> " Subliminal advertising may work after all "
> 29 April 2006 (Alison Motlu) - http://tinyurl.com/mlv26
big URL: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025494.400?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nshref=mg19025494.400
It is sad when a study is so flawed that you can spot it from a brief write-up. If the point of the study was to test the effectiveness of subliminal suggestion then splitting the suggestions in half--some for the water, some for the tea--would have indicated something. Unless the New Scientist completely misreported what they did, not only were the conclusions bunk but the study design wouldn't have gotten past an inquiring freshman. The fact that it was printed in an academic journal is really sad.
Does anybody have easy access to the -Journal of Experimental Social Psychology-? If not, I'll try to get to the ECU library and see if this was as stupid as it seems from the New Scientist description (which, sadly, reports it as drivel but indicates that they take it seriously. Damn. When I think about people getting degrees and research funds based on this kind of crap, it really pisses me off.
School of Art & Design
East Carolina University
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 328 2839