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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
A Response to Graf and Komatsu's (1994) Critique of the Process-Dissociation Procedure: When is Caution Necessary?Jeffrey Toth, Eyal M. Reingold & Larry Jacoby - 1995 - European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 7:113-130.
Conscious and Unconscious Processes: The Effects of Motivation.Troy A. W. Visser & Philip M. Merikle - 1999 - Consciousness and Cognition 8 (1):94-113.
Response Bias Correction in the Process Dissociation Procedure: Approaches, Assumptions, and Evaluation.Eyal Reingold - 1995 - Consciousness and Cognition 5 (1-2):232-254.
Response Bias Correction in the Process Dissociation Procedure: A Reevaluation?Eyal Reingold - 1995 - Consciousness and Cognition 5 (4):595-603.
Methods for Studying Unconscious Learning.Arnaud Destrebecqz & Philippe Peigneux - 2005 - Progress in Brain Research 150:69-80.
Turning the Process-Dissociation Procedure Inside-Out: A New Technique for Understanding the Relation Between Conscious and Unconscious Influences.Steve Joordens, Daryl E. Wilson, Thomas M. Spalek & Dwayne E. Paré - 2010 - Consciousness and Cognition 19 (1):270-280.
A Process Dissociation Framework: Separating Automatic From Intentional Uses of Memory.Larry L. Jacoby - 1991 - Journal of Memory and Language 30:513-41.
Unconscious Perception and the Classic Dissociation Paradigm: A New Angle?Eyal M. Reingold - 2004 - Perception and Psychophysics 66 (5):882-887.
Toward Unbiased Measurement of Conscious and Unconscious Memory Processes Within the Process Dissociation Framework.A. Buchner, E. Erdfelder & B. Vaterrodt-Plunnecke - 1995 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 124 (2):137-60.
Separating Conscious and Unconscious Influences of Memory: Measuring Recollection.Larry L. Jacoby, J. P. Toth & Andrew P. Yonelinas - 1993 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 122 (2):139-54.
Facilitation and Interference in Indirect/Implicit Memory Tests and in the Process Dissociation Paradigm: The Letter Insertion and the Letter Deletion Tasks.Eyal M. Reingold - 1995 - Consciousness and Cognition 4 (4):459-482.
Methods for Measuring Conscious and Automatic Memory: A Brief Review.Dawn M. McBride - 2007 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (1):198-215.
Accuracy and Error: Constraints on Process Models in Social Psychology.Alan J. Lambert, B. Keith Payne & Larry L. Jacoby - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):350-351.
Unconscious Auditory Information Can Prime Visual Word Processing: A Process-Dissociation Procedure Study☆.D. Lamy, L. Mudrik & L. DeoueLl - 2008 - Consciousness and Cognition 17 (3):688-698.
Unconscious Perception: Assumptions and Interpretive Difficulties.Eyal M. Reingold - 2004 - Consciousness and Cognition 13 (1):117-122.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads34 ( #151,239 of 2,170,012 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,417 of 2,170,012 )
How can I increase my downloads?