Is there a real preferential detection of negative stimuli? A comment on Dijksterhuis and Aarts (2003)

Labiouse, Christophe L. (2004) Is there a real preferential detection of negative stimuli? A comment on Dijksterhuis and Aarts (2003). [Journal (Paginated)]

Full text available as:



In a recent article, Dijksterhuis and Aarts (2003) investigated the preferential detection of negative stimuli. According to them, their data clearly indicate that it requires less stimulus input or less stimulus exposure to detect a negative stimulus than to detect a positive stimulus. However, we believe their research suffers from a number of limitations and methodological flaws that cast doubt on their conclusions. Using signal detection analyses, we demonstrate that none of their three studies provides sufficiently informative data with respect to their hypotheses. Moreover, we show that their experimental designs seem to be inadequate to test their hypotheses.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Keywords:signal detection theory, subliminal perception
Subjects:Psychology > Psychophysics
Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
ID Code:3631
Deposited By: Labiouse, Mr. Christophe L.
Deposited On:12 May 2004
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:55

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 14 – 18.

Holender, D. (1986). Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual masking: A survey and appraisal. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 1 – 66.

Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Repository Staff Only: item control page