title: Final comments on Hudesman, Page, and Rautiainen's (1992) subliminal psychodynamic activation experiment.
abstract: Hudesman, et al.'s (1992) contention that their finding shows that subliminal psychodynamic activation (SPA) improved academic performance is questioned. That experiment lacked controls outlined by Fudin in 1986 which are needed to support the assumption that a positive SPA outcome is effected because the meaning of an entire experimental message is encoded. In 1993 Hudesman and Page argued that Gustafson and Källmén's 1991 results, obtained with such controls, indicated that the controls do not have to be used in subsequent SPA experiments. The 1990 results of Greenberg and of Kothera, Fudin, and Nicastro, however, do not support those of Gustafson and Källmén. From a different perspective, it is argued that good experimental controls are needed in all SPA experiments because they increase internal validity. Given that Hudesman, et al.'s subjects scored in a limited range on the mathematics portion of the 1978 CUNY Skills Assessment Test, the implication that their result can be generalized to all subjects is questioned.
authors.affiliation: Psychology Department, Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY 11201.
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Fudin
mesh_terms: D004522:Educational Status; D006801:Humans; D008433:Mathematics; D009769:Object Attachment; D011340:Problem Solving; D011574:Psychoanalytic Theory; D013360:Subliminal Stimulation