title: Subliminal or not? Comparing null-hypothesis and Bayesian methods for testing subliminal priming.
abstract: A difficulty for reports of subliminal priming is demonstrating that participants who actually perceived the prime are not driving the priming effects. There are two conventional methods for testing this. One is to test whether a direct measure of stimulus perception is not significantly above chance on a group level. The other is to use regression to test if an indirect measure of stimulus processing is significantly above zero when the direct measure is at chance. Here we simulated samples in which we assumed that only participants who perceived the primes were primed by it. Conventional analyses applied to these samples had a very large error rate of falsely supporting subliminal priming. Calculating a Bayes factor for the samples very seldom falsely supported subliminal priming. We conclude that conventional tests are not reliable diagnostics of subliminal priming. Instead, we recommend that experimenters calculate a Bayes factor when investigating subliminal priming.
authors.affiliation: Gösta Ekmans Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: Anders.Sand@psychology.su.se.
authors.forename: Anders
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Sand
authors.affiliation: Gösta Ekmans Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
authors.forename: Mats E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Nilsson
mesh_terms: D001499:Bayes Theorem; D003198:Computer Simulation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003463:Cues; D006801:Humans; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D013360:Subliminal Stimulation
keywords: Bayes factor; Null-hypothesis significance testing; Signal detection theory; Subliminal priming