↓ Skip to main content

Regressive research: The pitfalls of post hoc data selection in the study of unconscious mental processes

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
Title
Regressive research: The pitfalls of post hoc data selection in the study of unconscious mental processes
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13423-016-1170-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Shanks

Abstract

Many studies of unconscious processing involve comparing a performance measure (e.g., some assessment of perception or memory) with an awareness measure (such as a verbal report or a forced-choice response) taken either concurrently or separately. Unconscious processing is inferred when above-chance performance is combined with null awareness. Often, however, aggregate awareness is better than chance, and data analysis therefore employs a form of extreme group analysis focusing post hoc on participants, trials, or items where awareness is absent or at chance. The pitfalls of this analytic approach are described with particular reference to recent research on implicit learning and subliminal perception. Because of regression to the mean, the approach can mislead researchers into erroneous conclusions concerning unconscious influences on behavior. Recommendations are made about future use of post hoc selection in research on unconscious cognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 21%
Student > Master 24 15%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Professor 11 7%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 43 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 69 42%
Neuroscience 21 13%
Philosophy 4 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 49 30%