Contrary to Malik and Paraherakis's 1998 assessment, Greenwald and Liu's results support a cognitive unconscious with a limited encoding capacity, but findings from subliminal psychodynamic activation cannot be used to estimate that capacity because they are ambiguous. Although empirical evidence supports the idea of a cognitive unconscious that is limited to encoding the meanings of single words, we endorse Malik and Paraherakis's implication that a more precise estimate of the capacity of the cognitive unconscious requires the execution of many more experiments with multiword stimuli.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DraineS. C. (1997) Analytic limitations of unconscious language processing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3331B.
2.
FudinR. (1986) Subliminal psychodynamic activation: MOMMY AND I ARE NOT YET ONE. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 1159–1179.
3.
GreenwaldA. G. (1992) New Look 3: Unconscious cognition reclaimed. American Psychologist. 47, 766–779.
4.
GreenwaldA. G.KlingerM. R.LiuT. J. (1989) Unconscious processing of dichoptically masked words. Memory & Cognition, 17, 35–47.
5.
GustafsonR.KällménH. (1991) Subliminal psychodynamic activation: An experiment controlling for major possible confounding influences outlined by Fudin. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 163–171.
6.
KihlstromJ. F. (1993) The continuum of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 2, 334–354.
7.
KihlstromJ. F.BarnhardtT. M.TatarynD. J. (1992) The psychological unconscious: Found, lost, and regained. American Psychologist, 47, 788–791.
8.
MalikR.ParaherakisA. (1998) How limited is the unconscious? A brief commentary. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 345–346.
9.
SilvermanL. H.WeinbergerJ. (1985) MOMMY AND I ARE ONE: Implications for psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 40, 1296–1308.
