Kelley’s Paradox and strength skewness in research on unconscious mental processes

A widely adopted approach in research on unconscious perception and cognition involves contrasting behavioral or neural responses to stimuli that have been presented to participants (e.g., old items in a memory test) against those that have not (e.g., new items), and which participants do not discriminate in their conscious reports. We demonstrate that such contrasts do not license inferences about unconscious processing, for 2 reasons. One is Kelley’s Paradox, a statistical phenomenon caused by regression to the mean. In the inevitable presence of measurement error, true awareness of the contrasted stimuli is not equal. The second is a consequence, within the framework of Signal Detection Theory, of unequal skewness in the strengths of target and nontarget items. The fallacious reasoning that underlies the employment of this contrast methodology is illustrated through both computational simulations and formal analysis and its prevalence is documented in a narrative literature review. Additionally, a recognition memory experiment is reported which tests and confirms a prediction of our analysis of the contrast methodology and corroborates the susceptibility of this method to artefacts attributable to Kelley’s Paradox and strength skewness. This work challenges the validity of conclusions drawn from this popular analytic approach.

Publication Details

Journal
UCL Discovery (University College London)
Published
2024-10-15
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Kelley’s Paradox and strength skewness in research on unconscious mental processes

UCL Discovery (University College London)
Memory Processes and Influences
article

Kelley’s Paradox and strength skewness in research on unconscious mental processes

article en

Abstract

A widely adopted approach in research on unconscious perception and cognition involves contrasting behavioral or neural responses to stimuli that have been presented to participants (e.g., old items in a memory test) against those that have not (e.g., new items), and which participants do not discriminate in their conscious reports. We demonstrate that such contrasts do not license inferences about unconscious processing, for 2 reasons. One is Kelley’s Paradox, a statistical phenomenon caused by regression to the mean. In the inevitable presence of measurement error, true awareness of the contrasted stimuli is not equal. The second is a consequence, within the framework of Signal Detection Theory, of unequal skewness in the strengths of target and nontarget items. The fallacious reasoning that underlies the employment of this contrast methodology is illustrated through both computational simulations and formal analysis and its prevalence is documented in a narrative literature review. Additionally, a recognition memory experiment is reported which tests and confirms a prediction of our analysis of the contrast methodology and corroborates the susceptibility of this method to artefacts attributable to Kelley’s Paradox and strength skewness. This work challenges the validity of conclusions drawn from this popular analytic approach.

UCL Discovery (University College London)
Economic and Social Research Council
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Memory Processes and Influences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Kelley’s Paradox and strength skewness in research on unconscious mental processes · UCL Discovery (University College London) (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS