Gustafson and Källmén's (1990) line of reasoning based on Fudin's (1986) ideas about subliminal psychodynamic activation experiments is questioned. It is suggested that the methodological innovations listed in Fudin's paper are necessary for a clearer interpretation of positive findings in this area of research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AriamS.SillerJ. (1982) Effects of subliminal oneness stimuli in Hebrew on academic performance of Israeli high school students: Further evidence on the adaptation-enhancing effects of symbiotic fantasies in another culture using another languageJournal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 343–349.
2.
FudinR. (1986) Subliminal psychodynamic activation: Mommy and I are not yet onePerceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 1159–1179.
3.
GustafsonR.KällménH. (1990) Subliminal stimulation and cognitive and motor performancePerceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 87–96.
4.
SilvermanL. H. (1978–1979) Reply by Lloyd H. Silverman, Ph.D. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 7, 594–601.
