Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||In a recent paper, Graf and Komatsu (1994) argued that the process dissociation procedure (Jacoby, 1991) is limited in its ability to separate and measure conscious and unconscious forms of memory and so should be "handIed with caution". Given that the study of unconscious influences has always posed a difficult problem for memory researchers, we agree with the general emphasis on caution. In this paper, we too advocate caution, especially as it applies to the use of indirect tests, assessing Graf and Komatsu’s critique, and using the process dissociation procedure. We address the substantive issues raised by Graf and Komatsu and also point out the errors, both factual and logical, in their paper. Any method proposing to provide separate measures of conscious and unconscious influences requires judicious use and a careful examination of its underlying assumptions. The assumptions underlying the process dissociation framework are supported by a large number of experiments spanning a diverse range of..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey Toth, Eyal M. Reingold & Larry Jacoby (1995). A Response to Graf and Komatsu's (1994) Critique of the Process-Dissociation Procedure: When is Caution Necessary? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 7:113-130.
Troy A. W. Visser & Philip M. Merikle (1999). Conscious and Unconscious Processes: The Effects of Motivation. Consciousness and Cognition 8 (1):94-113.
Eyal Reingold (1996). Response Bias Correction in the Process Dissociation Procedure: Approaches, Assumptions, and Evaluation. Consciousness and Cognition 5 (1-2):232-254.
Eyal Reingold (1996). Response Bias Correction in the Process Dissociation Procedure: A Reevaluation? Consciousness and Cognition 5 (4):595-603.
Arnaud Destrebecqz & Philippe Peigneux (2005). Methods for Studying Unconscious Learning. Progress in Brain Research 150:69-80.
Steve Joordens, Daryl E. Wilson, Thomas M. Spalek & Dwayne E. Paré (2010). Turning the Process-Dissociation Procedure Inside-Out: A New Technique for Understanding the Relation Between Conscious and Unconscious Influences. Consciousness and Cognition 19 (1):270-280.
Larry L. Jacoby (1991). A Process Dissociation Framework: Separating Automatic From Intentional Uses of Memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30:513-41.
Eyal M. Reingold (2004). Unconscious Perception and the Classic Dissociation Paradigm: A New Angle? Perception and Psychophysics 66 (5):882-887.
A. Buchner, E. Erdfelder & B. Vaterrodt-Plunnecke (1995). Toward Unbiased Measurement of Conscious and Unconscious Memory Processes Within the Process Dissociation Framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology 124:137-60.
Larry L. Jacoby, J. P. Toth & Andrew P. Yonelinas (1993). Separating Conscious and Unconscious Influences of Memory: Measuring Recollection. Journal of Experimental Psychology 122:139-54.
Eyal M. Reingold (1995). Facilitation and Interference in Indirect/Implicit Memory Tests and in the Process Dissociation Paradigm: The Letter Insertion and the Letter Deletion Tasks. Consciousness and Cognition 4 (4):459-482.
Dawn M. McBride (2007). Methods for Measuring Conscious and Automatic Memory: A Brief Review. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (1):198-215.
Alan J. Lambert, B. Keith Payne & Larry L. Jacoby (2004). Accuracy and Error: Constraints on Process Models in Social Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):350-351.
D. Lamy, L. Mudrik & L. DeoueLl (2008). Unconscious Auditory Information Can Prime Visual Word Processing: A Process-Dissociation Procedure Study☆. Consciousness and Cognition 17 (3):688-698.
Eyal M. Reingold (2004). Unconscious Perception: Assumptions and Interpretive Difficulties. Consciousness and Cognition 13 (1):117-122.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads10 ( #114,476 of 739,539 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,539 )
How can I increase my downloads?