Author/Authors :
Van Opstal، نويسنده , , Filip and Reynvoet، نويسنده , , Bert and Verguts، نويسنده , , Tom، نويسنده ,
Abstract :
In their original report [Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242] maintain that “unconscious stimuli [do not] owe their impact […] to automatic semantic categorization” (p.223), and instead propose the action-trigger theory of unconscious priming. In a reply to our paper [Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2005). On the masking and disclosure of unconscious semantic processing. A reply to Van Opstal, Reynvoet, & Verguts (2005). Cognition], the authors adopt a reconcilist position, and propose that both theories may be valid depending on the experimental situation. We discuss the evidence in favor of this position. [Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2005). On the masking and disclosure of unconscious semantic processing. A reply to Van Opstal, Reynvoet, & Verguts (2005). Cognition] also propose an alternative account of our mask-type blocking hypothesis. We report an experiment that distinguishes between our original and their alternative hypothesis.