Abstract
Aspects of Silverman's subliminal psychodynamic activation (SPA) method are critically evaluated and SPA results are discussed within the context of information processing. Silverman's method has questionable features that involve visual-field position of the stimulus and structural matching of experimental and control stimuli. It lacks the converging operations required to support his contention that successful SPA experimental outcomes are due to differences in the contents of experimental and control stimuli. Evidence is offered to support the 1984 contention of Bornstein and Masling that SPA research has several unanswered questions about how consciously non-perceived stimuli are encoded and how such information can influence subsequent behavior. Extensive procedural changes for further SPA research are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
