title: Task demand not so damning: Improved techniques that mitigate demand in studies that support top-down effects.
abstract: Firestone & Scholl's (F&S's) techniques to combat task demand by manipulating expectations and offering alternative cover stories are fundamentally flawed because they introduce new forms of demand. We review five superior techniques to mitigate demand used in confirmatory studies of top-down effects. We encourage researchers to apply the same standards when evaluating evidence on both sides of the debate.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology,New York University,New York,NY 10003.emilybalcetis@nyu.eduhttp://www.psych.nyu.edu/balcetis/.
authors.forename: Emily
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Balcetis
authors.affiliation: Psychology Department,Rutgers University,Piscataway,NJ 08854.shana.cole@rutgers.eduhttp://psych.rutgers.edu/faculty-list-and-links/faculty-profiles-a-contacts/489-shana-cole.
authors.forename: Shana
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Cole
mesh_terms: D003071:Cognition; D006801:Humans; D008568:Memory; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis