Hudesman and Page's contention that Gustafson and Källmén's 1991 results indicate that subsequent subliminal psychodynamic activation experiments do not require the controls suggested by Fudin in 1986 is questioned. The rationale for Fudin's 1993 comment concerning the limited generalizability of Hudesman, et al.'s (1992) results, a comment Hudesman and Page contended is unfounded, is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AriamS. (1979) The effects of subliminal stimuli in Hebrew on academic performance of Israeli high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York Univer.
2.
CookH. (1985) Effects of subliminal symbiotic gratification and the magic of believing on achievement. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2, 365–371.
3.
CUNY Skills Assessment Test. (1978) New York: City Univer. of New York.
4.
FudinR. (1986) Subliminal psychodynamic activation: Mommy and I are not yet one. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 1159–1179.
5.
FudinR. (1993) Comments on Hudesman, Page, and Rautianen's (1992) subliminal psychodynamic activation experiment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 41–42.
6.
GustafsonR.KällménH. (1991) Subliminal psychodynamic activation: An experiment controlling for major possible confounding influences outlined by Fudin. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 163–171.
7.
HudesmanJ.PageW. (1993) Reply to Fudin's comments on Hudesman, Page and Rautianen's experiment on the use of subliminal psychodynamic activation to enhance mathematics learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1993, 76, 733–734.
8.
HudesmanJ.PageW.RautianenJ. (1992) Use of subliminal stimulation to enhance learning mathematics. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 1219–1224.
9.
ParkerK. A. (1982) The effects of subliminal merging stimuli on the academic performance of college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 19–28.
10.
SilvermanL. H.LachmannF. M.MilichR. H. (1982) The search for oneness. New York: International Universities Press.
