measure is at chance. Here we simulated samples in which we assumed that only participants who perceived the primes were primed by it. Conventional analyses applied to these samples had a very large error rate of falsely supporting subliminal priming. Calculating a Bayes factor for the samples very seldom falsely supported subliminal priming. We conclude that conventional tests are not reliable diagnostics of subliminal priming. Instead, we recommend that experimenters calculate a Bayes factor when investigating subliminal priming.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 44, 29-40 p.
subliminal priming, Bayes factor, signal detection theory, null-hypothesis significance testing
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)
Research subject Psychology
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-132185DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.06.012PubMedID: 27351780OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-132185DiVA: diva2:950193