دانلود ترجمه مقاله شیوه اندازه گیری ادراک پنهان (ادراک بدون آگاهی)

بخشی از ترجمه:

ادراک زیر استانه ای چیست؟
معنی و مفهوم اصطلاح ادراک زیر آستانه ای در طول سالها دچار تغییر شده است و بعضی ها ترجیح می دهند که ادراک بدون آگاهی را به عنوان یک جایگزین انتخاب کنند که ازعنوان تا حدودی متداوم limen (آستانه ای ) جلوگیری می کند. به گونه ای کلی ادراک زیر آستانه ای زمانی اتفاق می افتد که محرک وانگیزش در زیر آستانه وجود دارد و چنین فهمیده می شود که و یا (threshold limen) و آستانه برای ادراک وآگاهی ، تفکرات ، احساسات و یا عملکرد ها را تحت تاثیر قرار می دهد. (Merikle ٢٠٠٠) به علت آنکه یک تاثیر بر تفکرات احساسات و یا عملکرد نسبت برای اندازه گیری و سنجش از لحاظ آزمایشگاهی، راحت و آسوده است، قسمت وبخش مشکل و دشوار در رابطه با این زمینه ،اندازه گیری و سنجش یک انگیزه و محرک زیر آستانه موضوع و سوژه است. نکته مهم و اساسی در رابطه با این موضوع، دانستن وآگاهی از زمانی است که موضوع و سوژه به طور خودآگاه از محرک و انگیزش آگاهی دارد و اینکه چطور این مسئله می تواند به گونه ای قابل اعتماد در آزمایشات فهمیده می شود. به گونه ای سنتی و قدیمی ، موضوعات و سوژه ها خودشان به گزارش آگاهی می پردازند. در حالیکه سایر زمینه های روانشناسی ممکن است درونگری وخویشتن نگری را به عنوان یک منبع اطلاعاتی اثبات و تایید نکنند.در زمینه ادراک زیر آستانه ای این خود گزارشی آگاهی به نظر می رسد که غیر قابل اجتناب باشد.استفاده اجتناب ناپذیر خودگزاری همچنین منجر به بحثهای بیشتری در این زمینه می شود که چگونه این خود گزاری ها تفسیر می شوند. نمونه و مثال گسست رویکرد آزمایشی از پیش مهمی است که در تحقیق ادراک زیرآستانه ای مورد استفاده قرار می گیرد.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Introduction The first documented findings suggesting an effect that has come to be called “subliminal perception” (or perception without awareness) came from Pierce and Jastrow’s (1884) work testing the human response to very similar, barely distinguishable stimuli. Pierce and Jastrow devised an experiment in which they each had to evaluate which of two pressures on skin was greater, along with a reported confidence level. The significant, and surprising, finding was that even when the subject indicated that they were guessing (zero confidence, implied 50% chance), they were actually correct about which pressure was greater more than 60% of the time. The subjects were consistently more accurate than chance, but were not aware of any difference between the two stimuli. These findings were later confirmed by other researchers, stirring interest about stimuli that were beneath the threshold of conscious awareness. Popular interest in this field was spurred by the claims of a marketing researcher, James Vicary (Merikle, 2000). In 1957, Vicary claimed that patrons at a movie theatre were exposed to advertising messages Eat Popcorn and Drink Coca-Cola flashed for 3 millisecond durations and repeated throughout a movie. According to Vicary, patrons were not consciously aware of these hidden messages but responded favourably by significantly increasing their purchases of popcorn and drinks. There has not been any independent evidence to support the claims, and Vicary himself stated that the research was a fabrication (Merikle, 2000). Nevertheless, extraordinary claims have attracted attention over the years. The notion that peoples’ behaviours can be influenced by stimuli they were not even aware of perceiving has generated much interest among the public, and among psychologists. Research into what was coined “subliminal perception” has been marked by debate about what exactly researchers should Subliminal Perception 3 measure, and how they can justify evaluating whether subliminal perception occurs at all. Overall, findings seem to support the discovery that even when an individual does not report awareness of a stimulus, the stimulus can still have an effect upon memory or behaviour. This paper aims to describe the important experiments within the field, while addressing the controversy over subliminal perception, measurement, and experimental methodology. What is subliminal perception? The meaning of the term subliminal perception has changed over the years, and some prefer to use perception without awareness as an alternative that avoids the sometimes contentious issue of limen (threshold). Generally speaking, “Subliminal perception occurs whenever stimuli presented below the threshold or limen for awareness are found to influence thoughts, feelings, or actions” (Merikle, 2000). Because an influence on thoughts, feelings, or actions is relatively easy to measure experimentally, the difficult part about the field is evaluating awareness of a stimulus below the subject’s threshold. Central to the issue is knowing when a subject is consciously aware of a stimulus, and how this can be reliably ascertained in experiments. Traditionally, the subjects themselves report awareness. While other areas of psychology may disapprove of introspection as a source of data, in the field of subliminal perception this self-report of “awareness” seems to be unavoidable. The inevitable use of the self-report has also lead to much debate over how these self-reports should be interpreted. The dissociation paradigm is the predominant experimental approach used in research on subliminal perception. Perception without awareness is demonstrated only when the subject reports no conscious awareness of the stimulus (null sensitivity) but some other significant effect Subliminal Perception 4 shows that the stimulus was perceived nevertheless (Merikle and Joordens, 1997). Provided that the terms of the dissociation can be reliably stated, this paradigm provides sound demonstration of subliminal perception. As Merikle and Joordens point out, however, the terms of the null sensitivity prove to be a point of disagreement for researchers. Cheesman and Merikle (1984) identify two classes of threshold measures: subjective, and objective. Within the scope of dissociation, this subjective/objective threshold paradigm shows two different ways to evaluate whether a participant is consciously aware of a stimulus. The subjective measure relies on the participant’s self report of the existence of a stimulus. In other words, the participant simply indicates whether or not they were aware of the stimulus. A disadvantage of the subjective measure is that a response bias may lead the participant to choose against reporting a stimulus when the participant feels ambivalence. As a result, each person may gauge “awareness” using their own terms, meaning inconsistencies among experiments. An objective measure, on the other hand, is obtained when the subject is forced to choose between fixed alternatives or discriminate between several options – even if they believe the options are equivalent. The objective threshold is “the level of detectability where perceptual information is actually discriminated at a chance level” (Kihlstrom, Barnhardt, & Tataryn, 1992, p. 20). This objective measure provides a lower threshold for conscious awareness, leading to more conservative evaluations of when subliminal perception occurs.Obviously, the nature of the threshold is essential to identifying the existence of subliminal perception since a stimulus is only subliminal when it is below the threshold of awareness. There is disagreement among researchers on whether the subjective or objective threshold measure should be used, or whether the dissociation paradigm as a whole is suitable. The debates on these topics are quite recent, and a review of the current opinions follows. Subliminal Perception 5 Debate over terms and methodology The field of subliminal perception, or perception without awareness, has been marked by continual controversy. In recent years, experts within the field have been debating what qualifies as perception without awareness, and which forms of measurement are valid for experiments. Specifically, researchers question self reports from a subject in an experiment. While Cheesman and Merikle (1984) have addressed the issue by classifying types of self reports, this controversy is far from resolved. Reingold and Toth (1996) describe one of the fundamental issues: . . . factors unrelated to awareness, such as demand characteristics and preconceived biases, may lead subjects to adopt a conservative response criterion and report null perceptual awareness even under conditions in which conscious perceptual information is available. Response bias represents a threat not only to the validity of the subjective report measure of awareness, but also to its reliability. In particular, variability in response criteria makes it difficult to compare reports of null subjective confidence across-subjects, or within-subjects across conditions. (p. 162)