Methodological Artifacts in Subception Research: A Reply to Chun and Sarbin
The Psychological RecordPublished 1 July 1968
Richard S. Lazarus
Citations3
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score0.52
SNIP0.69
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
Abstract
The analysis and alternative method of controlling for response effects offered by Chun and Sarbin in their critique of the Lazarus and McCleary subception experiment are wholly fallacious, and the experiment they report, although interesting, is quite irrelevant as a test of the empirical phenomenon of subception. The logical-methodological issues involved and the data reported are analyzed.
Keywords
Computer ScienceEngineering
The Psychological RecordMethodological Artifacts in Subception Research
7 Citations1968Ki-Taek Chun, Theodore R. Sarbin
The Psychological RecordMethodological Artifacts in Subception Research and the Tendency to Reify: A Rejoinder
2 Citations1968Ki-Taek Chun, Theodore R. Sarbin