Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39406983›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

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

Daryl Y H Lee, Christopher J Berry, David R Shanks

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daryl Y H LeeDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK. yu.lee.18@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7406-1349
Christopher J BerrySchool of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
David R ShanksDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/S014616/1Economic and Social Research Council ES/Y002482/1
6 · The paper itself

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 two 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 artifacts attributable to Kelley's Paradox and strength skewness. This work challenges the validity of conclusions drawn from this popular analytic approach.

Indexed as

Mental ProcessesUnconscious, PsychologyHumansRecognition, PsychologySignal Detection, PsychologicalImplicit memoryModels of recognition memoryRecognition memoryWord recognition

Identifiers

PMID39406983
PMCPMC12000198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.